Rituparno is a good film maker. He writes excellent scripts, has good command over the film language and possesses a keen sense of aesthetics. His second film ?Unishe April? (the first was an insignificant children?s film titled ?Heerer Angti? --the diamond ring) took me by surprise. Here is a director who can touch his viewer?s heart, I remember saying to myself as I left the theatre moist-eyed.
?Dahan? followed. It lived fairly up to expectations. ?Utsav? though, was not that good as it gave a feeling that the theme was a contrived one, with NRIs and foreign viewers in mind. Then came ?Bariwali?, a superb film despite the controversies it generated. Kirron Kher?s performance was outstanding. I often wondered why she went to the extent of denying about her character?s voice being dubbed. Because any Bengali will at once know that she did not speak the dialogues herself. And anyone acquainted with Bengali Television serials will automatically know that the voice was that of actress Rita Koiral. The incident left me doubting Rituparno?s integrity. Why did he allow this to happen to his film? Merely for an award? Is it believable that he was not aware of the nominations sent?
However, ?Bariwali? gave Rituparno the recognition he sought. Next we hear about his film ?Chokher Bali?. There was enough material doing the rounds in the media and with the inclusion of Aishwerya Rai as Binodini, the film generated widespread curiosity. Rituparno proved how good a marketing man he was. It is indeed a great quality I admire in him. Many compare him to Satyajit Ray. I don?t accept the comparison in regards to their film making talent but I definitely agree that as far as marketing of films is concerned, he is far superior to Ray. Ray was primarily an artist. Rituparno is primarily a businessman.
?Chokher Bali? got rave reviews in the media. I would like to say a few words in this regard.
?Chokher Bali?
The film ?Chokher Bali? has two aspects to consider. One as a film; the other as a film made on a novel by Rabindranath Tagore.
As a film, ?Chokher Bali? is fairly competent. The story is well-told, acting is good, camera work is commendable and but for the length of the film, it is pleasant watching. All these reasons account for the overall appreciation of the film.
But my reservations lie elsewhere. It is the mention of it in the advertisements as a film based on Rabindranath?s novel that I wish to object.
The film has looselyborrowed the storyline of Rabindranath?s novel. That is all it has to do with Rabindranath. The rest is recreated by Rituparno. As a result, it turns out to be a ?Maqbool?. The only difference is that Vishal Varadwaj gives a new name to his film and states that it is his version of Shakespeare?s ?Macbeth? whereas Rituparno claims his film to be Rabindranath?s ?Chokher Bali?. Well, Rabindranath is indeed a well known, saleable name worldwide!
The book and the film: deviations
- Rabindranath was requested by the then editor Srish Chandra of the newly revived ?Bangadarshan?, to write a novel on the lines of Bankimchandra Chattopadhyay highly popular novel ?Bishbrikkho? treating it according to the tastes of the modern readers?. It is to be noted that the same magazine had published ?Bishbrikkho? in the past. In the preface to ?Chokher Bali? (1840), Rabindranath said that he had written the novel to show the dark side of a mother?s jealousy.
In Rituparno?s ?Chokher Bali?, Rajlakshmi?s (Mahendra?s mother) jealousy is not
Behari?s character in the novel is naïve, honest and noble. He has immense respect for Binodini and that is the primary reason for his marriage proposal to her. In the film, Behari is the worst developed character devoid of his nobility. His wanting to marry Binodini is more out of infatuation and physical attraction than deep-set love or respect.
In spite of numerous incidents and situations being present in the book to establish the characters, Rituparno rejects all of them and creates his own incidents and situations. Does he wish to convey that Rabindranath failed to bring out the characters aptly in his novel so that he had to improve on the story?
Rabindranath?s Binodini is a unique mixture of coquetry and dignity. She is as sensitive as she is sensuous. But she is a cultured woman with a strong sense of ethics. In the film, Binodini emerges as a manipulating whore. The way she treats the young adopted boy at Behari?s house in order to entice Behari is nauseating and against the essence of her character.
Rabindranath used several letters in his novel to bring out the complexity of different characters as well as to create dramatic impact in the plot. Rituparno used several letters in his film too but none of the original letters have been used. He rewrites almost all the letters in the film emulating Rabindranath?s language and style thus passing off his own prose as that of Rabindranath to the innocent viewers.
In the novel, Binodini refuses to marry Behari as she feels that the proximity of marriage will erode Behari?s love and respect for her. She worshipped Behari and his righteousness. Thus she leaves him forever and goes to live with her aunt Annapurna (Mahendra?s aunt too) in Benaras. In the film, Binodini gets pregnant with Mahendra?s child and leaves Behari without a word. She comes out more as a loose, strayed woman than the strong, dignified character Rabindranath had etched in his book.
In the novel, Binodini takes leave of Asha (Mahendra?s wife) with the words,
?You loved me once. Today, when you are happy once more, can you show
me an iota of that love and forget the rest that happened??
In the film, Binodini writes a lengthy letter to Asha regarding the meaning of
nationality (why to Asha?) and also advising Asha on how to bring up her
child (what audacity!).
Conclusion
In our school days, we often used our own quotes in essays, passing them
off as lines of great men. The examiners, oblivious of our tricks, merited us
with good marks. The school boy in Rituparno is reflected in ?Chokher Bali?.
He plays the same trick and the viewers worldwide uninitiated in the works
of Rabindranath, inadvertently award him with high marks.
Thus, through this review, I only wish to let the world know that it is not
Rabindranath?s ?Chokher Bali? as advertised in the title of the
film. It is essentially Rituparno?s ?Chokher Bali?.
Cast
Raima Sen does a brilliant job as the naïve Ashalata. Her voice is
dubbed by the talented actress Sudipta which adds to the success of
Ashalata?s character. Prasenjit (Mahendra) is seen here in a mature role,
very different from the stereotype roles he plays in run-of-the-mill Bengali
movies. Tota Roy Choudhuri (Behari) is an absolute disgrace. He neither
has Behari?s boldness of character nor authority of voice. Lily Chakraborty
as Rajlakshmi is good. Aishwarya wins more with her looks than with acting.