Tagore as a factor in Indian cinema

Rabindranath Tagore influenced many facets of Indian culture ranging from literature and painting to music and cinema. In the next few columns I wish to focus on Tagore’s influence on Indian cinema in relation to the work of a relatively young Bengali filmmaker who unfortunately died at an early age.

The filmmaker I have in mind is Rituparno Ghosh. Rituparno Ghosh was one of the most talented and perceptive of Bengali film directors (1963- 2013). His death at the comparatively young age of forty nine years was indeed a great loss to Indian cinema in general.

He is the author of a significant body of work that includes films such as Hirer Angti (1992), Unishe April (1994), Dahan (1997), Asukh (1999) Barwali ( 20000), Ustab (2000), Titli (2002), 2003 Chokher Bali (2003), Antar Mahal (2005) and Abohoman (2009). Most of his films are in Bengali, but he also made films in Hindi and English. A central theme, it seems to me, runs through his work and guided his imagination - the quest for human freedom. He was always concerned about the lack of freedom that characterized the lives of women in India and elsewhere and later he began to explore issues of homosexual relations and transgender desires as articulations and effects of freedom. In this short essay, I wish to explore Ghosh’s pursuit of freedom in relation to his film Chokher Bali: A Passion Play.

Rabindranath Tagore

Novel

Chokher Bali is based on a novel by the Nobel Prize winning Indian writer, Rabindranath Tagore. Rituparno Ghosh was deeply attracted to Tagore; His films such as Chokher Bali, Noukadubi, Chitrangada are based on Rabindranath Tagore’s writings. In Ghosh’s film Asukh one discerns the distinct influence of Tagore.

In addition, Ghosh made a documentary on the life and work of Tagore titled Jiban Smriti. Moreover, in his films, at appropriate moments, he employed popular songs and the distinctive music (Rabindra sangeet) that Tagore fashioned. Ghosh believes that Tagore’s works need to be read dissected, reinterpreted and assimilated by each generation in the quest for its own social and artistic truths. He had a great empathy for Tagore; he said that Tagore’s life was ‘a journey of a lonely traveller’ and this can equally well be said of Ghosh’s relatively short life.

Humanism

Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941) was unquestionably one of the greatest Indian writers and artists of the twentieth century. His indubitable talents moved in different directions enriching diverse fields of artistic endeavor. He distinguished himself as a poet, lyricist, novelist, short story writer, playwright, painter, musician, educator and social thinker. The idea of humanism is central to Tagore’s work, and this is closely intertwined with the quest of freedom. This is indeed a desire that marks Rituparno’ Ghosh’s work; after all, Ghosh is a great admirer of Tagore.

The term humanism carries a multiplicity of meanings that aims to highlight the centrality of the action of human beings, their thoughts and actions, their freedom and sense of agency. This term, however, has been disseminated throughout the world as a European concept that has been invested with a universal validity. The important point about Rabindranath Tagore’s humanism, and that of Ghosh, is that it focuses on the idea that humanism is not one thing but many, and that it is imperative that we seek to pluralise this concept. The work of Tagore and Ghosh enable us to move forward in this endeavor. In recent times, the term humanism has taken on the force of a smear-word in academic polemics in the west; indeed, it has been reduced s reactionary ideology largely due to the influence of such newer modes of inquiry such as post-structuralism and pot-modernism. It seems to be that the efforts of Rabindranath Tagore and Rituparno Ghosh facilitate a re-consideration of some of the charges levied against humanism by contemporary commentators.

There are, to my mind, three central charges brought against humanism by modern critics. First, humanism is regarded as a form of ideology that serves to de-contextualise some of the ideas and values associated with the Renaissance in Europe and to freeze them into a kind of universality. Second, humanism is placed at the centre of interests and agendas of the sovereign and atomists individual who is seen as self-present and originator of action and meaning, the privileged locus of values and civilisational achievements.

Different picture

However, the humanism articulated in Tagore and Ghosh presents a different picture. They were interested not in an atomistic individual but the individual in relationality, the individual as a part of a collectivity, as an adjunct of a larger reality.

Third, it has often been commented on by theorists like Michel Foucault that humanism should be mapped not as a free-floating and timeless entity but as a human creation that bears the distinctive imprint of specific discursive formations.

This line of thinking has a direct bearing on the way that human was perceived and advanced by Tagore and Ghosh. It has to be asserted that far from promoting a free-floating and timeless concept, the humanism that guided Tagore and Ghosh was firmly tethered to the culture and traditions and values that nourished them.

Tagore’s humanism was intimately linked to the idea of freedom as was Ghosh’s. Tagore approached the idea of freedom in its manifold complexity. For him, as for the British philosopher Isaiah Berlin, freedom was both positive and negative. Negative freedom was the escape from bondage while positive freedom was reaching out towards creativity and self-fulfillment.

Both Tagore and Ghosh understood freedom in social, cultural, political, metaphysical and artistic terms. For example, statements such as the following made by Tagore, make clear the relationship between freedom and the wider social discourses. ‘Those people who have got their political freedom are not necessarily free, they are merely powerful. The passions which are unbridled in them are creating huge organizations of slavery in the guise of freedom.’

Tagore, like Ghosh, was interested in the metaphysical dimensions of freedom. In his poetry, more specifically in his nature poetry, one observes how he is straining to reach a higher freedom, unconstrained by worldly bonds and signifying a unity with the ultimate reality reminiscent of the Upanishads. Tagore’s poetry, I contend, bears the weight of this desire. Freedom was for him a creative force and humanism finds its fullest articulation in freedom.

As Tagore once observed, ‘our mind does not gain true freedom by acquiring materials for knowledge and possessing other people’s ideas but by forming its own standards of judgment and producing its own thoughts’. Hence, the independence of outlook is a significant strand in the fabric of Tagore’s humanism.

I have chosen to discuss Tagore’s idea of freedom and humanism for two reasons. First, Rituparno Ghosh, by his own admission, was a great admirer of Tagore. Second, the ideas of freedom and humanism espoused by Tagore find a ready echo in Ghosh’s work and enable us to construct a productive frame of intelligibility to approach his cinematic output. What we find in Ghosh’s work is a sustained attempt to explore and cinematically enact the relentless quest for human freedom. Human freedom is vitally connected to full citizenship and this is an idea that finds repeated expression in Ghosh’s work.

Novel

Let us now consider Ghosh’s film Chokher Bali against this backdrop of thinking. This film is, as I stated earlier, based on Rabindranath Tagore’s novel. This novel has been translated into English under the title Binodini. (This was indeed the first title that Tagore gave to this novel before changing into Chokher Bali). The story of the novel and the film can be encapsulated as follows. Binodini is a young, beautiful, educated woman who finds herself as a widow after her husband des a few months following the wedding. She returns to her village and lives for a short time there. One day, she encounters one of her relatives, and after some discussion, agree that it is best for Binodini to come and live with the woman and her son Mahendra.

Proposal to marry

Mahendra had, of course, earlier turned down a proposal to marry Binodini. Mahendra is now married to Ashalata, and apparently they are deeply attached to each other, However, after the arrival of Binodini in the house, things begin to change; Mahendra clearly is attracted to Binodini and loses interest in Ashalata. Meantime, Binodini is interested in Bahri, the adopted son. It is this emotional relationship between Binodini, Mahendra, Bahri and Ashalata that constitutes the essence of the story.

In Choker Bali, as in many other works such as Ghare Baire and Char Adhyay , Tagore is concerned with the plight of Indian women, their lack of freedom. Similarly in many of Rituparno’s films such as Titlti, Baharwali, Antar Mahal and Ustav . we find Ghosh focusing on the predicaments of women; their lack of freedom was a source of great consternation to him. And his later films, he extended this quest for freedom to include the plights and predicaments associated with homosexuality and transgender desires. In seems to me that the optic of human freedom is a most appropriate lens through which to examine Rituparno Ghosh’s cinematic work.

Chokher Bali is obviously based on Tagore’s novel of the same name. However, there are certain differences that one can observe in Rituparno Ghosh’s film. In this regard, I wish to highlight six of them. First, Binodini is presented as a kind of rebellious character in Tagore’s novel. This fact is heightened, accentuated in Ghosh’s film. The protagonist of the film comes across as being far more aggressively independent-mined in Ghosh’s film than in Tagore’s novel.

She makes use of her widowhood as a site for acquisition of agency and encourages other widows to ignore long-standing taboos such as abstaining from drinking tea. This is an intentional move on the part of Ghosh as a filmmaker to underline the plight of women and the compelling need for acquisition of agency. Second, in the film there is a greater emphasis on physical intimacy, physical aggressiveness; in a ay, this move serves to further highlight and to call attention to the miserable state in women in India find themselves. Rituparno Ghosh’s camera, which is reflexively eloquent for the most part, captures this aspect well.

Eroticism

Third, in Ghosh’s film there is a great measure of eroticism infusing the relationship of the characters in Rabindranath Tagore’s novel, for example the relationship between Binodini and Mahendra is marked by a muted eroticism. In the case of Rituparno Ghosh’s film, it is much more pronounced and is central to the meaning of the film.

At times, unlike in the book, Binodini initiates the currents of eroticism. An aspect of Ghosh’s cinematic art is the construct of dense visual registers in which simultaneously multiple layers of meaning are in play. For example the relationships between Binodini and Mahendra are inscribed with this density of meaning with the result that while eroticism is reconfigured prominently, there are other countervailing forces at work such as the invocations of death.

In many scenes, in fact, there is a remarkable juxtaposition of eroticism and death. It is not the juxtaposition of eroticism (eros) and death (thanatos) that Sigmund Freud posited but something slightly different which has a bearing on Indian culture.

Fourth, the idea of self-articulation is important in the film. In Tagore’s novel, the need for female agency is fully endorsed and indeed constitutes a vital facet of the theme. In Ghosh’s film, however, this is given greater weight and visibility. Passages in the novel which are given over to authorial observation are invested with a far greater measure of self-articulation in the film. This self-articulation is not merely a question of verbal expression; far more, importantly it relates to the way in which Rituparno Ghosh has chosen to construct his visual registers. The juxtapositions, the framings, the camera angles and placements, the diegetic soundtrack all contribute to this effect.

Use of space

Fifth Rituaparno Ghosh’s use of space deserves careful consideration. Space is indeed a crucial aspect of Ghosh’s meaning. Short descriptive passes in the novel are converted by the filmmaker into various spatial configurations pregnant with meaning. Let us consider two representative passages from the novel.

‘ Though Binodini lived in the same house that she had not yet appeared before Mahendra. But Bihari had seen her and knew that such a girl could not possibly be condemned to spend her days in a wilderness. He also knew that the same flame that lights a home can burn it down. Mahendra teased Bihari for his obvious concern for Binodini and thought Bihari met this raillery with light-hearted repartees, he was worried in his mind , for he knew that Binodini was not a girl to be either trifled with or ignored.’

Binodini was constantly luring him on and yet would not let him come near her even for a moment. He had already lost one boast – that he was invulnerable. Must he now lose face altogether and confess that he was incapable of winning another heart, however much he tried. to be conquered without making a conquest in return – this defeat on both the fronts was very galling to Mahendra’s self-esteem…’

The emotional content of these passages are converted into a series of wonderful images by Ghosh in the film. The idea of spatiality is central to this effort. Rituparno Ghosh is a filmmaker who sets great store by the idea of cinematic space and he has a remarkable knack for turning physical space into cinematic space. To turn physical space into cinematic soave involves the careful manipulation of space, to invest it with newer human meanings. Ghosh has a way of giving his visualities densities of meaning by deft use of cinematic space. For example, his cinematic space is not unitary but plural in that there are diversities of meaning. To give one example, he selects visual details carefully not only to attain verisimilitude, which clearly is one of his aims, but also to disrupt the unitary meaning.

To be continued