Philosophy of Films

Chapter 1
THE PHILOSOPHY OF FILM

Philosophy is an understanding of what reality is, whereas film, as a visual art form is a window to reality. It is a discourse through which one makes sense of reality. Philosophy questions ‘What is life?’, while film reflects life itself. The application of philosophy into film helps us to understand the nature of film as a reality. This chapter examines the philosophy of films and its nature.
1.1 What is Film?

The term ‘film’ means an appearance of continuous motion created by motionless images which have been arranged in appropriate succession so as to produce fiction out of reality.[1] Film is produced by recording actual people and objects with cameras, or by creating them using special effects. When the image passes through the screen the flickering between frames is due to the retention of the eye on the visual image for a fraction of a second after the source has been removed.

Films are considered by many to be an important art form; films entertain, educate, enlighten and inspire audiences. The visual elements of cinema need no translation, giving the motion picture a universal power of communication. Films are also artifacts created by specific cultures, which reflect those cultures, and, in turn, affect them.

Films are the collective dreams of society.[2] They provide society with mythologies or patterns of behavior. However, the mass appeal of the movies is a clear indication that most people today respond in one way or another to the dream-like fantasies related to various areas of human life: war, politics, sex and violence, death, conscience, and future of human.

1.2 The Philosophy of Films

The philosophy of films is a rapidly growing subfield of contemporary philosophy of art. One of the characteristics of philosophy as a discipline is its questioning of its own nature and basis. The philosophy of films shares this characteristic with the field in general. Philosophical aesthetics has always had a concern not just with art in general but with specific art forms. Since film is a significant art form in our contemporary world, philosophy might even be judged to have a responsibility to investigate its nature.

An increasingly popular way of thinking about the philosophy of films is to model it on scientific theorizing. Although there is disagreement on the precise details of such a proposal, its adherents urge that the study of film be treated as a scientific discipline with an appropriate relationship between theory and evidence. For some, this means having an empirical body of film interpretations that gives rise to wider theoretical generalizations. For others, it means developing a set of small scale theories that attempt to explain different aspects of films and our experience of them. The emphasis here is on developing models or theories of various features of films.
1.3 The Nature of Film

The question that dominated early philosophical inquiry into film was whether the cinema – a term that emphasizes the institutional structure within which films were produced, distributed, and viewed, could be regarded as an art form. In the initial stage a film was not considered as an art form because it seemed to borrow too much from other art forms. Also, early films seemed little more than recordings of either theatrical performances or everyday life. In order to justify the claim that film deserves to be considered an independent art form, philosophers investigated the ontological structure of film. The hope was to develop a conception of film that made it clear that it differed in significant ways from the other fine arts. For this reason, the question of film’s nature was a crucial one for theorists of film.

1.3.1 Film as a Language

Film is not only a combination of sound and images. The best way to understand film technique in the use of image, sound and music is to conceive of it as a language. A language is composed of arbitrary letters combined into meaningful words and which are combined them in phrases and sentences that make assertions, ask questions etc. These sentences are built into paragraphs, chapters and books. In film, a single shot can be likened to a phrase or a sentence, a sequence to a paragraph and a scene to a chapter.

Language has two aspects. One of these is merely functional, i.e. to express certain feelings. The other is its artistic aspect, where there is a question of sweetness, lucidity and even wit in its use. Whenever a new language is formed, it is usually just to express feelings or moods. Once that primary need has been met, it can acquire beauty and elegance in the hand of the artist. However, even when a language attains full maturity, it cannot hope to last forever, because, as times changes, so do a conscious artist’s views and attitudes. In the initial years of film it was used as a mere medium to express feelings and moods as experienced through photography, painting or any art work. Like the development of any language the filmic language changed or developed from time to time.

The man who was among the first to consider film as a language and build on it was the extraordinarily talented American director D.W.Griffith. The grammar of cinematic language that rests on certain techniques adopted by the camera and editing were almost all invited by Griffith.[3] The first thing that Griffith understood was that just as a story cannot be verbally told in one breath, and even when it is written, sentences must be arranged one after the other. A film must tell a story through various scenes which are further divided into various shots. Each shot is like a sentence or a word. It speaks just like the spoken word, but its language has essentially to do with images and visual material, just as a written story has to be divided into paragraphs and chapters. A story in a film can be broken up into different segments through the use of a mechanical or a chemical technique known as a ‘mix’ or a fade.

It was again Griffith, who pioneered the use of different angles of the camera (close-up,

mid-shot, long-shot etc.) and applied it successfully to put across his message.[4] Cinema offers the chance to bring the characters closer to the viewer. He could also see that cinema lacked the direct contact between actors and the audience which the theater could offer. The contact in cinema was established through the camera. The camera acts the role of the narrator. It is the job of the camera to obey the director’s instructions and relate that event in a suitable manner. The language of cinema is therefore primarily the language spoken by the camera.

When shots of different lengths depicting different moods are put together, not only does it tell a story, but it also creates a rhythm as the story unfolds. A complex mixed rhythm rises from the differences in the distance between the camera and the visual material, the variations in the length of each shot and the various emotions that visual images or object could evoke. It is the same as the rhythm in a piece of music, created through the synthesis of its beat, tempo, the rise and fall of the voice, the difference in the scale used in a tune, and the mood all these could arouse.

This understanding of film as a language substantiates the existence of art in film. Art can be attributed to the various aspects of the film: the experience of the spectator, camera, editing sound and the like.
1.3.2 Film as an Aesthetic Object

Film and philosophy first encounter each other over the issue of whether or not film can be an art form. This is a philosophical question because it concerns the concept of art. This question became pressing by the end of the first decade of the twentieth century. It was a time when film as a medium was in the process of acquiring greater visibility and influence in the society. Though it started as a technological novelty, its practitioners had higher ambitions and they aspired for recognition as an art form.

If film is treated as a vehicle of art, then it is appropriate to know the meaning of art. Art is a disciplined activity that may be limited to skills or expanded to include a distinctive way of looking at the world.[5] Art provides the persons or people who produce it and the community that observes it with an experience that might be aesthetic, emotional, and intellectual or a combination of all these qualities.

Film is essentially the imagery experienced by the spectator, under the flickering impulses produced by the projector and bouncing on the screen.[6] The still images constituting a film do not follow each other in a chance order: they generally form a meaningful sequence. Even the various sounds expand the pictorial expression. This calls for further activity on the part of the spectator.
1.3.2.1 The Experience of the Spectator

While watching a film, the spectator imagines as he moves in space, corresponding to change in camera positions, to changes in image, and to the collision of successive images. The spectator freely moves in time also; time is imaginatively slowed down, even stopped, or accelerated, or reversed, and various sequences of time can be mounted in parallel. The spectator’s emotions are set in motion; they are aroused and soothed in turn. The spectator’s intellect also operates during this time and varied relationships are established.

A film does not have the unique power of describing physical reality. But that power expands into a power to describe the inner side of things and the soul of persons. “The great art of films does not consist in descriptive movements of thoughts of face and body, but in movements of thought and soul transmitted in a kind of intense isolation. It is that movement of the soul which can be an aesthetic experience.”[7] Hence, the art of the film is the creation of an imaginary experience of total movement, an experience that coveys the film- maker’s personal reaction to an object (person, event, thing) not as a copy, but as an actual happening in which the spectator is invited to participate.

Art in film is not only determined by the experience of the spectators but also the technique used in it. Art can be brought out through the technical devices such as editing, camera and recorded sound.

1.3.2.2 Ubiquity of the Camera[8]

The camera is present at all points of the imaginary time and place created by a film. This quality is called the ubiquity or omnipresence of the camera. .From a technical point of view, the omnipresence of the camera results from its mobility and from editing. In one single shot, the camera can pan, tilt, dolly, trench, crane, in any direction. Moreover, changes in lens are equivalent to a change in the camera’s position. By altering the focal length when a ‘zoom’ lens is used or by actually changing the lens at the time of the cut, it is possible to select the fragment of reality which will be shown, and to determine the size of this relativity to other images or shots.

The mobility of the camera is expressive of subjectivity. The camera can focus on a person or an object, even though these have little importance, dramatically or graphically. Conversely, the camera can introduce an objective point of view by remaining at a certain distance from an event, thus inviting the spectator to certain objectivity.
1.3.2.3 Editing

In the short history of the cinema all possible attitudes have appeared in regard to editing. Firstly, there was no editing; the camera recorded an action without interruption. But soon film makers began to compose or ‘mount’ an action from carefully selected fragments of actions. Editing is considered as the soul of a film.[9]Out of the succession of shots come continuity, meaning or intellectual movements, and fluency.

Editing does not consist only in joining segments of film in the right order. There is a specific place where a film has to be cut, so that it can be joined satisfactorily to a following piece. The practice of editing rests on the principle that “shots rightly selected and viewed from the correct angle, in a right order, cut to the right length, beginning and ending at the right moment are apprehended as a single whole.”[10]

Under the influence of the early Russian film-makers like S.M. Eisenstein (1898-1948) and Usevolod Pudovkin (1893-1953) a theory of editing was developed, and ‘Montage’, a French word was used to denote the process. One of the main tenants of this theory is that when one shot is made to follow another, a meaning is created which was included in neither of the shots.
1.3.2.4 Recorded Sound

Sound is an integral part of the cinema and an essential element of the filmic experience. A film contains distinctive type of sounds including music and score. Sound in films plays the role to reveal to us our environment, the land-scape in which we live, and the intimate whispering of nature. In films music plays a vital role to interpret reality and it conveys the film maker’s view. Music can give an added dimension to an action and transform it into a sort of ballet. Music introduces the feeling of tension into a situation.

It is a matter of controversy to treat film as an art. But it fulfills all the requirements that are needed for an art form. Even though film is a technological mechanism, art can be used in all its aspects. It also creates feelings in the mind of the spectators.
1.3.3 Realism

Realists were those film makers who attempted to make of cinema a faithful mirror, of contemporary reality. Realism deals with reality. The question of film realism has been given predominant importance by Andre Bazin and Siegfried Karacauer, the former because of aesthetic preferences and the latter because of rather a simplistic theory. Film aesthetics has been dominated by issues of realism. Three kinds of realism are attributed to film; the realism of method, the realism of style and the realism of effect.[11] Realism inherent in film because of its use of the photographic method; realism as a style which approximates the normal conditions of perception; realism as the capacity of film to create in the viewer an illusion of the reality and presentness of fictional characters and events. The first period of serious writing on film aesthetics was devoted to problems raised by the photographical method and the second period has been dominated by attempts to elaborate upon a theory about the role of the camera as a spectator, participant and the object of the viewer’s identification.

The idea behind realism of method is that the photographic medium enables us to see things themselves rather than see a representation of them. In this respect photographs are said to be akin to lenses and mirrors, in contrast to paintings, which give us mere representation of things. Realism of method applies to what the camera literally records- actors, props and sets, whereas realism of style is primarily a vehicle for the presentation of the fictional objects and events it presents. Realism of style suggests a way of making precise the claim that cinema is an art of time and space, because this kind of realism is partially explicated in terms of the representation of time by time and space by space.

A mode of representation is realistic when it recognizes the objects it represents. A good quality, well focused, middle-distance photograph of a horse is realistic in this sense. Realism of style is a matter of degree and some aspects of the content of a representation may be recognized by deploying the capacity for object recognition, while others are not.

Many theorists have argued that the mechanism or ‘apparatus’ of cinema, encourages and perhaps requires the viewer to think of cinematic images as corresponding to the perceptual status of an observer whose eye is the lens of the observer whose eye is the lens of the camera itself. This idea is reinforced by the doctrine of realism of effect. If viewers are victims of an illusion created by the film, then presumably they must think that the reality supposedly seen is seen from their point of view, by means of their visual organs. Since film manifestly works by presenting events from another, independent position- that of the camera- illusion-dominated viewers must come to think of themselves as occupying that position.[12]
1.4 Conclusion

Philosophical enquiry into film helps us to understand film as a reality. It is a way to look at the film as an aesthetic object. The philosophy of films analyses the ontological structure of film. In all theoretical study the application of the theory is equally important. The application of philosophical theory into Satyajit Ray’s films is the major task of this paper. Having attempted to focus on what is philosophy of films is all about, one must further look into the philosophy in Satyajit Ray’s films and works.

Chapter 2
THE WORLD OF SATYAJIT RAY
2.1 Introduction

When discussing “giants” of the non- English- speaking, international film world, four names leap immediately into our mind: Ingmar Bergman, Federico Fellini, Akira Kurosawa and Satyajit Ray. Of these men, Ray has received the most critical acclaim. Praise for Ray has been effusive from both film makers and critics. In Akira Kurosawa’s words Ray’s films are, “the quiet but deep observation, understanding and love of the human race, which are characteristic of all his films, have inspired me greatly”.[13] Ray’s films were magical and completely unique. He had an eye to see the ordinary things in an extraordinary way. His profound humanitarian outlook made him a great film director. This chapter focuses on the life and work of Satyajit Ray.

Satyajit Ray (1921 –1992) was a great filmmaker who is widely regarded as one of the greatest auteurs of 20th century cinema. Born in the city of Calcutta into a Bengali family prominent in the world of arts and letters, Ray studied at Presidency College and at the Visva-Bharati University, at the famed poet Rabindranath Tagore's Santiniketan. Starting his career as a commercial artist, Ray was drawn into filmmaking after meeting French filmmaker Jean Renoir and viewing the Italian neorealist film, Bicycle Thieves during a visit to London.

A prolific and versatile filmmaker, Ray directed 37 films, including feature films, documentaries and shorts. Ray's first film, Pather Panchali, won 11 international prizes, including Best Human Document at Cannes. Along with Aparajito and Apur Sansar, the film forms the Apu trilogy—widely regarded as Ray's masterpieces. Ray worked extensively on an array of tasks, including scripting, casting, scoring, cinematography, art direction, editing and designing his own credit titles and publicity material. Apart from making films, he was a fiction writer, publisher, illustrator, graphic designer and film critic. Ray received many major awards in his illustrious career, including an Academy Award for lifetime achievement in 1991.
2.2 The Influence of Bengal Renaissance on Ray

During the time of British rule in India, Calcutta was the capital of the Indian empire. This closeness to the seat of power gave the Bengalis, a front seat before the window to the West. Ideas of equality, secular nationalism, political democracy, the liberation of women, in a caste- bound and rigidly hierarchical society, found an inlet through the English language.[14] The study of English literature, history and Western science were considered as a way to success and progress.

Leaders like Raja Ram Mohan Ray were highly influenced by the British culture and ideology. They encouraged the people to study the English language and to follow the British life style. The origin of Brahmo Samaj was from this context. But this strong love for the British culture also raised many questions regarding identity. It was Rabindranath Tagore, who actually understood and deeply expressed the problem of the new Indian. For the artists in modern India, the need soon arose to translate this cultural mix in terms of identity. This led to the synthesis of Eastern and Western concepts. One side, the English language and education gave a new direction to artistic expression and at the same time the consciousness of Indian identity provided a root to their works.

The search for identity which brought a new life to literature and the other arts in India had not begun in the film. But Ray is the one who directed Indian cinema into this new wave. According to Jean Renoir, Satyajit Ray’s understanding of Western art and civilization was ‘fantastic.’[15] Indeed, Ray’s cultural inheritance is made up of a rich blend of Indian and Western tradition. It is his understanding of Western, modern values that gave him an insight into the medium of cinema, and their blend with an equally rich appreciation of Indian tradition that led him to his urge to discover his people, for himself and the medium of choice.

His films especially, Pather Panchali, marked the baptism of Indian cinema in both its cinematic language and its Indianness. His films brought to bear upon the cinema, for the first time, the outlook of East- West synthesis which had revitalizes the traditional arts.[16]
2.3 Ray’s Filmography

Ray’s filmography consists of 37 films, comprising of features, documentaries and short films. These include the renowned Apu trilogy (Pather Panchali, Aparajito [1956] and Apur Sansar [1959]), Jalsaghar (1958), Postmaster (1961), Charulata (1964), Days and Nights in the Forest (1969) and Pikoo (1980) along with a host of his lesser known works which themselves stand up as fine examples of story telling. His films encompass a diversity of moods, techniques, and genres: comedy, satire, fantasy and tragedy. Usually he made films in a realist mode, but he also experimented with surrealism and fantasy.[17]
2.3.1 A Search and a Finding; From Pather Panchali to Carulatha[18]

Pather Panchali, Ray’s first foray into the film making world, was completed in 1955. It’s a quiet, simple tale, centering on the life of a small family living in a rural village in Bengal. The father, Harihar, is a priest and poet who cares more about his writing and spiritual welfare than obtaining wages he is owed. The mother, Sarbajaya, worries that her husband’s financial laxity will leave her without enough food for her two children, daughter Durga and son, Apu. Harihar’s family often lives on the edge of poverty, coping with the unkind taunts of their neighbours, the burden of caring foe an aging aunt and the terrible aftermath of a natural catastrophe. The film starts slowly, but builds inexorably towards a powerful climax as we come to know, and empathize with, the characters. Aparajito (The Unvanquished) forms the second part of this great trilogy. It deals with the adolescence of Apu following his father's death.

The concluding film in the trilogy is Apu Sansar (The World of Apu), in many ways the most mature and deeply felt of the three works. Apu, now a grown man, marries, writes his first novel, and then loses his wife Aparna in childbirth. The theme of change, of the countervailing gains and losses attendant on the forces of progress, has often been identified as the central preoccupation of Ray's work.[19] This theme, underlying much of the Apu trilogy, finds its most overt expression in Jalsaghar (The Music Room), an underrated film and one of Ray's finest achievements. Jalsaghar is the story of Biswambhar, a feudal lord who ruins himself through holding music concerts, to outclass the boorish upstart son of a moneylender. The film as a whole, explores the idea that truly great art is created in that space of time just before disintegration takes over. Time seems to be frozen for Biswambhar and it is within this act of refusal that his ruin lays.

The inner struggle between traditional and modern values in Indian life has coloured several other Ray films. Devi (The Goddess, 1960) is essentially a story exploring the dangers of religious fanaticism and superstition. Daya is a young bride at the end of the 19th century who suddenly believes that she is the reincarnation of the goddess Kali. The gullible Daya accepts the worship of the people around her, but she eventually becomes a victim of a quarrel that develops between her husband and her father.

To mark the centenary of the birth of Rabindranath Tagore, Ray made Teen Kanya (Three Daughters) in 1961.It was another attempt by Ray to test the reaches of his ability. Ray's first original script was for Kanchanjungha (1962), which was also his first picture in colour and the first film for which Ray composed the score. Filmed entirely on location in Darjeeling, it traces the varied activities of a vacationing family dominated by the father, a rich Calcutta businessman.

Until now, the protagonists of Ray’s films have been men. In Mahanagar (1963) and Charulata (1964), he has a new concern with women, not as the shadow of man, but as an individual.[20] In Mahanagar (The Big City, 1963), Ray tackles the problem of whether or not both a husband and wife should take up jobs to maintain the family. The Big City is set in contemporary India, but the issue at stake - that being a woman's place in society - is essentially the same in Charulata (1964), which takes place in 1879 and is based on another story by Tagore.

2.3.2 A New Search: The Period after Charulata[21]

In the post-Charulata period, Ray took on projects of increasing variety, ranging from fantasy to detective films to historical drama. Ray also made considerable formal experimentation during this period, and also took closer notice to the contemporary issues of Indian life, responding to a perceived lack of these issues in his films. The first major film in this period is Nayak (The Hero), the story of a screen hero traveling in a train where he meets a young sympathetic female journalist.

In 1969 he made Goopy Gyne Bagha Byne (The Adventures of Goopy and Bagha), a musical fantasy. Ray next made a film from a novel by the young poet and writer, Sunil Gangopadhyay. Featuring a musical structure arguably even more complex than Charulata, Aranyer Din Ratri (Days and Nights in the Forest) traces four urban young men going to the forests for a vacation, trying to leave their petty urban existence behind. All but one of them gets engaged into revealing encounters with women, which becomes a deep study of the Indian middle class.

After the craftsmanship of Aranyer, Ray jumped headlong into the heart of Bengali reality, which was then in a state of continuous flux due to the leftist Naxalite movement. Often accused of ignoring the contemporary Indian urban experience, Ray now made his emphatic statement on the topic in the 1970s. He completed the so-called Calcutta trilogy: Pratidwandi (1970), Seemabaddha (1971), and Jana Aranya (1975), three films which were conceived separately, but whose thematic connections form a loose trilogy. Pratidwandi (The Adversary) is about an idealist young graduate; if disillusioned, still uncorrupted at the end of film, Jana Aranya (The Middleman) about how a young man gives in to the culture of corruption to make a living, and Seemabaddha (Company Limited) about an already successful man giving up morals for further gains.

In 1977, Ray completed Shatranj Ke Khiladi (The Chess Players), an Urdu film based on a story by Munshi Premchand, set in Lucknow in the state of Oudh, a year before the Indian rebellion of 1857. This was a commentary on the circumstances that led to the colonization of India by the British, this was Ray's first feature film in a language other than Bengali. Ray would later make another hour-long Hindi film from a Premchand story, Sadgati (The Deliverance) that studies the cruel reality of untouchability in India. Ray made a sequel to Goopy Gyne Bagha Byne in 1980, a somewhat overtly political Hirak Rajar Deshe (Kingdom of Diamonds) — where the kingdom of the evil Diamond King or Hirok Raj is an allusion to India during Indira Gandhi's emergency period. Along with his acclaimed short film Pikoo (Pikoo's Day) this was the culmination of his work in this period.

Ray's last three films, were shot mostly indoors, they have a distinctive style, and are more verbose than his earlier films. Ganashatru (An Enemy of the People), made in 1989, is regarded by some as a weak film by Ray standards, and seen as an exercise to get back into filming after a prolonged illness. Made in 1989, Shakha Proshakha (Branches of the Tree) is seen as a film of greater qualities. An old man, who has lived a life of honesty, comes to learn the corruption of his sons, and the final scene shows him finding solace only in the companionship of the fourth, uncorrupted but mentally ill son. In Agantuk (The Stranger), his last film, Ray lightens the mood. A stranger visits a family claiming to be a long lost uncle. Through his experience, ranging from eager acceptance by the child of the family to apathy and suspicion by the elders, Ray weaves questions about identity, nature and civilization.
2.4 Conclusion

Ray’s films are markedly diverse in their subject matter. All his films have a deceptive simplicity with deep underlying complexity. The lyrical qualities of his work and characterization of his films have been acclaimed as flawless. His films have a philosophical outlook and a vision. An exploration of his philosophy is the main task of the preceding chapters.

Chapter 3
THE ARTISTIC PURSUIT OF SATYAJIT RAY

Art is an experience. It may be the experience of creating or appreciating a work or art. Art is often associated with beauty and it evokes pleasure in the spectators. The essence of art lies in the creation of a perfect form. In that way it is very much associated to realism. The artist explores his feelings through his work of art. Art is considered as an important part in the philosophical analyses of film. Great film makers give importance to art in their works. Often they were known as art directors. We cannot deny its importance when we study Ray’s films. His films were famous for their artistic superiority. This chapter focuses on art in films, the Auteur theory and the artistic pursuit of Ray.
3.1 Making Art in Films

For many of us a good film means a film with a good story. But we have seen the failure of many films based on good stories written by writers ranging from Valmiki and Vedvyas to the best writers in modern times. Hence we cannot blame the stories for the failure of its screen adoption. The truth is that every story has two aspects: its underlying message and its language.[22] These two elements make up a story. The art of telling a story lies in the style that is adopted. A good story may be spoilt if it is not told properly and a very ordinary story may acquire striking artistic features simply from the way it is related. The art of cinema is similarly dependent on its language and the manner in which the story unfolds. Where the language is weak, there the film is unable to earn artistic merit. This language used in cinema is a language of images.

Making a film is a joint effort of a number of people. Some of them may be artists while some maybe artisans. The artists are those who face the camera, that is, those who take part in the acting. The second would comprise of those who remain behind the camera; they are the director, script-writers, cameraman, editor, music composer, art director and the like. The script writer helps the director to make the story into a format suitable for cinema. The purpose of the script is to act as a ‘skeleton’. As in a play, a story in a script is divided into acts and scenes. But there is a system of changing angles and changing shots virtually in every scene.

The language that is hinted at in the script then has to be expressed through the use of a camera. The images that the camera captures are joined to one another, and only then does the story in the film take a definite form. Everything that is described in the story has to be seen through the eyes of a camera. The camera has the ability and the power to enlarge what is small, to bring closer what is far, to make an unattractive object look beautiful and to even turn day into night.[23] That is why the camera is the director’s biggest weapon.

Whatever helps in highlighting the mood or theme of the story has to be seen as being right and possessing adequate aesthetic merit. If the camera produces some special effects that fall outside the basic needs of the story, it can have no bearing on a general evaluation of the whole film. If the camera is used without an aesthetic sense or a sense of drama, there the language of the film is weakened.

The art director has to build the set, consistent with the requirement of that particular scene. If that is not the case, then no matter how attractive the set may be, it will not have any artistic significance. The same applies to acting. It is the director’s job to judge a story and the characters in it, and then decide what kind of acting is suitable for it. He must have the sense not only to make that judgment for himself, but also to communicate to the actors exactly what is required.

The director is responsible for both, the strength and weakness of a film as well as its artistic success and failures. If the story is not good, it is not the writer who is to be blamed. If the acting is faulty, the actor is not responsible for that. If the structure is weak, the editor is not to be blamed. It is the responsibility of the director to direct the film artistically well with the help of these people. The role of the director is like an author here. Based on this understanding the famous theory of ‘Film Auteurism’ is formulated.
3.2 Film Auteurism

The Auteur theory holds that a single film or an entire body of work by a director reflects the personal vision and preoccupations of that director, as if he or she were the work's primary "author" (Auteur). The term Auteurism means to treat films as the product of a single individual. On this line of interpretation, the director of the film is the creative intelligence who shapes the entire film in a manner parallel to literary works being authored.[24] The Auteur theory has had a major impact on film criticism ever since it was first advocated by François Truffaut in 1954. According to him the only films that deserved to be designated as art were those in which the director had complete control over their production by writing the screenplay as well as actually directing the actors. Only films made in this way deserved to be given the status of works of art. "Auteurism" is the method of analyzing films based on this theory or, alternately, the characteristics of a director's work that makes her or him an auteur. Both the Auteur theory and the Auteurism method of film analysis are frequently associated with the French New Wave.[25]
3.3 The Creative Approaches of Ray
3.3.1 Satyajit Ray as a True Auteur

When we look at Ray’s work from this view point he was a true auteur. He directly controlled many aspects of film making. He wrote all the screenplays of his films, and many of which were based on his own stories. He designed the sets and costumes, operated the camera since Carulatha, composed the music for all his films since 1962 and designed the publicity posters of his new releases. In addition to filmmaking, Ray was a composer, a writer and a graphic designer. He used his own stories for his film. He used characters and incidents which were familiar to him. He preferred dialogues that were ‘realistic’ as opposed to smart lines or natural speech. All these show him as a true auteur.
3.4.2 Ray’s Subjects and Themes

One of the biggest contributions of Ray to the world of cinema was his choice of subjects. He explored a range of characters and situations. He brought real concerns of real people to the screen. His films show a diversity of moods, techniques and genres. Most of his films were realistic in nature. Ray was deeply concerned with the social identity of his characters. He believed that the behavior of people emerged from their existence in a particular place and time, and in a particular social context.
3.4.3 Script

The script of a Satyajit Ray film was never duplicated, bound and distributed. Ray’s script contained much more dialogues and notions of actions and locations. It had sketches, notes, musical ideas, elaborate descriptions that evoked his original concepts and relationships, faces, places throughout the time of shooting and editing.
3.4.4 Cinematography

Ray’s films created an authentic atmosphere through camera- work and lighting. Since Carulatha, he operated the camera himself. This was because he wanted “to know exactly at all times how a shot was going, not only in terms of acting, but also of the acting viewed from a chosen set-up, which imposes a particular special relationship between the actors”.[26] According to him, the style of photography should grow out of the story, and the director should be aware of what he wants and be able to convey it in precise terms to the cameraman. He used color very carefully. He preferred the colors to be closest to what he had used at the shoot. His camera moved as per the needs of the situation, rather than out of any fixed notion of style. As far as camera placements, choice of angle and lenses were concerned, the decision had always been entirely his. He developed a style of bounced lighting, to simulate daylight in interior scenes, which made for naturalness, and speed in taking shots; it also served to give a simple but effective continuity to the quality of light, and a soft, shadow less modeling to the faces.
3.4.5 Editing

According to Ray, editing was limited to refine the film. “Editing is the stage where a film really begins to come to life and one is never more aware of the uniqueness of the film medium that in watching a well-cut scene pulsates with a life of own”.[27] Much of Ray’s editing was done in the camera, as he was very clear about his intentions before he began shooting. He shot very little beyond the point where the cut would come. His editing demonstrates an economy, flow and poetry.
3.4.6 Music

In the beginning of his career Ray worked with great music directors like Pandit Ravi Shankar and Ali Akbar Khan. Later he began composing the music for his films. To him the role of music was to make things simpler for the audience. He experimented with mixing Western and Indian elements in his scores. He composed a background music that belonged to a particular film rather than to any recognizable tradition. Ray’s use of music had a lot to do with the naturalistic surface of his films.[28] The effort was to make music as spare and imperceptible by itself as possible, especially in the films scored by him.
3.4.7 Art Direction

Ray usually shot the outdoor scenes on locations and preferred studio for indoor shoots. In most of his films he used ordinary locations to establish his realistic attitude. Ray always imposed his ideas on the designers. According to him “the design is independent only up to the point the director allows him”.[29] Ray believed that a film set should be built for the camera and for the camera angles only. Anything that was not effective through the camera was a waste of good money and effort, however pleasing it might look to the naked eye.
3.4.8 Ray’s Actors

Ray never gave much importance to rehearsal because he believed that rehearsal would make acting more artificial and unnatural. Often he used non-professional actors in his films without giving importance to rehearsal. On the other hand, he dictated every angle of the head and every minute gesture to the actor. The natural character of an actor was important to Ray not only in the case of non-professionals but in that of professionals as well. Acting against the grain of the actor’s nature was unacceptable in Ray’s scheme of things.
3.4.9 Ray’s Art in Narration

A remarkable feature of Ray’s method was his constant awareness of the flow of life outside the tight circle of drama.[30] In Aparijito, Harihar is dying; Apu is going to fetch the holy water from the river at dawn. The athletes exercising at the river side have no direct bearing upon the scene except to remind us of the inexorable flow of life, indifferent to individual joys and sorrows.

This is closely related to the slow rhythm of Ray’s films. His films do not meet the rhythm of the viewer’s lives. They impose their own rhythm on the audience. Like many literary classics, they are never in a hurry. Identification with this rhythm of the life of the people is important in most of his films.

The characters in Ray’s films were borne on the flow of a river, in which a large force carries them towards their destiny.[31] In his films we see his mastery of rhythm, arising exactly from the action and revealing its exact meaning without the help of words.

The slow rhythm is also an outcome of Ray’s “silent observer” point of view.[32] He wanted us to see the events take place before us and to draw our own conclusions. Even though it is manipulated, it communicates a mood of silence. Since words do not play a large part, what is happening in a character’s mind must be expressed through his actions. This communication of events of the mind is the most difficult thing in the cinema since the camera records only the surfaces of reality; it is here that Ray is the undisputed master.

Ray seldom used dialogue simply to convey information. In his films dialogues expressed as a part of the total ambience. It may be half a sentence with a gesture or actions. It may supply information while establishing or enhancing a relationship. Ray saw dialogue in the cinema as completely different from that in the theatre or in the novel.

Ray’s faith in the narrative illusion dictates much of his technique. One important aim is that the illusion should not be interrupted by any sudden change or intrusion that might make the audience conscious that it is seeing a film. This is evident in his use of similes. In Aparajito, Harihar’s death was compared to the flight of a bird, but it is cut in such a way that it should not stand out as an intellectual statement as in silent films.
3.5 Conclusion

As it is mentioned in the introduction, art is very much related to truth and realism. Ray was a great art director and it gives us confidence to enquire the realistic aspect of his film. It is already answered by establishing Ray’s art. But it needs a little elaboration. The next chapter focuses the realistic aspect of his film.

Chapter 4
SATYAJIT RAY AND THE REALIST CONSCIENCE

Realists were those film makers who attempted to make cinema a faithful mirror of contemporary reality. It not only shows reality as it is but also true to the content and style. The realist conscience has an important part to play in film making. It was a movement in the film world and great classics like, Bicycle Thief were made because of the influence of it. They were highly expressive and artistic. As a serious film maker, Ray gave more importance to it. This chapter focuses on realism and its application in Ray’s films.
4.1 Realism in Films

The relationship between art and reality is an important part in film analysis. It may be necessary to point out that art arises out of reality. The film gives an audience a stronger feeling of reality than other arts. There are several reasons for this. First, the artist lives in the real world, and from his experience he draws artistic inspiration and intuition. For this purpose, reality should be widely defined to comprise the whole physical, mental and emotional world, though naturally things which do not impinge on the artist in any way are irrelevant. Reality, therefore, includes everything in the autistic’s experience: Other works of art; other people; everything he sees, feels, hears, and knows; also his own memory, his own bodily states, thoughts, imaginings and dreams. Thoughts, emotions and mental states are just much ‘reality’ in this context as a table or a chair.

Secondly, art is related to reality because it has to be expressed in the medium proper to it. In the first stage the artist is tied to the reality of his own experiences. In this stage, the artist is fashioning a work of art by combining two things: his own experience and the physical medium of his art, and so he is further tied at this stage to the reality of the medium. In the third stage, the artist has to present it to the real audience. Fourthly, the ability of cinema to produce movement. There is a fascination about movement in itself without any added interest, which automatically attracts one’s attention. A fifth reason for films strong impression of reality is the feeling it gives of ‘being-present’. It depends upon the mental attitude of the spectator.[33]

In the earliest days cinema was not considered as an art. It was considered as a method of registering the appearance and movement of the real world. Perhaps this was natural, because the first film makers were scientists rather artists. It was only gradually through experiment and improvisation, which the cinema developed into an art by transforming its mechanical means of reproduction into an artistic means of expression.[34]

It is clear, that by comparison with our ordinary experience the film world is an entirely artificial one. It is the function of the film maker to ensure that this film universe, objectively false, should give the spectator, by suspension of disbelief, a feeling of reality like that created by a natural scene. It is in the creation of this false ‘image,’ that an art of the film first makes its appearance. Left to its mechanical devices, the camera would be incapable of creating anything like so complete an illusion; it needs the intervention of the film-maker with his technical and artistic skill. The introduction of the human factor brings with it another consequence– the subjectivity of the world represented, and the possibility of a personal cinematic vision. With this all the necessary conditions are present for the emergence of an original art, and for the exercise of artistic creation on the realistic material supplied by the camera and the sound recording apparatus.
4.1.1 Different Levels of Realism

It is clear that the reality of a film exists at two levels: the physical and the mental.[35] On both levels the film- maker will best convince his audience by creating an artistic whole, in keeping with the nature and purpose of the particular film, and broadly within the conversation, the audience will accept.
4.1.1.1 Physical Level

The physical level will include such things as décor, props, costume, appearance, habits, manners, customs, speech and the like. There are many cases in which the unique ability of the camera and microphone to reproduce a real location, real accents or the raciness of slang or dialect is a delight. Generally speaking, dubbing takes away from a film because an authentic native accent is replaced by something more remote. However, in cases where dubbing adds a touch of realism it can be successful. There are also other circumstances in which it is important for the film–maker to escape from the limiting references of realism by formalizing, by abstracting, by simplifying, by leaving the spectator to fill in the details with his own imagination.

Also, in a sense, on the physical level, are those which go to make the style of the film- maker: framing, camera-angle, lighting, and cutting, use of music, and so on. The elements do not correspond to anything in the physical world, but are features of the medium in which the film- maker embodies his ideas. Thus there is no question, with these elements, of fidelity to reality; it is a matter of choice, arrangement, and manipulation.[36]
4.1.1.2 Mental Level

The second level on which a film exists is mental. On this level reality is a reality of ideas, of emotions, of behavior, of character, of fundamental, universal truth. On this level the artist seeks to create an artistic whole which will convince the audience of its emotional or ideological depth and variety. At this level, everything will depend on the intensity of the artist’s experience and the sincerity of its expression. The physical components of a film may be treated with great sensitivity and the style may be excellent- but it may fail at the mental level.

In practice, in the artist’s work the two levels, physical and mental, will occur together, interpenetrate and interact and both are important. For the finest art, perfection of form must be combined with greatness of conception.
4.2 Realism in Ray’s Films

In an interview Ray once remarked: “Somehow I feel that an ordinary person – the man in the street if you like – is a more challenging subject for exploration than people in the heroic mould. It is the half shade, the hardly audible notes that I want to capture and explore. In any case, I am another kind of person, one who finds muted emotions more interesting and challenging”. [37]

Ray’s filmography over a span of almost four decade (1955-1991) with 40 feature films, documentaries and short films explored these ‘half shades’ and ‘muted emotions’. According to him, "The raw material of cinema is life itself. It is incredible that a country which has inspired so much painting and music and poetry should fail to move the film maker. He has only to keep his eyes open, and his ears. Let him do so”.[38]Through his films he enthralled serious film viewers across the world. But in India, his films were often branded “cerebral” and were seen not by the teeming millions but only by a handful of film- viewers.

When the rest of the Indian cinema was making films with a painted backdrop in the studio, with garish costumes, prosaic plots and innumerable song and dance sequences, the other side led by Ray had begun an exploration into the muted emotions of the common man. He made films that carried moments of reality in myriad forms. His films are possibly less polished, less smooth in construction and style than other main stream films. But his films leave us in no doubt about his passionate sincerity and depth of feeling and they convince us more fully of their deep truth. Ray’s is the art that conceals art; by the greatest economy of means he creates films that are among the most life-like in the history of the cinema. His films were made from day-to-day realities. They speak a universal language which any one can understand. Most of his films represent the conscience of modern India. His films create a meticulously believable world that draws the viewer in. The emotions evoked by the events of his films are honest and true.[39]In his own words:

My main preoccupation as a filmmaker... has been to find out ways of investing a story with organic cohesion, and filling it with detailed and truthful observation of human behavior and relationships in a given milieu and a given set of events, avoiding stereotypes and stock situations, and sustaining interest visually, aurally and emotionally by a judicious use of the human and technical resources...[40]

His characters are generally of average ability and talents. His masterpiece Pather Panchali is centered on a small Brahmin family in a rural Bengal. Such types of themes were never considered as important in film. Perverted or bizarre behavior, violence and explicit sex, rarely appear in his films. His interest lies in characters with roots in their society. What fascinates him is the struggle and corruption of the conscience-stricken person. He brought real concerns of real people to the screen. His works serve to remind us of the wholeness and sanctity of the individual. Above all, Ray's is a cinema of thought and feeling, in which the feeling is deliberately restrained because it is so intense. Although Ray continued to experiment with subject matter and style more than most directors, he always held true to his original conviction that the finest cinema uses strong, simple themes containing hundreds of little, apparently irrelevant details, which only help to intensify the illusion of actuality better. These themes cannot come from the passing fashions of the period; they must be drawn from permanent values.[41]

By depicting physical environments with the utmost truth and by exploring human relationships to their limits, Ray reveals many aspects of the human condition. Through particulars, he reaches universality, conveying through his cinema this co-existence. Much of his cinema's strength lies in the total impression of its average moments, moments that can't be picked out as necessarily striking scenes. This is because he strikes a carefully judged balance between form and content. He does not let one part override the other. He was known to reject locations because he thought them too spectacular and overpowering, stating they would upset the balance.

In the last few decades we have seen greater emphasis on form and technique in film at the expense of content. Form has come to be identified as the content of film. With formalism reigning supreme, subject matter has disappeared. Meaning has been divorced from the subject and a steady dehumanization in cinema has resulted. What is refreshing about Satyajit Ray and his films is that they represent sanity and faith in humanity. With him, the subject comes first and with the material on hand he allows it to dictate the form.[42]

Throughout his career, Satyajit Ray maintained that the best technique of filmmaking was the one that was not noticeable, that technique was merely a means to an end. He disliked the idea of a film that drew attention to its style rather than the contents. That is why his work touches one as a revelation of artistry. For at the same time, he reveals his attitude, his sympathies, and his overall outlook in a subtle manner, through hints and via undertones. There are no direct messages in his films. But their meanings are clear, thanks to structural coherence. In Pather Panchali, he explained this through the performance of the village pundit running a school in his grocery shop; the children following the candy man with a dog trailing them and the procession reflected in a pond; the children racing through a field of kaash flowers for their first glimpse of a train and Apu flinging the stolen necklace in the pond and then watching the weeds close in on his sister’s secret. These are ordinary incidents in our day- to- day life, but Ray depicts it with more realism.[43]

Ray makes us re-evaluate the commonplace. He has the remarkable capacity of transforming the utterly mundane into the excitement of an adventure. There is the ability to recognise the mythic in the ordinary, such as in the train sequence of Pather Panchali where the humming telegraph poles hold Durga and Apu in a spell. In addition, he has the extraordinary capacity of evoking the unsaid. When viewing one of his films we often think we know what one of his characters is thinking and feeling, without a single word of dialogue. This ability to create a sense of intimate connection between people of vastly different cultures is Ray's greatest achievement. More then any of his contemporaries in world cinema, he can create an awareness of the ordinary man, and he doesn't do it in the abstract, but by using the simplest, most common and concrete details such as a gesture or a glance. There isn’t much of a story in the film. But Ray packs into its 120 minutes such an incredible amount of social observation that one never notices the slenderness of the plot. The film simply bristles with details, some of which add depth to the story in unexpected ways.

One quality which is sure to be found in a great work of cinema is the revelation of large truth in small details. The world reflected in a dew drop will serve as a metaphor for this quality. It is the details, combined with acute observation, that make the films of Ray a work of art.
4.3 Conclusion

The nature of art is truth. The more a film resembles reality, the more it is close to life. Realism is still an important part in film making. It makes a film a perfect work of art. Ray with his realistic conscience directed the great classics ever made in India. Through this act he directed the Indian cinema into a new realistic field.

Chapter 5
THE CULMINATION OF EASTERN AND WESTERN AESTHETICS TRADITION IN SATYAJIT RAY’S FILMS
5.1 Introduction

Satyajit Ray’s films were always accredited for their synchronized view on Western and Indian aesthetic tradition. According to film scholars Indian films follow the Indian tradition as formulated by Bharat Muni in his Natya Sastra. Whereas Western films are set on the bases of Aristotle’s Poetics.[44] In the West the narrative is all important and in the Indian tradition it is the creation of mood or Rasa that matters. Ray employed both traditions in his films. This chapter focuses on Aristotle’s Poetics, Bharat Muni’s Natya Sastra and to single out both the Western and the Indian influence in Ray’s films.

Theatre arts such as opera, dance, drama and cinema are very popular arts. One reason for their popularity is that their performance cannot take place without spectators. The director or play writer must, therefore establish and hold immediate communication with his audience. A play must have an immediate response when compared to other art forms like painting or sculpture. Great film directors or artists, communicate with their contemporaries and also with succeeding generations. They have the capacity to discover and communicate the permanent in the particular. That is why their plays and films endure.

Dramatic performances are born out of two sources: the artist’s desire to imitate an action or movement, and the spectator’s eagerness to enjoy this imitation. What the artist portrays is human life, enhanced, caricatured or magnified. In that representation, the spectator learns about himself, about what it means to be a human and how human- beings respond to varying circumstances. To a great extent, what the spectator sees on the stage is his own image. But seeing oneself is difficult and frightening. Thus, the theater is a school of human life and has a deep influence on society. In fact, “the theatre has always a social function, whether its apparent purpose is religious, artistic, educational or merely commercial. Its social function is to unite people in a shared experience. And that experience is that of being a man in a particular circumstance”.[45]
5.2 Aristotle and Bharat Muni

During the last few decades new approaches to theatre art have been explored in India and in the West, adding a wealth of experience to an already rich tradition. In the context of contemporary forms of dramatic expression, the writings of these two authors may appear obsolete. Yet, to discuss them here is not mere academic speculation. Two reasons make this discussion necessary.[46] On the one hand, cinema has been universally assimilated to the theater and in the West; this has profoundly infused the development of film art. On the other hand, film critics often assess the value of the film according to the principles which were derived from the Aristotelian tradition. But the bulk of the Indian cinema is made according to the principles derived from the tradition of Bharat Muni’s Natya Sastra. An insight into the essence of drama according to both these authors will create the possibility of an understanding into the film of Ray who used both the tradition.
5.2.1 Aristotle’s Poetics.

The basis of all Western theory of theatre arts is a small unfinished treatise by Aristotle, called Poetics. Aristotle, the Greek philosopher studied the best plays of his time and he derived his principle from them. His definition of a play is, therefore, a definition that locates and underlines the basic ethical and formal principles of the plays of his own milieu, those of Sophocles, Euripides and Aristophanes. Aristotle’s book has become a hand book of the student and critic of theatre arts and has had a profound influence on the development of the arts in the West.

Aristotle limited his investigation to tragedy, because he believed that tragedy had a greater moral value. According to him, there are six elements that make for tragedy: plot, character, diction, thought, spectacle and song.[47] Of these, plot is most important. Plot is the “structure of the incidents”. “Tragedy is an imitation not of men, but of an action and of life, and life consists in action and its end is a mode of action”.[48] Action is distinguished from the plot and from the story. The story is made up of events – real, fictitious or legendary from which the drama is created. Plot is the selection and arrangement, by the dramatist, of an incident and information contained in the story. Here narration is more important. Narration embodies the action as a chronological, cause and effect chain of events occurring within a given duration and a spatial field.[49] The same application is followed in films also.
5.2.2 Natya Sastra

Attributed to Bharat Muni, Natya Sastra was written in the fourth century BCE. It is a scientific treatise and its inspiration is religious and mythological. For, the treatise is said to be based, not on observation but on a revelation to Bharata by Brahman himself.

The traditional Indian concept of Natya is not what Aristotle would call dramatics. Bharata is interested in a more comprehensive and complex form, conductive to the life of men in society. The art of Natya is aimed at creating a rasa, or a taste. The Sastra enumerates nine such tastes: Sringra, Karuna, Vira, Hasya, Raudra, Adbuta, Bibhatsa, Bhayanaka and Santa.[50] Bharata explains that, as taste results from a combination of spices, vegetables and other ingredients, so also a rasa results from the combination of durable psychological states such as: love, sorrow, energy, disgust, mirth, anger, terror and astonishment.

According to Bharata the drama should be a “representation of the various emotions depicting different stimulation” and “give courage, amusement and happiness as well as counsel to them all”.[51] Bhava– emotions and rasa– the exalted sentiment or mood which the spectators experience, had pre-eminence over the plot and the structure.

The Indian cultural tradition is based on harmony. The reaction to harmony is joy and bliss. The West is constantly busy resolving conflict, India used to be busy with the art of enjoying harmony. The Indian tradition has developed an art of living pleasurably: whether it is in the area of sex, art or religion life in India is nearly always a celebration.[52]

This harmony is reflected in Indian cinema. It is crystal clear that the contours of Indian cinema’s anatomy are discernible in Natya Sastra. Indian films depict the celebration of life with colorful dance and songs. It evokes different rasa and bhavas and gives pleasure to the viewer.
5.3 Ray’s Films in this Context

The merge of the East and the West gave birth to the Bengali Renaissance and to the educated middle-class of which Ray and his family was an integral part. This fusion of the East and the West is deeply embedded in Ray's art-- the same kind of fusion one can find in Rabindranath Tagore's humanistic fusion of classical Indian tradition and Western liberal thoughts. Ray applied Western style to express his thoughts without diluting his Indian identity. This proves the application of both the Western and Indian aesthetic aspects of Ray’s films. According to Darius Cooper, Ray’s rich and varied filmic oeuvre arises from within the Indian tradition itself. This does not mean that Ray deliberately shunned or avoided any influence derived from his profound knowledge of the western art forms.[53]
5.3.1 Western Influence in Ray’s Films

One major factor appears to be that Ray had learnt his art mainly from Western cinema. The directors he repeatedly referred to, while talking about filmmaking, were Jean Renoir, Vittorio De Sica, John Ford and Frank Capra, Bergman and Hitchcock. Jean Renoir was a major influence on Ray. Regarding filmmaking Renoir said that a filmmaker need not show a lot of things in a film but show only the right things. Ray diligently followed the same advice that Renoir offered him. From Renoir, Ray learnt that there was nothing more important to a film than the emotional integrity of human relationship in the film.[54]

Apart from Renoir, it was the Italian Neo-Realists who gripped Ray's imagination. Ray does not hesitate to indicate how strongly Pather Panchali, the profound film that immediately made him a film maker of international distinction, was influenced by Vittorio De Sica's The Bicycle Thief. He saw Bicycle Thief within three days of arriving in London for a brief stay, and noted: "I knew immediately that if I ever made Pather Panchali, and the idea had been at the back of my mind for some time, I would make it in the same way, using natural locations and unknown actors."[55] In Pather Panchali, Ray introduced the neo-realist tradition of using non-actors and actually shooting on location while using an unadorned style of photography. The details of speech, behavior, habits, customs, rituals, substantiated the very simple structure and the narrative line.

Pertaining to cinema techniques and cinematography, Ray claimed to be in debt to Godard and Truffaut of the French New Wave for introducing Western technical and cinematic innovations. The new cinema techniques introduced by Jean Luc Godard had an effect on Ray.

Western cultural behavior and mannerisms surface in quite a few of Ray's films. The depiction of life in the city, as in Mahanagar, appears fast paced, modern and contemporary. In his urban films, the themes appear to be universal and a part of any city life. The use of English language in some of his films itself indicates the influence of the British culture. In dealing with the subject of religion, superstition, and even death Ray stood squarely on the side of the Western rationalists.

Ray was deeply influenced by the Western style of narration. He packed his films with an incredible amount of social observation that one never notices. His films simply bristle with details, some of which add depth to the story in an unexpected ways. Here, he speaks large truth in small details. The world reflected in a dewdrop will serve as a metaphor for this quality.
5.3.2 Indianness in Ray’s Films

Even though Ray was an ardent follower of Western styles in film making he did not give up the Indian aesthetics tradition. We can easily find the Indian style of story telling in his films. In his essay, A Long Time on the Little Road, Ray says that the discoveries of the emotion- centered form of the Rasa theory enables him to represent and present the ‘every day’ life in India in the ‘Apu Trilogy’. Most of his films have a nucleus. It may be about a family in which the characters have been so conceived by the director that there was a constant and subtle interplay between them. It has its own contrasts- pictorial as well as emotional: the rich and the poor, the laughter and the tears, the beauty of the countryside and the grimness of poverty existing in it. This highlights the rasa- conceived critical principles in Ray’s films.[56]

Rasa’s complicated doctrine centres predominately on feelings experienced not only by the character but also in the spectator. The duality of this kind of rasa implications was not lost in Ray. According to Gaston Roberge, “the question of pace relates to the modes of perception. The pace of a masterpiece can train the spectator to perceive things as the film’s maker does”. He completely endorses Bharat Muni’s theory, where he says that the audience is so familiar with the suspension of the narrative in the course of an unfolding drama that is known when to expect it. This can be clearly visual in the scene where Durga and Apu prepare a mixture of pickles on the sly. “There are about 10 alternating close- ups of Apu and Durga simply eating and smiling with joy”. Simple narrative can never hope to express the sheer joy of two little children enjoying a pleasure behind the backs of authority, as the “repetitiveness” of the scene does.[57]
5.4 Conclusion

Ray was a master craftsman who synchronizes Eastern and Western theories of film. He was influenced by the Western narrative style as well as the Indian style. His films were purely Indian but his statements are for all humanity. Ray sees the oneness of all human beings. He observes and feels about them not as Indians but as peoples, caught in the meshes of specific time and place. Perhaps it is in this that the rest of the world feels an affinity towards him and finds in the serenity of his faith a uniqueness that distinguishes it from the restless search of a Bergman or a Fellini. It is important that we recognize the element in Ray’s work that transcends national boundaries and takes away from us the right to be his final judges merely because we are his country man.

Chapter 6

THE SPIRITUALITY OF SATYAJIT RAY’S FILMS

The quest for spirituality begins with the very existence of man in this world. It is the understanding of the transcendental realm of human conscience. Spirituality plays an important role in human life. Through cultures and traditions we can identify the spiritual conscience of a community. Cinema as a cultural medium, reflects the life of humanity and also deals a lot with spirituality. Spirituality in film is not only a means to speak about God or values, but also a medium through which the film-maker communicates his idea with utmost truth and naturalness. Being a dedicated film-maker Ray’s spiritual conscience is very distinct in his films. His films are highly contemplative and meditative. They reflect the simple life of ordinary people with utmost truthfulness. This chapter focuses on the spiritual conscience of Ray’s films.
6.1 The Spirituality of Films

The cinema is part of contemporary life. It exerts a strong influence on education, knowledge, culture and leisure. The artist considers film as a very effective means of expressing his interpretation of life. Being an artistic expression, films should be highly appreciated for their own excellence and for what they do for man. While working on a film the artist can penetrate and illumine the deepest recesses of the human spirit. It can make spiritual reality immediate by expressing it in a way that the senses can comprehend. As a result of this expression, man comes to know himself better. This is not only a cultural benefit but a moral and religious one as well. While addressing to a group of media professionals Pope Paul VI said:

It is a fact that when you writers and artists are able to reveal in the human condition, however lowly or sad it may be, a spare of goodness, at that very instant a glow of beauty pervades your whole work. We are only asking you to have confidence in your mysterious power of opening up the glorious regions of light that lie behind the mystery of man’s life.[58]

As one of the major mass media of our society, the film’s actual, function is to fabricate and maintain consensus within society. Film is a stabilizing element that contributes to maintain social order. Because of its dream-like quality, film directly reinforces the collective mentality of our society. It trains the minds of large audience into thinking on certain established lines: collective memories of the past, distraction from the threatening present, and blue-prints of the future. Thus, we can say that films have an important emotional function. It trains the public to adjust their emotional reactions to certain aspects of their social life. It can be assumed that films in any society express the faith shared by large segments of that society and in those very expressions films foster the faith in the members of that same society.
6.2 The Spirituality of Ray’s Films

One of the distinctive features of Ray's work is that the rhythm in his films seems almost meditative. There is a contemplative quality in the magnificent flow of images and sounds that evokes an attitude of acceptance and detachment, which is profoundly Indian. This perspective attempts to create the whole out of a fineness of detail. Ray succeeded in making Indian cinema, for the first time in its history, something to be taken seriously, and in so doing, created a body of work of distinct range and richness.[59]

Ray’s films are an affirmation of faith in human beings. Many critics have remarked that there are no villains in his films. The oppressed and the oppressor are both victims. Even in his worst aspect, the human being bears on him some mark of the ultimate possibility of goodness. Hence, no matter what his role, he needs compassion, not anger. Ray’s work has more than a trace of traditional Indian “fatalism.”[60] It has a sense of detachment, a distance from the event. It is imbued with the sense that no man chooses the time or place of his birth or the circumstance that surround it. It is within the circle predetermined by these that he struggle to exist, to make something of his opportunities. The nobility of man lies in his efforts. This knowledge does not take away from man’s effort, but gives it a serenity denied to those who think they have the power to change the world. The philosophical outlook underlying Ray’s work is Indian and traditional in the best sense of that overused world.[61] It finds joy in birth and in life; it accepts death with grace. It arises from a knowledge that brings detachment freedom from fear and from restlessness. The detachment or distance, combined with compassion, makes it possible for the artist to see a wider arc of reality and combine largeness of canvas with finess of detail. Ray’s cinema contains enough of poeticism and individuality to lift his work out of the mundane mud and take the viewer to a "transcendent" level. In fact, the great Japanese film director Akira Kurosawa himself once remarked, “Not to have seen the cinema of Ray means existing in the world without seeing the sun or the moon”.[62]
6.2.1 Spiritual Lessons in the Apu Trilogy

The first great art film in India was made by the French director Jean Renoir.[63] Satyajit Ray, who incidentally worked as an unaccredited assistant to Renoir during the making of The River, soon built on this scene in his groundbreaking first film Pather Panchali. Even though Ray's film was shot in black and white and in circumstances that were as impoverished as the world being portrayed in the film, the poetic juxtaposition of man to nature had hardly ever been done better. There was actually very little plot to speak of, reminding one more of the improvised naturalness of De Sica's Bicycle Thief than anything that had come before in Indian Cinema. The images and the sounds are the real protagonists in this work of art. Once seen, no one can ever forget those insects skirting along the surface of a pond, while the thrillingly precise accompaniment provided by the background music finds just the right pulse of nature, or Apu and Durga's walk through a field of tall, white, willowy reeds as they discover a train outside their village, or Durga's ritual dance during the first monsoon rain, or the terrifying night as the storm rips apart Durga's room as she lies dying. Each one of these imageries provides a spiritual touch. They are unique and not found in other cinemas of the world.

The reason these images impress themselves deeply on our consciousness is that they have a greater power behind them. It is the power of the intuitive perception of the human spirit. Everything else is just the product of the mind, and so either images don't stick at all or, at best, have a fleeting presence. If we ask most people about the imagery of a certain film, they'll respond by going on and on about the actors or actresses doing this thing or that. Or maybe a set piece or song sequence of the film. But for Ray, as with any striving human being, the imagery is synonymous with spirituality. Furthermore, upon seeing DeSica's Bicycle Thief, Ray wrote in a 1951 essay, “The present blind worship of technique emphasizes the poverty of genuine inspiration among our directors,” Ray continued. “For a popular medium, the best kind of inspiration should derive from life and have its roots in it. No amount of technical polish can make up for artificiality of theme and dishonesty of treatment. The filmmaker must turn to life, to reality”. [64]

Ray also had the eye of a cinema poet and discovered an abundance of poetry in the reality of his mise-en-scene. In fact, Ray's greatest sequences have few rivals in cinema history. These include the aforementioned scenes in Pather Panchali as well as Aparajito: The stunning opening montage in the "holy" city of Benares on the Ganges. During the morning call, there is a succession of beautiful shots of birds in flight throughout the city. It is a thrilling sequence of images, mysterious and life-affirming. His editing is absolutely transcendent, with a poetic interweaving of images. The scene ends on a glorious view of the Ganges, with the birds now resting in the foreground. The obvious parody of the scene is tempered by its complete naturalness.[65]

In Apu Sansar (World of Apu), apart from the much lauded scenes of marital bliss between Apu and Aparna, the greatest part of the film is unquestionably towards its end. Apu, after years of wanderings, comes to the village, where his young son was being looked after. With each step Apu takes, we celebrate his return with nature. The concrete structures of his old way of life fall away and he begins a new path of rediscovery of the joys and simplicity of the natural world. Apu's years of disappointment, tragedy, suffering fall to the wayside as we come, full circle with him, back to the world of his childhood in Pather Panchali. The texture and poetry of the elements are beautifully caught by the extraordinary tilting camera work. But even this is outshined by the transcendent glow on Apu's face, especially as he reaches the clearing and stands before the power of the light of the sun. In its stark simplicity, this scene represents one of the finest moments ever of cinematic transcendence: just a man before his God.

Earlier in the film there is a powerful scene, where the highly-educated Apu applies for a job. This job entails writing labels for food jars. When he is taken to the workroom, the camera not only records the depravity of the working conditions, but, even more devastating, it captures the spiritually dead, expressionless gaze of one of the workers squelched by that environment.

As the Apu Trilogy reaches its conclusion in The World of Apu, we find Apu disillusioned with what life has brought. He decides he must end his studies and find employment, which he has little success with. His only hope is with the novel he is writing about his life. Through a set of strange twists, he finds himself married to a beautiful woman. Eventually they do fall in love, which is rapturously caught by Ray's camera. Apu's wife becomes pregnant, but later dies giving birth to a baby boy. After years of depression, Apu returns to the village, where his boy was being raised by his grandparents. Apu's reconciliation is first and foremost with God, with nature and the child-like wonderment of his forgotten spirit, and, only after all of that, comes his reconciliation with his son.
6.2.2 Immortal Love in the Trilogy

At the same time the trilogy is a paean to love. Not love between man and women which has been so overblown in literature and the cinema at the expense of love in the all- embracing sense in which it exists here. Love between mother and son, brother and sister; between unrelated people, between man and nature, between being and becoming. Indira Thakran (old lady in Pather Panchali) is called “auntie” by the children; but she is only some kind of distant cousin of Harihar who floated into their lives in some dim past, and found refuge among them. The children love her not so much because she is their aunt, as because she represents a mysterious force of life and death that fascinates them. In Apur Sansar, it is as if Apu and Aparna’s romantic love for each other is only another aspect of Sarbajaya’s love for her children or theirs for their aunt or their father-a comprehensive, all-pervasive, non-sexual love which has seldom been celebrated in the cinema with such purity.[66]
6.2.3 Death in the Trilogy

Some of the most interesting deaths to occur in world cinema are seen in the trilogy. Their interest derives from the fact that they are simple, human, natural and credible. At first, one may be surprised to find so many deaths in a trilogy. But on second thought these deaths appear necessary. In the 25 to 30 years of his life, Apu has to witness a number of deaths among the people close to him. In fact, the film tells the death of five of his closest relatives: his elderly aunt; Durga, his sister; Harihar, his father; Sarbajaya, his mother; Aparna, his young wife. Thus death is established as a normal fact in the course of life. The eventuality of personal death is even contemplated when, after his wife’s death, Apu has thoughts of suicide. Death is omnipresent, proximate and inevitable.[67]

Nowhere in the trilogy is there any allusion to even the mere possibility of survival after death. In that sense there is no transcendence in Ray’s deaths. Yet, death is not shown as senseless. It is inevitable, it is painful, but it does not seem to affect life. For life endures. In that sense, there is transcendence; it is life that matters, it is life that continues. Death is, as it were, part of the life process.
6.3 Conclusion

Spirituality gives meaning and guidance to life. As a reflection of life cinema can give meaning and guidance. It can build and cultivate a society with truthfulness. By expressing spirituality Ray’s films build a new society. It polishes our culture and tradition. By addressing the problems and emotions of ordinary people it brings them to their conscience. In today’s modern world Ray’s films are sacred scripture.

CONCLUSION

Philosophy is a cognitive activity carried out in discursive language. Films are complexes of sound and images. But non-linguistic sounds and images also contain a good deal of philosophical information. Through its sounds and visuals the film can convey disapproval, celebration, irony, apprehension and many other attitudes towards its characters the situations they are in and the courses of action on which they embark.

The new development in the field of philosophy of film studies and evaluates film from a critical and analytical point of view. The primary concern of philosophy of film is to analyze the nature of film. The various theories and historical movements put forward by theorist like Münsterberg, Bazin and Arnheim have guided the philosophy of the film. The understanding of film as a language gave it a new grammar and structure. The intervention of theorist helped film to create itself an identity, which is clearly distinct from other art forms.

The philosophical understanding of film as an art form led to the systematic and scientific development of its various aspects such as direction, cinematography, music, editing, script- writing and art- direction. Each individual who was responsible for his respective field tried to bring out his talent by reflecting it as an art. This led to the creation of many masterpieces. The concept ‘Film Auteurism’ also revolutionize the way of film production.

Among the modern mass media what makes film popular is its ability to reproduce reality. Film produces or recreates reality. The philosophy of film contributes a lot in this field. It is also part of art to create reality as it is. Various concepts like Social Realism, Neo-Realism and Surrealism revolutionize the film making field.

Here is the importance of great directors like Satyajit Ray, who redefined and gave a new direction to film. For him film was a medium to communicate his thought and experience. For him film was a discourse, an art and a way of expression. This broad understanding connects his films into the realm of philosophy.

Being born and brought up during the Bengal Renaissance he was deeply influenced by the Eastern and Western thoughts. His films are a process of the discovery of India, of seeking one’s root in one’s own soil. There is certain nostalgia, a sense of homecoming, in this discovery of one’s own country.

Satyajit Ray’s controlled many aspects of film making. He wrote all the screenplays of his films, many of which are based on his own novels. He designed the sets and costumes, operated the camera, and composed the music for his films. This proves that he was not merely a technician but also a true auteur, who had an eye on everything. He directed his films with an aesthetic conscience. This made him one of the master craftsmen in the world of film. Ray was very conscious of the realistic aspects of his films. His films are very close to reality. They were lauded for its genuine and truthful expressions.

We can see the culmination of Eastern and Western thought in his films. He was conscious of his Indian identity but he made use of the styles of his Western counterpart. One major factor appears to be that Ray had learnt his art mainly from the Western cinema. But this does not mean that he fully deny his Indianness. The slow pace and the rhythmic movements in his film are adopted from Indian aesthetic concepts.

Being an Indian a quest for spirituality is very evident in his films. His films are simple and deals with ordinary aspects of human life. He had an eye to see reality in an extraordinary way. His films shares love, death, hope and joy with its spectators. Watching his films is a spiritual experience. His films are highly meditative. They evoke an attitude of acceptance and detachment, which is profoundly Indian.

Ray is known for his humanistic approach to cinema. Even though he made his films in Bengali, they are of universal interest. They are about things that make- up the human race-relationship, emotions, struggle, conflicts, joys, and sorrows. He left a cinematic heritage that belongs as much to India as to the world. His films demonstrate a remarkable humanism, elaborate observation and subtle handling of characters and situations. The cinema of Ray is a manifestation of the combination of intellect and emotions. It is controlled, precise, meticulous, and yet, evokes deep emotional response from the audience. His greatest contribution as an artiste was to foster a healthy curiosity about the world and the pursuit of truth and beauty under the most trying conditions. He was, in that sense, a unique and whole individual in an increasingly fragmented world. Ray succeeded in making Indian cinema, for the first time in its history, something to be taken seriously, and in so doing, created a body of work of distinct range and richness.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Amaladas, Anand. Introduction to Aesthetics. Chennai: Satya Nilayam Publications, 2005.

Arnheim, Rudolf. Film as Art. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971.

Bazin, André. What is Cinema? Berkley: University of California Press, 1967.

Carroll, Noel, ed. Philosophy of Films and Motion Pictures. Oxford: Black Well, 2006.

Gupta, Chidananda. Talking about Films. New Delhi: Orient Longman, 1981.

---. The Cinema of Satyajit Ray. New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House, 1980.

Jarvie, Ian. The Philosophy of Films: Epistemology, Ontology, Aesthetics. New York: Routledge, 1987.

Montagu, Ivor. Film World. Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1964.

Ray, Satyajit. Speaking of Films. New Delhi: Penguin, 2005.

---. Our Films Their Films. Mumbai: Orient Longman, 1976.

---. The Apu Trilogy. Calcutta: Seagull Book, 1985.

Roberge, Gaston. Another Cinema for Another Society. Calcutta: Seagull Books, 1985.

---. Chitrabani: A Book on Film Appreciation. Calcutta: Chitrabani, 1974.

---. The Ways of Film Studies. New Delhi: Ajanta Publications, 1992.

Robinson, Andrew. Satyajit Ray: The Inner Eye. London: Andre Deutsch, 1989.

Sarkar, Bidyut. The World of Satyajit Ray. Mumbai: USB Publications, 1992.

Stephenson, Ralph. The Cinema as Art. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1971.

Tudor, Andrew. Theories of Films. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973.

Wartenberg, Thomas, ed. The Philosophy of Films. Oxford: Black Well, 2005.

Internet Sources

Cooper, Darius. The Cinema of Satyajit Ray: Between Tradition and Modernity. London: Cambridge University Press, 2000. (assessed Dec 23, 2006)

http://www.amazon.com/cinema-satyajit ray-tradition-modernity/dp.html.

Goritsas, Helen. “Satyajit Ray.” Senses of Cinema. Cinema World. http://www.sensesofcinema.com/director/02/ray.html.

Pearse, Maria. “Spiritual Lessons in the Cinema of Satyajit Ray.” Spirituality of Films. Film and Religion. http://www.indianseekers.com/ray.html.

Sragow, Michael. “An Art Wedded to Truth.” Satyajit Ray Study Collections. Satyajit Ray Foundation. http://www.satyajit.ucse.edu/sen.html.


1. Gaston Roberge, Chitrabani: A Book on Film Appreciation (Calcutta: Chitrabani, 1974), 51.

2. Ibid., 3.

3. Satyajit Ray, Speaking of Films (Delhi: Penguin Books, 2005), 46.

4. Ibid., 47.

5. Roberge, Chitrabani: A Book on Film Appreciation, 81.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid., 83.

9. Ibid., 84.

10. Ibid.

11. Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 3rd ed., s.v. “Aesthetics of Film.”

12. Ibid.

13. Andrew Robinson, Satyajit Ray: The Inner Eye (London: Andre Deutsch, 1989), 91.

14. Chidananda Das Gupta, The Cinema of Satyajit Ray (New Delhi: Vikas Publishers, 1980), 1.

15. Ibid., 13.

16. Ibid., 14.

17. Helen Goritsas, “Satyajit Ray,” Senses of Cinema, Cinema World, http://www.sensesofcinema.com/director/02/ray.html.

18. Gupta, The Cinema of Satyajit Ray, 20.

19. Gupta, The Cinema of Satyajit Ray, 28.

20. Ibid., 34.

21. Ibid., 40.

22. Ray, Speaking of Films, 98.

23. Ibid., 99.

24. Andrew Tudor, Theories of Film (New York: The Viking Press, 1974), 116.

25. Wikipedia Encyclopedia, s.v., “Auteur Theory,”

http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auteur_theory.html.

26. Satyajit Ray, Our Films Their Films (Mumbai: Orient Longman, 1976), 68.

27. Ibid., 69.

28. Gupta, The Cinema of Satyajit Ray, 83.

29. Ray, Our Films Their Films, 69.

30. Gupta, The Cinema of Satyajit Ray, 82.

31. Ibid., 83.

32. Ibid., 84.

33. Ralph Stephenson, The Cinema as Art (Middlesex: Penguin Books, 1971), 21.

34. Ibid., 214.

35. Ibid., 220.

36. Ibid., 223.

37. Nilosree Biswas, “Realism that’s Long Past,” The Hindu, Magazine, October 29, 2006, 4.

38. Ray, Our Films Their Films, 34.

39. Gupta, The Cinema of Satyajit Ray, 22.

40. Satyajit Ray, “The new cinema and I,” Sight and Sound, World Film Society,

http://www.satyajitray.org/ray/new cinema.html.

41. Helen Goritsas, “Satyajit Ray,” Senses of Cinema, Cinema World, http://www.sensesofcinema.com/director/02/ray.html.

42. Ibid.

43. Sarbari Sinha, “Exploring Apu’s World,” Frontline, June 17, 2005, 45.

44. Roberge, Chitrabani: A Book on Film Appreciation, 31.

45. Ibid.

46. Ibid.

47. Ibid., 32.

48. Ibid.

49. Thomas Wartenberg, ed., The Philosophy of Films (Malde: Blackwell Puhlishing, 2005), 183.

50. Anand Amaladas, Introduction to Aesthetics (Chennai: Satya Nilayam Publications, 2005), 56.

51. Ibid.

52. Gaston Roberge, The Ways of Film studies (New Delhi: Ajanta Publications, 1992), 183.

53. Darius Cooper, The Cinema of Satyajit Ray: Between Tradition and Modernity (London: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 14.

54. Abhijit Sen, “Western Influence on Satyajit Ray,” Great Directors, Indian Art Directors, http://www.parabaas.com/satyajit/articles/abhijit.html.

55. Ray, Speaking of Films, 98.

56. Cooper, The Cinema of Satyajit Ray: Between Tradition and Modernity, 14.

57. Suhrid Chattopadmyay, “Unlikely Colleagues,” Frontline, August11, 2006, 93.

58. Austin Flannery, II Vatican Council (Mumbai: St.Paul’s Publications, 1975), 289.

59. Roberge, The Ways of Film Studies, 195.

60. Gupta, The Cinema of Satyajit Ray, 5.

61. Ibid.

62. Robinson, Satyajit Ray: The Inner Eye, 65.

63. Maria Pearse, “Spiritual Lessons in the Cinema of Satyajit Ray,” Spirituality of Films, Film and Religion, http://www.Indianseekers.com/ray.html.

64. Satyajit Ray, Our Films Their Films, 36.

65. Pears, Spiritual Lessons in the Cinema of Satyajit Ray.

66. Gupta, The Cinema of Satyajit Ray, 22.

67. Roberge, The Ways of Film Studies, 197.

Posted by Sooraj Dominic at 8:47 PM 0 comments
Labels: Films
Newer Posts Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)