Die Schauspielerin

This movie stands the test of time because of how relevant it is till date. Usha is the way she is, partially because of her toxic childhood. Even the choices that she makes , especially regarding her partners , give her only partial happiness. In the end , she remains stuck in a loop ; she fails to understand her true worth and you feel like giving her a big hug. The role needs a lot of emotional maturity from the Late Smita Patil ji and she nails the character to the T. I need to watch Hansa Wadkar ji's films , on which the character is based on. Amol Palekar and Amrish Puri 's characters are so different yet toxic in their own way, loved the way they were potrayed.

Excellent performance by the late Smita Patil energizes this story of a girl who is manipulated by almost every man she meets in the film industry. it may sound sordid, but credit goes to the director as well as the actors for handling the material with grace. that final scene where she talks to her daughter over the phone, is a classic example.

With 'Bhumika: The Role', Shyam Benegal has created one of the finest character studies of Indian cinema. Based on the life of 40's Marathi actress Hansa Wadkar, is a biopic but very different from the conventional one. The film follows the life of a troubled actress who yearns to live a life of freedom where she can live the way she chooses. However, she only finds little satisfaction in her roles and while she has played a variety of characters in her films, she's stuck with the same role in life trapped in a man's world.

'Bhumika: The Role' is an exceptionally well-made film. Benegal is clearly influenced by Satyajit Ray. The black and white flashback sequences echo scenes from Ray's 'Nayak' and 'Patther Panchali'. His attention to detail is excellent as he adds subtle layers to the films (for example, notice how time is depicted through the news on the radio). The absence of a background score make the scenes raw and gritty. The remarkable cinematography deserves special mention and the lighting is superb.

But what would 'Bhumika: The Role' be without Smita Patil's tour-de-force performance? Patil was only in her very early 20s when she shot for the film and yet she's incredibly convincing as a bubbly teenager, a grown-up actress and a mother of a mother-to-be. Urvashi is a complex and demanding character with many shades and that cannot be easy for an ordinary actor to play but Patil does it with sheer ease and intensity. She dazzles the screen with a restrained and natural performance.

Patil is effectively supported by a strong cast that includes Sulabha Deshpande (notice the parallels between her role and Urvashi which hints that Usha's daughter may also repeat the sad cycle), Amol Palekar, Amrish Puri, Anant Nag, Naseeruddin Shah and Dina Pathak.

This is easily one of Benegal's best and it should serve as a prototype character study, biopic and even a textbook of acting (for upcoming actors). On different levels, it works as a social commentary, a historically accurate period piece, a study of relationships, provides an insight into the filmworld and a piece of thought-provoking cinema that makes one question the various roles humans have to play in life.

For years I had been lead to believe that the Indian cinema basically consisted of the florid excesses of Bollywood and the restrained humanism of Satyajit Ray. No-one told me that it could be as marvellous as this, combining the vibrant, visual energy of Bollywood, the depth of character of Ray, with a narrative complexity, formal daring, and willingness to experiment alien to both.

Like that other overwhelming Indian masterpiece I experienced recently, 'The Cloud-Capped Star', the film betrays a knowledge and mastery of the Hollywood melodrama, taking not only its visual cue from it (compositions that constrict characters; lighting and editing that reflect sensibility rather than reality etc.), but its use of a despised, populist form to create a charged, critical work.

Many of the characters recur through Indian cinema - the workshy men who produce only dreams, sapping their families; the women forced to become breadwinners in a rigidly patriarchal society, often becoming hardened and soul-calloused in the process; the children who seem to breathe the fresh air of a freer future, but are eventually suffocated by tradition and circumstance.

And Benegal doesn't stint on the melodramatic aspects. The expected emotional rollercoaster is here - quiet joys (a walk in a beautiful countryside; joking about with friends) alternating with scenes of harrowing violence (the beating of a young girl; the dragging of an unfaithful wife to swear fidelity before an altar).

What is different from Ray, say, is that these are put into an intelligently worked out context. Not some spurious historical one - Rajan listens to the radio droning, useful for giving us chronological markers otherwise absent. People's lives don't change in spite of the shattering historical events going on we normally think of as important. Benegal is interested in the lives that exist parallel to official history, that remain untouched.

this is where his complex narrative framework comes into effect - the present story punctuated by sepia flashbacks. This format is now a narrative cliche, but Benegal richly patterns his, creating a vicious circle imprisoning his heroine, doomed to repeat the mistakes of her mother and grandmother, just, we fear, as her daughter and granddaughter will repeat hers. Trapped in a loveless marriage, or, later, literally in the house of a fundamentalist lover, she is also trapped in time, in narrative, as a woman in a society where being a woman is a role, it doesn't matter who fills it.

The film is full of repetitions, of the heroine being brought back to scenes again and again, situations, people. The pretexts for these scenes may change, but their fundamental character - someone else wielding power over her - remains unaltered; any escape can only lead to humiliation, degradation, violence, becoming an outcast, a broken non-person, stripped of a role that is not life-defining, but life itself.

This is why 'The Role' is such a brilliant film about films; not naval-gazing about itself like Hollywood or il Maestro, but showing how popular modes can reinforce certain roles for their audience. The heroine may be an actress, but there are no paparazzi or glitzy cars here: for all her popularity, she is socially despised. ironically, although the Bollywood movies she stars in may seem formulaic, they give her an acceptable forum with which to express her anguish - as well as allowing her the freedom to try out roles (including a gender-bending swashbuckler), and to question assumptions, normally denied her in real life. The film may reveal the gap between fantasy and reality, but the distinction is never THAT easy.

I first saw Bhumika when I was in my college. Now, last week I saw it again from a DVD. And the movie actually is haunting me still. This is not about Usha, not about just the 'Role-playing' (like say, the Gita motif is going to hit you hard: that this reality is nothing but a show, where everyone is just going to play on and on and on everyone's role), it is a movie, that most probably went beyond what Benegal wanted it to be. It is extremely dense, multilayered in its depiction and enactment of coloniality. The colonial subject, Usha, suffering from the colonial lack of self-esteem goes on trying to discover and rediscover herself, only entangling herself into a new layer of coloniality. Why I am calling it 'colonial'? Just see the movie to understand it. Only a newer and more dense power can pluck her out of the older tangle. And that is just a new drama where she plays a new role. Nothing else. And some unfathomable depth and sublimity has come into the film, that is always beyond the conscious scheme of an artist. Great makers can wait for the moment of creation of a movie like that, but, one cannot ever know it before making a film like that.