Akaler Sandhane

I watched this film with a lot of expectations. Maybe that is why now i feel kind of dissapointed. Don't get me wrong. It is an excellent film by its own merit. There is no doubt about it. It has a a unique 'film within a film' premise. It tries to focus on one of the the darkest corners of bengal history. There is also a ' art vs reality' vibe undercurrent here. Moreover it has a political element. The director tried to shed light on the class struggle between the proletariats and the elite and how it may have a role in engendering famine. This film deals with so many serious issues that it cannot help but be preachy at times. Especially the local school headmaster character and his sermons feel kind of forced. Look, i get the points the director wanted to make but in doing so, he sacrificed a good deal of spontaneity. That is my nitpick about the whole film. If it were less preachy and more spontaneous, then it would definitely make a more pround impression on me

St want to say shortly that this kind of flim are those types which should have won oscar at the academy awards

"Cut!, Cut!, Cut!, Cut!" One of the remarkable scenes of the movie is a group of village boys running after the film crew bus shouting and mocking the way the director officially ends a shot. It is apparently, not much and only a 5 sec shot. However, 5 sec is long enough for people like Mrinal Sen to turn an innocent childish errant into much more purposeful. The word symbolically sharply demarcates between what is it in the movie and what is in the reality. The film crew was shooting famine which should have ended with the utterance of "cut" yet it leaks into the other side of the camera even though half century has passed since then and India supposedly progressed a lot. It is a slap and a mockery on the failure of the system done in the most subtle way. If a 5 sec shot can communicate all these, then think of what the full movie can do?

Famine is not about lack of food but it also about lack of morality rather the breakdown of values. Famine unleashes the dormant opportunist in the most corrupt and bigot way. Yet amongst such devastation there could be island, there could be people who despite of the hardship can still be empathetic, can still be humane. The movie is reap with many such examples. That's the reason it is a humanistic movie as Mrinal Sen himself is humanistic intellectual.

Unlike his contemporaries, his movies often end without a definite answer and leave the audience guessing. It is a bold experimentation to deliver a scratching message. The striking characteristic of "Akaler Sandhaney" is also that the making of the movie itself and the process of story telling is done in the most informal way. To the audience it it is more a like documentary capturing a set of unrelated events that happened to a film crew than a a feature film itself. His movies is mainly a feast for the mind, appealing and engrossing to your intellect and less so to your senses.

It has an additional value that it is only handful of movies that reminds us of the 1943 Bengal famine where 5 million people just perished due to lack of food (as mentioned in this movie itself)

Dhirtiman, Smita Patil and Rajen Torofdar (Himself a great director) all deserve special mention without which this review will be incomplete.

A must for the film school

Akaler Shandhaney (1982): Brief Review -

Mrinal Sen's powerful commentary on the contrast between cinematic representation and harsh reality-set against the backdrop of the devastating Bengal Famine. While Satyajit Ray's Ashani Sanket brilliantly examined the consequences of World War II and the 1943 famine, Sen chooses to explore a different dimension of the same event. The result is both thought-provoking and unsettling. The film follows a movie crew arriving in a village to shoot a film about the famine. While the director is deeply committed to the subject, much of the crew remains disconnected from the gravity of the tragedy they're depicting. One of the actresses slowly begins to understand its weight-but by then, it's too late. The director himself faces mounting challenges while filming, as he becomes increasingly aware of the emotional and cultural scars the famine has left behind. The screenplay delves into the trauma through recreated scenes that stir haunting memories in the villagers-particularly a woman named Durga. It's a disturbing juxtaposition: the crew's attempt to dramatize suffering versus the villagers' lived experience. For those of us watching from urban comforts, the film reminds us how easily the depth of such a catastrophe can be overlooked. Mrinal Sen brings that discomfort close to the skin-you can feel its burn. Though the pacing falters at times, the narrative remains engaging. Dhritiman Chatterjee gives a standout performance, while Smita Patil effortlessly immerses herself in her role. Gita Sen is a revelation, and the rest of the cast adds strength to the ensemble. The headmaster's final speech is my high point here-poignant and unforgettable. While not overtly traumatic or harrowing, Akaler Shandhaney operates as a slow-burning exploration of truth versus artifice. It's a concept where the real famine victims confront the cinematic famine seekers-with haunting effect.

Rating - 7/10*

By - #samthebestest.

'Aakaler Sandhane' (In Search of Famine) to my mind is one of the best films Mrinal Sen ever made. His superb touch, some puckish humour and sense of drama is backed up by some wonderful acting. No wonder this film simply ran away with every award in India and the Silver Bear in Berlin.

The story is about a film company which sets out to make a film on the Great Bengal Famine of 1943. They select a village in rural Bengal for outdoor shooting and start work. The story weaves around the trials of the troupe in the village.

To me, the best part of the film is the way Mrinal Sen interlaces three distinct themes. The first is the superficial story of the film company and the difficulties they face. The second is the class distinctions conservatism and prejudices that permeates village society and the third is a scathing criticism that 50 years after independence, stark poverty still exists and famine still stalks the land.