Chiriyakhana

I watched this movie for the second time yesterday after a gap of about twenty years! The only difference is that now I have read all the original stories of Byomkesh. The movie as well as the characters are Satyajit's and not Saradindu's, which is a pity since I adore Saradindu's Byomkesh Bakshi. I guess this movie was made to cash on Uttam Kumar's star power at the box office. Although, I admire Uttam, unfortunately, I do not quite like him as Byomkesh. He is more of a star with his usual mannerisms in this movie...overall a good entertainer if you are not familiar with Saradindu's Byomkesh but otherwise, this is one of the weaker films of Ray as well as of Uttam Kumar.

This movie is a disgrace to Satyajit Ray, my favorite director. Actually I watched this movie, after reading the novel Chiriakhana, by Saradindu Bandyopadhyay, the novel from which the movie was adapted. I couldn't watch the movie beyond one hour. Poor selection of characters, worst screenplay, a steep deviation from the original story, contributed to the failure of the movie. The original story by Bandyopadhyay, was one of the best detective stories ever written in Bengali, even in any Indian language.If Ray wanted to make an ordinary Indian, hero-centered mystery movie, he could have made such a movie. But destroying a splendid story like this is the most intolerable aspect in this movie. Those who had already read the novel, should avoid this movie.

ChiriyaKhana / The Zoo (1967) : Brief Review -

A gripping and interesting Byomkesh Bakshi detective thriller by Satyajit Ray is little hurt by couple of loose ends. ChiriyaKhana was once considered Ray's worst film because of its complex plot and unfaithfulness to its source material, but by the time passed many intellectuals have praised the film. Even now i see many people calling it a weak film but why? I mean it isn't that bad. Especially when you consider a detective thriller in Bengali cinema in 60s, then Chiriyakhana is indeed a pretty much enjoyable flick. I myself would like to add some extra bashing for those couple of loose ends in the writing but that doesn't harm the entire product too much. Byomkesh Bakshi, a detective, is hired by a rich man to investigate the name of an actress appeared in a movie decades ago, who has eloped ever since. The case becomes complicated when the rich man is murdered by someone for that. The case becomes even more interesting and mysterious after the another murder and couple of unfolded events and someone who has seen lots of thriller from World Cinema would easily get the hint of the climax right there. However, the narrative stays intresting throughout the runtime. One of the major reason for that is its characters. So many characters, so many names, so many complexities and their affairs and you have to remember each one of them after just the soft and formal introduction. That is one hell of task for us viewers and if you can complete it then there's nothing complex for you in this film. Uttam Kumar as Bakshi is superb, fantastic, amazing and what, and the supporting cast is extremely good too. Ray's powerful storytelling keeps the film gripping and intense and if it wasn't for those couple of loose ends by the writer then ChiriyaKhana would have been a Classic for me. Nevertheless, it is still a great attempt and very much successful too.

RATING - 7/10*

By - #samthebestest.

Chiriyakhana is based on Sharadindu Bandopadhyay's famous detective novel of the same name. There was many a deviation from the novel just like the case in Ray's some other cinematic adaptations. The biggest one being, in the movie Byomkesh (the sleuth) is bachelor, his 'Watson' Ajit is married. During the movie events Byomkesh is shown to be living in a "mess bari". Ajit stays with him since his wife is out in Ghatsila. Secondly, the murders took place with a 'blunt instrument' (Ray's fascination with blunt instrument was also evident in some of his own detective stories with 'Feluda', namely 'Hatyapuri'). Also, in the movie Byomkesh is shown to wear disguise twice, none so was in the novel. Movie character Byomkesh has a pet baby python, keeps a human skeleton in his room and has no problem drinking scotch in the evening. Book character was fairly lazy to own a pet, too cerebral to actually study anatomy and in spite of being a habitual smoker, never drank. Not that I mind the cinematic deviations, but there should be a strong logic behind each. While I can understand the room being too drag without the skeleton and the snake -- I cannot get the point of Byomkesh being single. May be Ray's ideal sleuth was tall, cerebral and deliciously single as we see later in form of "Feluda".

Uttamkumar is just about average as Byomkesh. There are two weaknesses that would draw a lot of attention today. His mimic of a Japanese horticulturist is too over the top and secondly, his character was needlessly rough with the characters of the farm from very beginning.

Overall, this is one of Ray's average movies. It's surprising that this was awarded the best picture in 1967 in India and Uttam won the "Bharat" (India's then version of Oscar for best actor) award for his role.

Ray's second and last movie with Uttam Kumar. This is a story of Byomkesh Bakshi, which has been adapted at least 25 TV serials and films in different languages. Always a fan of detective novels, so I ignored the technical glitches in this. Also, the adaptation should be taught to the new directors who are making and remaking Byomkesh every year but afraid to change the story a little bit. Oh yes, this movie has many sexy actresses.