A la recherche de la famine

1st watched 12/27/2009 – 8 out of 10(Dir-Mrinal Sen) Fascinating portrayal of a film crew coming into an area to film a movie about a famine 40 years earlier in the same area and disrupting the villages around them. This movie is an obvious documentary but there is so much drama behind the scenes that this becomes a story all to it's own. The crew enters the area with good intentions of portraying the suffering that occurred as a reminder and a historical recreation of the time. At first the villagers welcome this mostly, but they obviously expect more from these new folk around them as they become a separate community in the area with big city needs. They hire locals to work with them to hopefully make up for their disruptions but this eventually backfires. The movie being made loses a main star in the production and they start trying to get local talent to play the part of a prostitute but this creates a lot of controversy in the villages and they start turning against them. This is a one of a kind movie that makes you think about our insistence on being entertained despite the circumstances. The movie community actually starts creating it's own famine in the surrounding areas by absorbing their goods – which is exactly opposite of their intention. The movie portrays the film crew as understanding and willing to make changes based on the locals reactions(unlike what American filmmakers might be like), so they definitely are not the enemy just absorbed in the situation. The movie should be a requirement for film schools but because it's made in a third world country and mostly unknown it probably wont. Watch it, you'll see what I mean!!

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

Just adding what I inferred as the message of the movie (Caveat: I am not an avid film buff and see very few movies in a year. So my interest and exposure to films is limited. This may be considered before the reader takes any of my ratings/comments/reviews seriously. Given this rider, I am open to correction anytime by anyone.)

The film tries to convey the message that there is often thin and blurred line between fiction and reality.

In the movie, the villagers fear that playing the role of a 'fallen woman' would make a woman a 'fallen woman' in the eyes of society (the villagers).

Similarly the film crew is insensitive to the villagers need and does not think it is creating a 'famine' by taking away the village produce for its own extravagant consumption.

Akaler Sandhane (AS2) was released nearly a decade after Satyajit Ray's Ashani Sanket (AS1) . There are a number of clues to help the viewer connect the two films, and read its message hidden between the lines; but for that, it is necessary to re-watch AS1 after AS2.

Early in AS2, a character says that the bamboo groves remind him of Pather Panchali. For any cinephile, it's fleeting invitation to recall Ray's work, specifically AS1, the only other significant film on the Bengal Famine of '43. Later, Dhritiman's character is annoyed that an actor has shaped her eyebrows, and admonishes her for being insincere. In another scene, a young woman, fan-girling over the "real" Soumitra Chatterjee, asks the "director" why the the great actor wasn't part of his project.

It is worth noting that by the time Soumitra Chatterjee took part in AS1, he was already a mega star, having taken part in over 40 popular films. Mrinal Sen must have watched Soumitra Chatterjee's stellar presence, and Babita's immaculately shaped eyebrows in a closeup of the harrowing climax in AS1, and mused how easily the veneer of the "real" breaks and exposes the "make-believe" underneath.

In fact Sen constantly plays with this idea of "real" and "make believe" with wit and satire. Smita Patil's character breaks down convincingly in front of the camera, but the audience is aware it is make-believe, because they see the camera and hear the director's running instructions on how to feel. In contrast, Durga's the emotions are real and present. Smita Patil snaps out of her character in the very next scene, but Durga can't. The viewer also becomes aware of the Sen casting choice for Durga, who genuinely looks rural and of low-caste, relative to Ray's casting of Chhutki, who glaringly does neither.

It may be a stretch to see Dhritiman's character, the high-intellect, charming, urbane, privileged "director" to be modelled after Ray. He is an outsider in a real village, with his imported classicist and humanist morality, searching for something that is staring right in the face.

I love Ray's work; his art, literature, music, and of course films, and until now, never got into Mrinal Sen's films. But with AS2, i'm beginning to appreciate Mrinal Sen's iconoclastic, provocative rebellious art. How fascinating!