Kenji, I am an ardent Ray enthusiast. His films are neither celebrated nor common even in India except for film schools, cinephiles or Bengalis, the reasons – one, language barrier and two, his method of working in parallel to the escapist bollywood fare is shunned by anyone except the elite. As for his absence in the Top10 lists or theauteurs, it could be lack of solid distributor for his films, unlike Bergman, Ozu, Bresson, Fellini who are widely seen, thanks to criterion.
Ray’s craft was utterly simplistic devoid of any wizardry and he kept shifting gears and genres so often that it is indeed hard to attribute his films to a unique style. The influence of De Sica’s Bicycle Thieves and his chance meeting with Renoir while shooting for The River in India, is evident in his examination of human condition in his early movies. Post Charulatha and into the late 60’s his interest shifted towards making more contemporary fare as in the Calcutta Trilogy and Aranyer Din Ratri. Also did you know that besides writing, directing, cinematography, composing music, designing (storyboards, art, costumes) his films he was a giant in bengal literature and a painter.
For me, before I saw any of his works, he was just a bunch of news – an icon in Indian cinema, first Indian to receive the Academy Honorary Award in 1992 but 10 years later and only when I saw Apu Trilogy without hitting a single pause for 5 hours, I knew Satyajit Ray and his magic of making movies, I continued to dip and dig into his work and the more I saw, more I fell in love.
ha… this thing went on and on…I don’t even know if I wrote anything in line with the purpose of the thread….
Yes the lack of unique style, his self-effacing undemonstrative maturity has surely counted against him- which is why i also mentioned Renoir. No i didn’t know he was a literary giant; he was certainly an incredible all-rounder, in the making of his films and beyond. Another major reason why he deserves more attention and respect. Have you seen The Adventures of Goopy and Bagha? A fun film for kids and the family, and a hit, with some unexpected playful little pleasures to suit magical fantasy? Bengal has a rich cultural tradition, important to Ray, along with his knowledge of Western and other cultures; Ritwik Ghatak another fine director, the Nobel winning writer Tagore, and i like the 2 books i’ve read by Amitabh Ghosh. Nowadays in Britain we have Tracey Emin’s bed as an artistic icon- she’s probably better known than Titian; novelty is valued for itself, publicity and self-promotion count, not just in films, rather than true mastery of a craft.
style is just a red herring. its deeper than that.
ray isn’t counted among the greats, or even celebrated and studied widely, because he comes from the “third world”. he represents “third cinemas” (not hollywood, and not european art film). he’s non-white, which means not quite mainstream, in the context of traditional hegemonic power and patriarchy. which means, not quite as important. the “other”. same reason ousmane sembene isnt celebrated or widely-known, or cinema novo and great south american directors, or the great history of yugoslav cinema. iranian cinema is getting its due, but just as a blip on the radar. asian cinema is the exception that proves the rule.
that being said, i’ve never seen a single work by ray. i’ve been reading about him for years, but just never quite caught up with his work. yet. i will one day.
I have to believe his relative obscurity is simply a lack of exposure. There hasn’t been a quality print released of any of his films to my knowledge. Retrospectives of his work are quite rare.
The frustration is compounded by the fact that a restoration of the COMPLETE catalog was finished recently by U Cal – Santa Cruz but they have no distribution rights. Sony has the rights and they are much more concerned about “product” like “Paul Blart: Mall Cop”.
As an observer of social realities and change he has a lot in common with Ozu and also has a subtle, refined style.
The neglect is mystifying. The culprit is Sony.
Well, Bobby i’m sure you’re right there’s at least an element of “third world” supposed inferiority. Truffaut was dismissive when Pather Panchali made a mark at Cannes (where to be fair to other judges it did win) saying something like films about poor Indian peasants weren’t his thing, and Indian cinema as a whole is neglected- the baby thrown out with the bathwater of despised kitschy musicals. And yes, i only wish there was more coverage of various, mainly poorer countries. I did ask Sight and Sound to include a higher percentage of “third world” voters in their last poll, but it was still dominated by Brits, Americans (especially the directors’ poll) and the rich countries of the West. So that keeps the whole system of Western superiority going.
exactly. unless the diversity of the people in the power structures changes, these are the types of results you get.
For those who live in New York, the Film Society of Lincoln Center is starting a big retrospective on Ray this Wednesday!
Americans have undue adulation toward European cinema, especially french cinema, and so that is what distributors give them.
exactly guys which means, criterion needs to get into the act like it did for so many other talents…. also netflix has most of his late gems except for the Apu Trilogy
I think it’s mostly distribution. I just saw Pather Panchali, and the print was awful. It’s a 55 year old film, but it looks over 70 years old. Thanks to wide distribution Ozu became an enormous director in the seventies, as did Mizoguchi (at least in France in the fifties), and Kurosawa became the most widely known Japanese director ever. I would guess in the next five to ten years Hiroshi Shimizu’s profile is going to rise in the west because of Criterion. I would also guess if it hadn’t been for Facets Bela Tarr would not be as big of a director (indeed Miklos Jansco is another great Hungarian director, but because his films are not that widely available he’s barley even spoken of). I think if Ray had a large number of his films available in good quality prints his profile would be much higher.
Col. Dax, what is your opinion on Pather Panchali – would love to hear you go at it…
Daniel, seeing a wonderful program like that at the Film Society (or BAM’s current Oshima retrospective), only makes me wish I never left New York in the first place, and that I was moving back sooner than late-May.
And as for Satyajit Ray himself, I think we’ll be seeing a lot more of his films being released properly in the next ten years, as soon as everything with the UCSC prints and distribution rights are cleared up. Really, if those lucky enough to be living in NYC can walk into the Lincoln Center and watch twenty of his films over the course of a couple weeks in April, things are looking good for the man, and cinema as a whole.
There have been a few more on dvd by Ray in the UK recently, and i’ve watched a couple on Youtube which isn’t ideal. I agree Shimizu’s profile will surely rise in the West (not that it’s seemed very high elsewhere)
It was perfect. There wasn’t a moment in the film I felt wasn’t completely relateable. Their neighborhood could be in India, or it could be down the street from my house. Ray captures the essence of life… the triumphs, and failures, and how they commingle. I loved everything about it. That scene where the father comes back and fins out about his daughter is as tragic, and moving a scene as any I’ve seen. A perfect ending, too. This wonderful feeling of completion washed over me, not that they’re lives are done, but that this part of their life, the part I was a witness to, is done, and they’re moving on.
These films about just trying to make enough money to feed, clothe, and shelter your family seem so relevant at this point in history.
I there much great critical writing about Ray’s work? I always think that good criticism always works strongly in favor of getting a director’s work seen widely.
I think the biggest problem is the lack of a distributor. He is one of the world’s great filmmakers, and anyone with an interest in film knows that. Rumours are that criterion is trying to get his work, but because such an important filmmaker is still not getting his due leads me to believe that there is some loophole in the copyrights which is making his work extremely difficult to see, at least in the US. Theres a pretty good DVD boxset of the apu trilogy, but it’s from the UK.
Hopefully the Ray FASC efforts pay off in terms of good quality restorations and enough quality prints for his work to be widely seen in the US, and then from there good DVD releases.
Sadly it is a cycle: his films have no DVDs so people don’t see it so they can’t talk about it so DVD companies don’t release his films because no one talks about him.
I am embarrassed to say I have only seen Pather Panchali. It blew me away but I have not seen any more because I can’t find them. One day soon hopefully I will buy foreign DVDs of his films online, or maybe Criterion could just get going.
A difficult question to answer, so here is a rather long explanation. It has always been difficult to get any decent copies of his films in North America. The first film of his I saw, was in a vhs copy that was unwatchable – subtitles were white against a whitish background and print quality was terrible. In the last few months, I finally saw Pather Panchali on a rather poor, but watchable dvd, for the first time. Obviously, the version I was watching had NOT gone through a restoration process. I have not had the opportunity yet to explore his other works, which are hard for me to get. He needs to be treated as an iconic filmmaker, worthy of careful restoration, as Criterion, and other good film distributors have done for others. Until his work is more widely available in decent copies, it will fall on neglect for film viewers.
I think it has less to due with critical ignorance, though – at least not in Ray’s case, as he is certainly recognized as one of the greats – as with simple supply and demand. Ray fits well within any auteur-based theory of film authorship, and has wide critical recognition, so that isn’t the problem. His early films are more neo-Realist than existential. This contrasts him with such European filmmakers as Bergman, Antonioni, or Resnais – but makes him a brother-in-arms with Rosselini or early de Sica. If his films are not as widely analyzed as Bergman, Antonioni, or Resnais, for example, it is because his style is so austere that it does not require the same rigourous analysis. This doesn’t make it any less worthwhile. The works of the neo-Realists rise or fall on their own – they don’t require the type of ‘explanation’ or exegesis we would apply to the more existential directors mentioned.
As regards Pather Panchali: It is a wondeful film in every respect and is now one of my favourites of all-time. It has a gentle, lyrical quality that never seems forced or rushed. The leisurely, austere pace of the film, and the way Ray and his cinematographer capture nature and the village, are very mediative – like the best Ozu. I loved how Ray would have the camera pan to the wind in the trees, the wind whistling through the tall grass when the two children run to see the train, the snake seen slithering beneath the porch of Apu’s house, the spider crawling out of the bowl containing the stolen necklace – all to create a mystical feel for nature and surroundings. The two children are wonderful and, of course, the aged auntie steals every scene she is in. The death of Durga is captured without melodrama, but as an unfortunate occurence of nature, coming at the climax of the storm, as the wind whips through the fragile hut. The aftermath of this event are captured with great compassion, and not a hint of sentimentality. Ray demonstrates throughout a subtle eye for detail and he knows how to build his story on small events – to capture a larger, human truth.
The father’s struggle to earn a meagre living for his family, as his own hopes are dashed one by one; his wife’s attempt to keep everyone fed without begging, as her pride is too great; the children’s own wonderment at the ice cream vendor, circus, or train are stories with a universal appeal. The truth in every scene resonates and demonstrates the great care and attention Ray has focused on telling his story honestly, without embellishment of any kind. This is a rare accomplishment for any filmmaker of any period. A great film, which now makes me want to see more of this brilliant, and yes, still under-appreciated artist.
Great to have such positive responses. I especially love Pather Panchali, Bob has just said it very well, the scenes of water and lilies are precious too, and i was struck last time by the editing- as i was also surprisingly with L’Avventura. Not fancy montage of course, and very different styles, but both seemed to get timings and rhythms just right, how long to hold the image, when to cut, or at least that’s how it felt (my 3rd time round for each, it was). I suppose there’s something of a “just right” understated rhythm with Ozu.
Col. Dax and Bob, glad you loved it and great inputs..
While in college, I used a projector in a smart classroom (which we used to support) to screen Pather Panchali to a few of my colleagues and only 2 sat till the end. My boss found out about it and grilled me in exchange I slipped him a copy but he never ended up watching it.
I have been a big endorser of the movie and Ray’s work in my own little way so much that I used to lend my copies to people so they can experience art and more often than not those copies never returned or even if they did were in bad condition.
i disagree that an austere style doesnt require a rigoruous analysis. why? style isnt a matter of quantity. its quality.
besides, you’ve just proven that you can spend a long time just analyzing ray’s use of nature in the film, before anything else.
definitely good news about the lincoln center screenings. that will go a long way in igniting new critical attention for ray.
Bobby: I knew you would get me for that – precisely why I put it in. I was thinking that Ray is not a filmmaker, by the very nature of his style – which is quite straight-forward – who inspires that whole body of critics who like to analyze and dig out every symbol, metaphor, philosophical issue, enigma, etc, etc. in the European filmmakers of the ’50’s and ’60’s who inspire so much critical content. Bergman, Antonioni, Fellini, Godard, Resnais – all worked in a very enigmatic style that just needed analysis to figure out what the hell was going on – in the mind of many viewers, anyway. You don’t need this type of analysis for Bicycle Thieves or Umberto D. because the films are not steeped in this type of philosophical/allegorical narrative structure.
You can certainly describe or talk about them, or other films in the same context, but they don’t have that need for exposition that these more densely layered, enigmatic works seem to require. Just a casual observation why the films of Ray may not be as sexy for certain types of critics, who like to establish a reputation based on what they have ‘figured out’ re those ultra-complex European stylists. Pather Panchali is not Persona, 8 1/2, Last Year at Marienbad, Breathless, or L’avventura – films that can be analyzed endlessly as to what they mean. Perhaps a more straight-forward, naturalistic film treatment and story doesn’t get the same level of critical attention for that very reason. I am not saying this is right or wrong, but just the nature of the way criticism seems to work. Just trying to address Kenji’s original question why Ray is not as tauted, in some critical circles, as the European filmmakers he mentions.
Honestly, I have never even heard of him until his name was mentioned in these forums. Yet another director who could use some shine from Criterion
It is indeed sad that Satyajit Ray is ignored by Criterion. I had written several times to Criterion regarding this over the last five years and they keep saying ‘we don’t have the rights’, ‘no plans at the moment to release Ray’, ‘keep an eye on new releases’ etc. Always cold.
Yet Kurosawa wrote to Ray’s biographer, Andrew Robinson ’ Not to have seen his films is like living without seeing the sun or the moon.’
Arthur C. Clarke said, ‘For Kubrick he was number one.’
Bergman ‘was extremely eager to know more about Mr. Ray and his working methods’ when a journalist from Delhi went to interview him.
Henri Cartier Bresson said that ‘he is undoubtedly a giant in the film world’.
Martin Scorsese said ‘the four greats are Kurosawa, Ray, Bergman and Fellini’.
We can only hope that Criterion would be more articulate about the matter.
The Andrew Robinson book is superb. I rate Ray higher than the other 3- the usual suspects- mentioned by Scorsese
I’m a proud Bengali and a die-hard Ray fan. But, I think Ray is not a household name in the western world not just because he’s from the “third world”. I like to believe the cultural differences make Ray’s movies little less accessible to the western audience. It’s much easier for a westerner to appreciate Ingmar Bergman or Lars Von Trier, not just because those movies are widely available, but also because it’s much easier relate to the characters and the stories. On the other hand, wouldn’t you say Pather Pachanli is slightly more demanding of the audience?
Besides, the Bengalis have gone though quite a bit of cultural transformation during the 70s and the 80s. I must admit, as a child of the 70s, it was difficult for me to understand the motives and the values of some characters in Pather Panchali. If it was bit demanding for me, a Bengali, I can only assume it would be less accessible to ‘first world’ person.
On a different note…as great a director as he was, Ray was probably an even better writer. I grew up on his thrillers and fantasies. Also, I’m surprised no one mentioned how great an illustrator and graphic designer he was. He illustrated almost all his books. the books were worth buying just for his illustration alone.
Another quick note about Pather Panchali..the original book is an epic masterpiece of Bengali writing. Reading the book first made me appreciate the movie even more. Mostly because the book appears to be very difficult to ‘translate’.
Ray’s all-round talents were extraordinary. Unfortunately we live in a world which values celebrity and shallow values (and possibly narrow specialisms not cultural range?) more highly, and in which of all the directors at Cannes of course Quentin Tarantino is on the cover of the latest Sight and Sound.
Kenji
I’m at a loss over the neglect of Satyajit Ray on this site, on Criterion, his relatively low standing in the US (where it seems Kurosawa, Bergman and Fellini are still the kings of world cinema) and poor showing in the recent auteurs poll. Now surely he’s one of the world’s major film-makers, a long, distinguished and pretty consistent career, with many superb films beyond the rightly famous Apu trilogy; e.g Charulata, The Music Room, Days and Nights in the Forest, The Postmaster (the only part i’ve seen of Teen Kanya, but a little gem). Now i wonder if he’s out of fashion and if this may be due to auteur theory and Ray perhaps not having such a defined eye-catching style; of course he’s considered more the thoughtful lyrical humanist, a fine craftsman more than dynamic innovator. Even Jean Renoir, whose The River was an influence and inspiration for Ray, fares less well here than i would have expected (even if Rules of the Game placed very high in the poll).
I’d be interested in opinions of him, as well as American taste: does this differ greatly from elsewhere- i doubt Ray fares much better in many other countries, we live in a world of celebrity culture and the urge for instant fame- does it influence more than it’s influenced, not just through Hollywood product and mainstream internet sites but also in better informed sites like auteurs? Also whether auteurism is pushing into the shadows some deserving directors with less brash but more gentle, subtle qualities. Ozu is a quiet subtle observer of course but his style is instantly recognisable and unique, as is Bresson’s.