Not for Commercial use

SOUTH ASIA RESEARCH www.sagepublications.com DOI: 10.1177/0262728015615477 Vol. 36(1): 24–40 Copyright © 2016 SAGE Publications Los Angeles, London,...
Author: Lynne Chase
2 downloads 2 Views 934KB Size
SOUTH ASIA RESEARCH

www.sagepublications.com DOI: 10.1177/0262728015615477 Vol. 36(1): 24–40

Copyright © 2016 SAGE Publications Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, Singapore and Washington DC

INTERTEXTUALITY OF FILM REMAKES OF DEVDAS: ROMANTICISM FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF INDIAN AESTHETICS C.S.H.N. Murthy and O.B. Meitei

se

Tezpur University, Assam, India and Manipal University, Jaipur, India

N

ot

fo

rC om

m

er ci

al u

abstract  The screen adaptation of the novella Devdas by Saratchandra Chattopadhyay is an important landmark in early Indian cinema. A prominent film, screened in four Indian languages (Bengali, Hindi, Telugu and Tamil), it seems to offer a novel vision of romantic love and romanticism. This article critiques the fanciful interpretations of the film provided by some postmodern academics in the field of comparative literature. It endeavours to place the film both as text and cinematic work into a broader perspective based on the study of intertextuality of three renditions: Raghavaiah’s Devdas (Telugu, 1953), Bimal Roy’s Devdas (Hindi, 1955) and Bhansali’s Devdas (Hindi, 2002). Grounded in cultural theory and Indian performative aesthetics coupled with moving image analysis, this study highlights the underlying, deep-rooted romanticism embedded in Indian philosophical and aesthetic traditions of devotion between atma (individual soul) and paramatma (absolute soul), personifying Paro/Chandramukhi as atma and Devdas as paramatma. This article, part of a larger project on de-Westernising media studies, makes a critical intervention in current South Asian Studies by aiming to provide a novel theoretical framework to which the philosophical and traditional tenets grounding the novella of Devdas can be anchored. keywords:  atma–paramatma relationship, bhakti–karma yoga, cultural theory, Devdas, film studies, India, intertextuality, metaphors, performative and aesthetic theory

Introduction The study of Indian films in the backdrop of a national context has recently become an attractive domain of research for postmodern and post-colonial film studies’ scholars (Chakravarty, 1996; Prasad, 1998; Rajadhyaksha, 1993, 2003). Films can indeed tell us much about a country and its people (Dwyer, 2014). Nonetheless,

Murthy and Meitei: Intertextuality of Film Remakes of Devdas 25

N

ot

fo

rC om

m

er ci

al u

se

the current scope for excesses of subjectivity on the part of academic interpreters must be kept in mind and is becoming an issue in South Asian Studies today that requires some debate. Marxist critical approaches used by some scholars (Arora, 1995; Creekmur, 2001; Rangan, 2007) tend to apply either post-colonial thought (Arora, 1995) or post-critical theory (Prasad, 1998; Rajadhyaksha, 1993) to Indian cinema. These theorists start from the premise that a film is a text, a concept introduced by Barthes (1994) and Kristeva (1985). Consequently, Indian films produced from the silent era to the post-talkie era (1912–80), those in the modernist and foundationist traditions alike (Smith, 2001), have received some highly distorted readings (Murthy, 2012; Murthy et al., 2015). Crucially, some authors have failed to take into account the philosophical and spiritual conditions that prevailed during the time the films under study were produced. Among other films, one that is recurrently subjected to such ‘Bollywoodised’ discourse, as we shall call it here, is Devdas. Apart from many other versions, the major screen adaptations of the novel Devdas by Saratchandra Chattopadhyay (2002 [1917]) in four major Indian languages (Bengali, Hindi, Telugu and Tamil) have given the film extensive national and international coverage. The central character, Devdas, has turned into a subcontinental hero no longer bound within a regional rhetoric such as the one attributed to ‘babus’, a nickname for young Bengali men (see Arora, 1995). The film has moved away from its regional Bengali contours towards a pan-Indian stature, attracting a nationalist and in fact international discourse, which leads, we argue, to problems of cross-cultural communication. While Rajadhyaksha and Willemen (1994) refer to Devdas as a ‘mythological reference point’, Rangan (2007: 284) invokes the ‘theory of vernacular modernism’, adopted by Hansen (2000), to situate Devdas within a framework of ‘vernacular postmodernism’. Rangan (2007: 284) also borrowed some tenets of Foucault’s (1995) ‘panopticon’ to explain the lavish sets (glass houses) depicting the palatial houses of Devdas and Paro in Bhansali’s 2002 film Devdas. We take Arora (1995) as an example of how misinterpretations (placed in bold) and misinformation (placed in italics) regarding Devdas have been put into circulation. Arora (1995: 253) describes the character of Devdas as sexually impotent, narcissistic and sado-masochistic and also confused the name of the author of the short novel, attributing it to Saratchandra Chatterjee. In line with Western scholarship, Arora (1995) interpreted Devdas, Paro and Chandramukhi from the theoretical perspectives of Fanon (1967), a post-colonial theorist, and analysed these three important characters as colonised citizens. Dwelling on Hegel’s (1952) dialectic of control in the master/ slave relationship and extending Benjamin’s (1984, 1985) famous psychoanalytic argument on sado-masochistic evidence, she attributed the refusal of Devdas to enter into a sexual relationship with either Paro or Chandramukhi to colonial narcissism, while dismissing conventional contentions of difference between the East and the West. The description of Devdas being ‘anglicised’ after his education in Calcutta, and his becoming distraught after the separation from his mother (Arora, 1995: 256) constitute further distortions and fallacies. Arora (1995: 255) did make certain South Asia Research  Vol. 36(1): 24–40

26

South Asia Research  Vol. 36(1): 24–40

er ci

al u

se

disclaimers with regard to her study of films on Devdas in terms of interpreting the persona of Devdas and acknowledges, for instance, the lack of a comparative methodology between the East and the West. This type of widespread error can be traced easily. First, ‘Bollywoodised’ academia (see Rajadhyaksha, 2003, for a full description of this term) overall possesses very poor knowledge of ancient Indian epics, philosophy, Sanskrit literature, prosody, semiotics and fine arts. Second, studies, such as the above-mentioned, rely excessively on ‘Bollywood’ cinema as a signifier of pan-Indian cinema (as put by Prasad, 1998; Rajadhyaksha & Willemen, 1994), sparking recent calls to curtail such interpretation (Dwyer & Pinto, 2011; Murthy et al., 2015). Third, these authors, and others like them, interpret Indian films and texts only in line with Western theories. The fact that Devdas consummated the relationship with neither Paro nor Chandramukhi but rather descended into alcoholism has formed the crux of scholars’ attacks on the native constructs formed around Indian men and women based on a nationalistic discourse of ethics and values, which in turn are drawn from Indian epic traditions (Rajadhyaksha, 1993). Among others, Virdi’s (2003) rhetorical discourse on the ‘idealised woman’ and ‘heroes and villains’ supports such contentions.

De-Westernising Film/Media Studies

N

ot

fo

rC om

m

To date, no serious comparative or cross-cultural study of film adaptations/remakes (in terms of fidelity to text and fidelity free from text) between Hindi and other regional cinema against the backdrop of modernist or foundationist traditions has been attempted (Murthy, 2013). This is true in particular with regard to Telugu cinema, a legitimate twin of Hindi commercial cinema since 1931. The present study aims to fill this gap and attempts to place some points into proper perspective both philosophically and contextually in view of the numerous misinterpretations introduced into the content of the film/novella Devdas. Against this backdrop, our study deems the following questions pertinent to address: 1. Should particular criteria apply when a Western theory is used to interpret a film/text such as Devdas, which is from a traditional and religious background? 2. Should such distortions in the content and interpretation of characters go unchallenged in respect of a traditional film/text such as Devdas? These questions have spurred Asian/Indian scholars to offer alternative models of Asian communication to the Indian film and novel. Dissanayake (2006: 18) writes that ‘if communication is to become a more meaningful mode of inquiry in Asia, and indeed in the rest of the world, it has to connect with indigenous intellectual roots, situated knowledges and local modes of thinking’. Following Dissanayake, the present study is concerned with the issue of Westernising and de-Westernising

Murthy and Meitei: Intertextuality of Film Remakes of Devdas 27

m

er ci

al u

se

of Indian film/media studies. It tries to provide a novel theoretical framework upon which to anchor the philosophical and traditional tenets undergirding the novella of Devdas. Our analysis begins with a brief introduction of the storyline, followed by how Bollywoodised academia misinterpreted and even introduced distortions into the story of Devdas, using adaptations freed from their fidelity to the original. In this section, we present the factual features of the original text of Devdas. We proceed based on the study of intertextuality of three film renditions, Raghavaiah’s Devdas (Telugu, 1953), Bimal Roy’s Devdas (Hindi, 1955) and Bhansali’s Devdas (Hindi, 2002) to explain the philosophical and spiritual elements embedded in the structure of the Devdas text narrative. We illustrate how the love between Devdas, Paro and Chandramukhi is akin to the atma–paramatma relationship between a devotee and God as described in the Upanishads and the Bhagavadgita. Further, we cite evidence from the compositions of frames and songs that fit into the original philosophical conceptions of the Devdas text. The study concludes with the position that Western-based interpretations such as those cited here do not suit a traditional text like Devdas, and that it is incumbent upon scholars to evaluate carefully the relevance of such theories for classical Indian texts. Our conclusions, we believe, have wider implications for South Asian Studies, its historical depth and its intellectual ownership.

rC om

The Storyline

N

ot

fo

Devdas and Paro, both from Brahmin families, are close childhood friends as well as neighbours. Devdas is a spoilt, mischievous, moody boy who shows little interest in studying at the local village school. He played tricks on his teacher and classmates while Paro, a soft but headstrong girl, enjoyed his pranks. These juvenile inclinations continued through adulthood; quick to anger each other, they would soon after make peace. Increasing complaints at school against Devdas lead his father, Narayana Mukherjee, to send him to Calcutta to continue his education. Returning for vacations, Devdas would rush to Paro’s home. As time goes on, Paro’s grandmother thinks of arranging their marriage. However, this idea is rejected by Kaushalya, the mother of Devdas, citing the vast disparity in the economic status between their families. Responding to this familial insult, Paro’s father, Nilkant Chakraborty, arranges a match between Paro and a wealthy widower. When Paro learns of this plan, she secretly meets Devdas, hoping that he will propose marriage despite his family’s opposition. Instead, Devdas meekly approaches his parents, who again refuse to accede to the match. In a state of helplessness, Devdas flees to Calcutta from where he writes to Paro, stating that he never thought of crystallising his love for her into marriage. Immediately upon posting the letter, Devdas realises his mistake. He rushes back to the village and attempts to convince Paro of his fidelity, but by then Paro’s marriage plans have moved

South Asia Research  Vol. 36(1): 24–40

28

South Asia Research  Vol. 36(1): 24–40

rC om

m

er ci

al u

se

to an advanced stage. She declines Devdas’s offer and chides him for his cowardice and vacillation. Her marriage to the rich, much older zamindar goes ahead. Utterly dejected, Devdas, in a reflection of childhood temperament, strikes Paro on the forehead with his hand-stick, causing a bleeding injury. This mark becomes a semiotic sindhur, the vermilion that married Indian women carry on their foreheads, which remains as such even after her marriage. Back in Calcutta, Chunni Babu, the friend of Devdas, introduces him to a courtesan, Chandramukhi. She does not appeal to Devdas, who believes that prostitutes have no values. Devdas begins to drink and brood over his days with Paro. Meanwhile, his father dies, his widowed mother leaves for Varanasi to spend her remaining days at this holy place and his brother divides the family property equally between the two, telling Devdas curtly not to squander his share of money. Chandramukhi, in the interim, falls in love with Devdas, despite his rejection of her. Giving up her courtesan life, she moves to a neighbouring village in an attempt to live in an upright fashion. News that Devdas suffers poor health brings her back to Calcutta. There, in order to locate him and get him good treatment, she sells her bangles. After a thorough search at last she locates him on a street in the dead of night and brings him to her rented house to look after him. Devdas is spiralling downwards, thanks to drink and despair. Moreover, he is confused about whom he truly loves, and how these feelings fly in the face of his familial values. Sensing his fast-approaching death, Devdas returns to Paro, wishing to fulfil a vow that he would return to her once before he dies. He dies on her doorstep. Paro runs towards the door, but is prevented by family members from opening it and approaching the dead Devdas.

fo

Review of Literature

N

ot

In view of the salience of the subject highlighted in the introduction, we restrict our review of literature here to classic examples of misinterpretation, distortion and contradiction found in the literature on the films on Devdas. Mishra (2006: 18) argues that Parsi theatre has profoundly influenced today’s Bollywood in terms of structure of narrative, representation, songs and dialogues. The films on Devdas, produced and directed by Barua (1936), Bimal Roy (1955) and also Bhansali (2002), are offered as quintessential instances of such influence. Other authors claim that Devdas opened a new area for directors in the 1940s. Gokulsing and Dissanayake (2004: 16) wrote that ‘the landmark Devdas (1935) sought to explore the self-defeating nature of social conventionalism in romanticism’. Rangan (2007) compares P.C. Barua’s Devdas (1936) and Bhansali’s remake of Devdas (2002), relating the study to the definition of ‘modernity’, meaning ‘advanced civilisation’. This contends that Barua’s Devdas (1936) is frequently analysed as one of the first cinematic texts to formulate an ‘Indian modernity’, and Bhansali’s Devdas is a text that showed the first-ever aesthetic rendering of Indian ‘modernity’. Here, aesthetics does not

Murthy and Meitei: Intertextuality of Film Remakes of Devdas 29

N

ot

fo

rC om

m

er ci

al u

se

refer to the philosophical principles embedded in the novella/film Devdas. Instead, aesthetics, according to Rangan (2007), refers to costly sets, architecture, costumes, lighting and electronic gadgets that are usually subjects of postmodernism. To prove her point, Rangan (2007) reduces the Indian film culture prior to the Bhansali Devdas to a nascent, fluctuating and marginal one, while lauding the latter as an attempt to develop a new film medium that accords with the current Indian conditions, stylistic forms and tastes. Rangan (2007: 278) dismisses earlier works on the subject, without referring to anyone in particular, attributing the phenomenal number of remakes and adaptations of Devdas to the ‘timeless’ relevance of the archetypal tropes. Creekmur (2001) compares three films of Devdas made by three different directors, P.C. Barua, Bimal Roy and Sanjay Bhansali, at apparently different times, and describes Devdas as a ‘modern’ product that challenged, at least, the idea of the tradition of ‘arranged marriage’ in India. This was shown, indeed, in a long sequence in Bhansali’s film with full-length English dialogues between Devdas and his father. The original novella, however, has in this scene only a typically brief conversation (Chattopadhyay (2002 [1917]: 38), where the father says to Devdas ‘You will never give me a moment’s peace till the day I die. So, I should not be surprised to hear you talk like this’, while Devdas sat there, silent and sheepish. Creekmur (2001) also writes that Devdas has a lot of interest in visiting brothels in Calcutta, calling it a ‘bohemenian attraction to the nether-world of brothels’. He clearly misunderstood the dialogues of Devdas with Chandramukhi at her house. Regarding Devdas’ hatred of prostitutes, Chattopadhyay (2002 [1917]: 57) clearly wrote that he hated prostitutes because they take money. Arora (1995: 257) writes that Paro had, despite her marriage, approached Devdas for reunion, but Devdas rejected her outright for a second time. This is in total contradiction to the text of the original novel (Chattopadhyay, 2002 [1917]: 80), where it is in fact Devdas who asks Paro/Parvathi: ‘Really can you run away with me tonight?’, as they spoke at her initiative following the sudden demise of his father. Further, Arora (1995: 257) avers that Chandramukhi returned to prostitution in the name of altruism, to help Devdas financially. In the novel (Chattopadhyay, 2002 [1917]: 114), however, it is crystal clear that Chandramukhi sold her jewellery and bangles to pay for his medical treatment. Roy (2012) proposes that Bhansali used Devdas as a metaphor to indulge in auteuristic sensibilities for a grandiose mise-enscene, a big and bold telling whose conflicts are identifiable and believable enough, to involve his audience. In Roy’s view, the filmmaker accomplished this by retaining the essence of the characters, while refashioning the novel’s period-specific narrative twists to relatable contemporary familial conflicts (Roy, 2012: 37). Further, Roy attempts to interpret Bhansali’s Devdas using the theoretical frameworks of Bazin (2000) and Stam (2000), and moves on to portray the film as one filled with navarasas of Indian aesthetics, the nine ‘juices’ of Indian literature generally applied to any text including film text. However, in terms of fidelity to the novella Devdas, Stam (2000: 35) opines that Bhansali’s Devdas has become an aesthetic spectacle by freeing itself from fidelity to South Asia Research  Vol. 36(1): 24–40

30

South Asia Research  Vol. 36(1): 24–40

the original text. Quoting the ‘fidelity free, creative mistranslation’ of Stam (2000: 61–62), Roy (2012: 37) argues that: It is in Bhansali’s imaginative, it was achieved through new conflicts of dramatic poignancy told to allegoric songs and acted to the rasa effecting theatre techniques enabled by cinema’s far greater resources for creative articulation than the novel that the film, Devdas, establishes and perpetuates a metaphor of ‘doomed love’.

N

ot

fo

rC om

m

er ci

al u

se

A closer scrutiny of Bazin (2000: 24) reveals that Roy has selectively quoted him out of context. In fact, Bazin suggested to filmmakers a visual imagination to create the cinematic equivalent of the original. Even with regard to Stam (2000), we observe that adaptation studies have since moved far ahead, as is also indicated by Leitch (2008: 68), an exponent in film adaptation studies. In contrast to the above, Western-oriented assessments, Deshpande (2002), who has written a full-length review on Bhansali’s Devdas in Frontline, a popular magazine, has observed that ‘one would never see the village in the entire film; instead one would stumble upon a totally false, fabricated landscape of endless opulence’. Deshpande’s critique counters the lavish praise, couched in magnanimous terms of postmodernism, bestowed upon Bhansali’s Devdas (2002) by Arora (1995), Creekmur (2001), Rangan (2007) and Roy (2012). Deshpande (2002) further states that this grand opulence is also irrelevant in that the actual story demands precisely the opposite setting. He questions the auteur sensibility of Bhansali in trying to portray Devdas as an anglicised London-returned educated elite person, who confronts his father in English far longer than in Bimal Roy’s or P.C. Barua’s versions of Devdas, yet does not marry Paro, and above all attends her marriage only to bless her, a direct indictment of Roy’s commentary on Bhasali’s Devdas. Ahamed (2002), in his critical analysis of Bhansali’s Devdas, questions ‘how a film that unabashedly utilizes every Hindi movie cliché, makes criminal use of colour and fronts itself with a star cast that looks as if it just walked off a modelling ramp, expects to be taken seriously’. Paradoxically, he notes in the same breath that the film will be considered a classic in the next two decades and is a perfect tribute to the earlier Devdas classics. What a fast volte-face! Hence, it seems clear that there is both agreement and disagreement in the scholarly domain as to the narrative of Devdas in terms of intertextuality, involving text to film and film to film. While the aforementioned authors agree on assessing Bhansali’s Devdas as postmodern as well as post-colonial, Roy (2012) conflates his work on Bhansali’s Devdas with traditional and modernist perspectives of the Natyashastra, a classical dance treatise of prehistoric and historic times. This move seems to counter the existing literature, in addition to being self-contradictory. Further, Mishra (2006) writes of Parsi court traditions dominating the dance scenes in Indian films based on Devdas, be it Barua’s, Roy’s or Bhansali’s works. Had the above authors been aware of the devadasi dance traditions in royal temples and courts prior

Murthy and Meitei: Intertextuality of Film Remakes of Devdas 31

m

er ci

al u

se

to the fifteenth century, as we explain later in this article, the glaring misinterpolation of Parsi theatre traditions on Indian classics might never have been offered. Even Virdi (2003: 31) holds ‘that Parsi and Urdu theatrical traditions, with an emphasis on song and dance, and disregard for unity of time and space, have influenced Hindi film’s visual aesthetic, narrative form and audio styles’. Of course they have, but not in every film and in every context. From the foregoing, we see that these authors were unaware of or disregarded Indian philosophical traditions rooted in the concepts of the romance of atma (the soul) and paramatma (the absolute soul). Irrespective of bodily union, these are meant to achieve a type of union called atma–paramatma, which according to Indian seers leads to endless bliss. Recently, Murthy et al. (2015: 46) have shown that the aesthetics of Indian cinema, especially Telugu cinema, draw from cultural and religious traditions of the lover–beloved relationship, akin to the romanticism versus atma–paramatma (soul–absolute soul) relationship as depicted in Indian scriptures, such as Upanishads, epics and the poetic treatises of Kalidasa. They portray individual relationships versus family relationships, as described in the epics, and these traditions are deeply embedded in these writings as well as in the films as metaphors. In our view, the novella/film Devdas is an excellent exemplar of this interpretation, as were many other such romantic films produced before Devdas. We shall return to this later on.

rC om

Methodology of Our Critique and Discussion

N

ot

fo

The study undertaken here is qualitative, descriptive and grounded in cultural theory (Smith, 2001), using Indian aesthetics in addition to hermeneutics. For a visual analysis of films, we followed the method of moving image analysis described by Kracauer (1960). Depending on the nature of technical and symbolic elements, the directors applied in filming Devdas, we used the structuralist models of Propp (1968) and Lévi-Strauss (1978) to explain binary oppositions and metaphors, known in Indian aesthetics as ‘dualities’ or ‘contrasting features/characters’. The article is the result of a comparative study of the chapter-wise story of the novella Devdas (as translated into English) and the sequence-wise analysis of each film using Final Cut Pro (FCP). A comparison between the frames of compositions of these three films as mentioned above enabled the researchers to identify differences and similarities between the films and to discern the extent of their fidelity to the text. Such a comparison is crucial to explain the philosophical and spiritual tenets embedded in the original text vis-à-vis the films. Due to space limitations, we are unable to provide here comparable visuals that offer philosophical and spiritual markers. In our discussion, we aim to present the intertextually of Devdas both as a text and a film in its nationalist, spiritual and philosophical context. We intend to do so, first, by explaining its contemporaneity, and next by explaining the spiritual and philosophical significance embedded in the characters of Devdas, Paro and Chandramukhi. South Asia Research  Vol. 36(1): 24–40

32

South Asia Research  Vol. 36(1): 24–40

Devdas’s Socio-religious Contemporaneity: Time and Space

N

ot

fo

rC om

m

er ci

al u

se

The story of Devdas belongs to a traditional India, parallel to the era of post-East India Company rule. Hence, the Indian philosophical and spiritual traditions prevalent at that time, prior to 1901, when the text was probably written, might well have impacted on the narrative, as well as possibly some social critique of marriage arrangements. We examine first the life and convictions of the novella’s author, Saratchandra Chattopadhyay (1876–1938), and how they may have coloured his writings and moulded his characters. A devout Hindu, he lived for some time as an ascetic. His brother, Swami Vedananda, was a monk in the Ramakrishna Mutt at Belur in Kolkata. In the course of this short novel, Chattopadhyay had his prostitute choose ascetism and Devdas’s widowed mother move to piety at the portals of Lord Siva. Moreover, the contemporaries of Chattopadhyay cannot be ignored. His era witnessed a tremendous resurgence of Indian philosophical and spiritual traditions. Spiritual giants like Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa (1836–86), Sarada Devi, the holy consort of Sri Ramakrishna (1853–1920), Swami Vivekananda (1863–1902), Swami Dayananda Saraswathi (1824–83) and Sri Aurobind Ghosh (1872–1950) were his fellows in Bengal. These personalities both directly and indirectly influenced the author, as can be seen in the Devdas characters. Rangan (2007), Creekmur (2001) and others have proposed that the Devdas story belongs to the 1930s. In our opinion, however, it was written already in 1901, keeping in mind the social conditions either prior to or contemporary with it. According to Wikipedia sources, the novella was first published in 1917 (see also Roy, 2012). For the most part, the authors cited above situated the Devdas films into an ‘advanced civilisation’ and did so on the basis of symbols, such as a hat, walking stick, nightgown/ coat, as well as smoking, drinking and travelling by train, considering this ‘modern’. These scholars, like texts bound to their specific time or era, apparently view Western symbols as representative of ‘modernity’ and ‘advancement’ over symbols such as Indian khadi, turban, bullock cart and horse-drawn carriages. They overlook cultural hybridities, such as a hat, walking stick and coat worn over the traditional dhoti and shirt by Bengali bhadralok, described in Mehrotra (2002). Such simplistic, binary interpretations stem from a preoccupation with the significance of cultural symbols of the West. What may be a routine living style in the West commensurate with its traditions cannot be simply superimposed on another civilisation to argue that the former is more advanced than the latter. Doing so constitutes a certain obsession with the Western terms ‘advanced’ and ‘modern’. In Indian spiritual traditions, such external symbols are considered as camouflages and do not reveal the true inner self. How Devdas experienced the change in his dress and habits after his coming to Calcutta can be read in his own words (Chattopadhyay (2002 [1917]: 43), a passage which is quite suggestive of the philosophical depth Chattopadhyay had achieved at that point: He looked at Chunnilal and said: ‘Chunni, education, learning, knowledge, success—all they achieve is a false feeling of happiness; however you look at it, they are only meant to pander your own happiness’.

Murthy and Meitei: Intertextuality of Film Remakes of Devdas 33 Philosophical and Spiritual Overtones of the Characters/Places in the Novella

N

ot

fo

rC om

m

er ci

al u

se

An analysis of the names of characters and places in the novel Devdas further reveals the philosophy and spirituality embedded in its story. Nearly all (95 per cent) of the names are related to either the Shiva or Vishnu cult. Even the names Devdas, Chandramukhi and Parvathi (Paro) are closely tied to the names of Lord Krishna/ Shiva and their holy consorts. Indeed, the very name ‘Dev-das’, a combination of two Sanskrit words meaning God and servant, connotes someone dedicated to the service of God. This term is reminiscent of a long-standing temple tradition in India, the devadasi tradition, which prescribes for those living in the vicinity of a temple pertaining to either Lord Krishna or Lord Shiva the dedication of one of their young unmarried females to the service of the temple. Such a girl will be treated as ‘God’s child/servant’ (i.e., as a pure soul) and dedicated to temple activities, such as ritual singing and dancing in the specially constructed temple hall. The girl, who will never marry, will devote her life to the god of the temple. Ideally, Brahmin girls were selected for temple dedication. Where these were not available, girls from other communities were also dedicated.1 This brief digression into devadasi tradition is actually quite relevant to the thesis of the present article. In Bhansali’s Devdas, Paro’s mother openly states that her family belongs to the devadasi tradition (Roy, 2012: 40). In the novella and the earlier films by Roy in Hindi or Raghavaiah in Telugu/Tamil, the sole reference made to the caste-profession of Paro’s family is that they belong to a lower level of the Brahmin community. Bhansali’s Devdas develops this explicitly to include involvement in dance. The male counterpart of devdasi is of course devdas. Though there is no tradition to dedicate male children to temples, Indian elders often perceive their children to be servants of God and name them accordingly. By giving the name of the second male child of Narayana Mukherjee as Devdas, Chattopadhyay (2002 [1917]) has hinted at his preference to offer Devdas a philosophical destiny, which can be called as atma-ashrayavada, that is, seeking the shelter of one’s own soul. Here, the soul is a metaphor for Paro/Chandramukhi. Similarly, the name Chandramukhi (combining ‘moon’ and ‘face’) alludes to the name of Goddess Lakshmi, while Paro/Parvathi, a daughter born to the King of the Mountains (Himalayas), is the name of the holy consort of Lord Shiva. Further, many Hindu gods are metaphorically believed to have several spouses. In spiritual abstraction, these spouses are not physical entities equivalent to a human husband or wife. Rather, they indicate the powers (shakti) of the God. Lakshmi is the power of affluence of Lord Vishnu, while Parvathi is the power of strength (energies) of Lord Shiva. In the novella, these two women, Chandramukhi and Parvathi, converge their souls, minds and thoughts on Devdas. In turn, Devdas concentrates his mind/ heart/soul on these two powers, namely, Chandramukhi and Parvathi. The Karma Yoga and Bhakti Yoga of the famous Bhagavadgita exhorts that one is to perform one’s duties in the name of God without aspiring to the fruits of such South Asia Research  Vol. 36(1): 24–40

34

South Asia Research  Vol. 36(1): 24–40

N

ot

fo

rC om

m

er ci

al u

se

acts. The parents, children and spouse, all must be treated as manifestations of God, and service to them is service to God. Such interpretations emerge also from the basic tenets of the Upanishads. The spirit of service enunciated in Karma Yoga and Bhakti Yoga sharply differs from the Western theory of the master–servant relationship, which is a contract for mutual gain. Throughout the novel, Chattopadhyay strikes a balance between the names of both Lord Shiva and Krishna in his designation of individuals and places. This alludes to his philosophical depth of non-dualism (advaita in Sanskrit) that says there is no distinction between Hari (Krishna/Vishnu cult) and Hara (Shiva cult). Further, the unconsummated relationships of the main protagonists suggest the primacy given by the author to celibacy. This continence is in keeping with the spiritual requirements prescribed for those centred around ‘soul’ (atma), which is a relationship akin to the unification of the ‘soul (atma) and absolute soul’ (paramatma), between a devotee and God. In the Upanishads, we find that those involved in pursuing spiritual goals, especially moksha, that is, liberation of life from the cycle of birth and death, identify themselves with the ‘soul’ in relation to ‘absolute soul’ and ignore the body/self (ego) as they (bodies) are impermanent. The worship of God by both Chandramukhi and Parvathi for the love of Devdas similarly suggests that these two female characters are fully informed of the Indian spiritual practice of committing themselves to an unflinching worship of their ‘soul’: their beloved Devdas, a metaphor for their god. By having Chandramukhi renounce physical pleasures and money, gained by soliciting rich customers, in preference to devotion to her god, Devdas, Chattopadhyay further portrayed Chandramukhi as one who emerged as a lotus from a murky muddle, a metaphor for prostitution. Here Chandramukhi, another synonym, in which chandra means ‘moon’ and mukhie means ‘facing it’, becomes a metaphor for the lotus. In Indian Sanskrit literature, the lotus is poetically believed to unfold when the moon emerges from the sky at dusk. As the lotus is the seat of Goddess Lakshmi, Chandramukhi as a metaphor for lotus turns to and relates to the seat of Lakshmi. By her extreme devotion to her ‘soul’ Devdas, she has herself become one with Lakshmi in an extended meaning of the metaphor. The absence of physical consummation, which is considered menial compared to the union of souls, according to the Upanishads, means that Parvathi, even after marriage, has remained committed to the union of her individual soul with the soul of Devdas (her ‘god’ of worship). Thus, Chattopadhyay established a philosophical relationship in the love triad akin to atma and paramatma relationship. Such love triads are numerous and uncountable in the tales of Indian Puranas and epics, such as Ramayana, Mahabharata and Bhagavatam (Das, 2011). Snapshots of Comparative Study of Telugu and Hindi Versions Apart from different screen versions produced on the novella Devdas, the narrative characteristics of the three films chosen for the study differ strongly, accentuated by

Murthy and Meitei: Intertextuality of Film Remakes of Devdas 35

N

ot

fo

rC om

m

er ci

al u

se

the varying presence of binary oppositions and metaphors in the films produced and directed post 1935. Despite the similarity in plot, the sets in the Telugu and Tamil Devdas (1953), the Hindi Devdas of Bimal Roy (1955) and Devdas of Bhansali (2002), as well as the lighting, costumes, furniture and art vary conspicuously. The Telugu/ Tamil versions of Raghavaiah and Bimal Roy were shot in black and white, befitting the pathos-driven theme of Devdas in an archetypal rural setting, whereas Bhansali’s Devdas was produced in colour with no village in sight anywhere. The Telugu/Tamil remakes were more semiotic in their frames of composition through the embedded binary oppositions. Especially the Telugu/Tamil version of Devdas (1953) was more semiotic, compared to the later ones in Hindi, though one finds fewer binary oppositions and more metaphors in the Devdas of Bimal Roy (1955) and of Bhansali (2002). The general rule in Indian philosophy and aesthetics is that the more binary oppositions, the greater the philosophical depth. Fewer binary oppositions lead to more metaphors, resulting in a less philosophical film/text. Metaphors can be non-philosophical yet romantic. One finds an ascending order of metaphors from the Telugu/Tamil Devdas to Bhansali’s Devdas. Both Raghavaiah and Bimal Roy largely adopted the technique of ‘dissolves’ as an effect to indicate the time frames of recall, moving down memory lane, from past to present and vice versa. These shots help to connect audiences with the contemplative and meditative postures of Devdas, Paro and Chandramukhi and to recognise the union of their souls akin to atma–paramatma (soul–absolute soul) union. Both Raghavaiah and Bimal Roy succeeded in bringing the film close to the original classic text of Devdas by adopting the above shooting techniques and conveying its philosophical depth through simple semiotics, which are familiar to many Indians. Deep knowledge of Indian semiotics and philosophical traditions helped Raghavaiah and Bimal Roy deconstruct the embedded philosophical structures in the novel Devdas as conceived originally by Chattopadhyay. Bhansali, in contrast, had quite a different agenda and adopted colour format and very costly sets including all kinds of royal settings. Unlike Raghavaiah or Bimal Roy, he did not use a form of shooting technique suitable to a film like Devdas. Further, his highly urbanised settings did not sit well with the horse-drawn carriages in the film. The grand song and dance sequences in Bhansali’s Devdas are irrelevant to the original theme of Devdas. The film’s depiction of multiple metaphors and highly erotic dances renders it completely remote from the times and original setting of Devdas. The Role of Philosophical Songs Philosophical songs in certain versions of the film enrich the pathos-like mood and spiritual union of souls of Devdas and Paro. Indian scriptures set forth that depression, disgust and despair are critical phases in the process of turning towards God or meditating on one’s own self. While in the West these may be considered escapist

South Asia Research  Vol. 36(1): 24–40

36

South Asia Research  Vol. 36(1): 24–40

N

ot

fo

rC om

m

er ci

al u

se

behaviours, an outlet arising from helplessness or lack of power, the Indian Upanishads describe these phases as a precondition for achieving the mental state of dispassion/ detachment to worldly objects. The songs in the Telugu/Tamil film sung by Devdas are indeed extended narratives (Nelmes, 1996) of latent love lingering in the hearts of the hero, conveying a philosophy of life combined with Upanishadic truths through his moods reflective of deprivation, desperation and frustration. Songs like Kudiedamaite Porabaatu Ledoy (‘Right and left do not make much difference’) and Jagame Maaya Batuke Maaya (‘The world is illusion and life is illusion’) are not only melodies but also express subconscious philosophical urges of the human soul yearning for a reunion with the beloved through melancholic notes of music. Descriptive elements, such as the dog, the burial ground, the backdrop of diffused light and the eerie silence in the dead of the night, Chandramukhi’s search for Devdas and the lonely Devdas sitting in a drunken state beside a dog, have been combined effectively in the film’s frames with the philosophical truths of the song Jagame Maaya Batuke Maaya. In almost every Telugu song, these binary oppositions have been placed to interweave the story through fine imagery. Compared to the Telugu Devdas, Bimal Roy’s Devdas has fewer philosophical songs. Further, Bimal Roy has shot only one song on Bishnois (saints belonging to the Vishnu cult) who sing about the love of Radha and Krishna and their union in Brindavan, a site near Mathura, the birthplace of Lord Krishna. Bhansali, however, has gone totally romantic with no philosophical tunes of pathos between Devdas and Paro. Thus, one finds a decreasing order of philosophical implications of love between Devdas, Paro and Chandramukhi as one moves from the Telugu Devdas to the Bhansali’s Devdas via Bimal Roy’s Devdas. It seems clear, then, that there exists an embedded philosophical and spiritual model for the metaphor of Devdas hailing from the modernist/foundationist era. The romanticism in Indian literature is as old as Vedic texts. The epics, Ramayana, Mahabharata and Bhagavatam, in addition to Puranas, are replete with such romantic stories. Eminent poet-dramatists, such as Kalidasa and Gunadhya, have produced great literary pieces foregrounding such romantic tales. As such, we reject the contention of Rajadhyaksha and Willemen (1994) that Devdas constituted a ‘mythological reference point’. Similarly, defying or challenging elders with regard to choosing one’s own love is also not new at all in Indian philosophy and literature. Prior to the film/text Devdas, hundreds of such films/texts were produced. Creekmur (2001) seems to have been unaware of these. The inability of Devdas to stand up to his parents on this issue is rooted not in colonialism, but in a traditional discipline inculcated from childhood. Therefore, we also reject the view of Arora (1995: 268) that ‘Devdas has been more disciplined because of the training he received through Western education’. In our view, there is no substitute for the rigour of traditional philosophical and spiritual training in India. Overall, the assertions of the above-cited scholars are hardly appropriate to a traditional film/text of Devdas. At the same time, some

Murthy and Meitei: Intertextuality of Film Remakes of Devdas 37 may describe our deconstruction anchored in philosophical and spiritual tenets as ‘indigenous chauvinism’ (Virdi, 2003). Yet, we submit that there should be an Indian approach, based on a native ethos that challenges the current imposition of Western theories on Indian classical films and texts. In short, we are of the view that a film/text like Devdas is better situated and understood in the wider context of an ahistorical and philosophical tradition than just postmodern, post-colonial and post-critical perspectives.

Conclusions

N

ot

fo

rC om

m

er ci

al u

se

The present article raises a large and problematic issue in current South Asian Studies and is centred on three versions of the movie Devdas: the Telugu/Tamil Devdas directed by Raghavaiah (1953), the Hindi Devdas directed by Bimal Roy (1955) and the Hindi Devdas (2002) directed by Bhansali. Honing in on the misinterpretations and distortions found in recent studies of Bollywoodised academia about romance and romantic love,2 we conclude that the lack of in-depth knowledge of Indian philosphical systems, literary works and semiotics of performative aesthetics may be one reason for such distortions, an indication of deficiency in interdisciplinarity within the large field of South Asian Studies. Concentrating on adaptations of the film Devdas, the studies critiqued here have largely relied on film-to-film textuality and Western-centric theories rather than being focused on the question of fidelity of film-to-text intertexually, against the backdrop of the then contemporary philosophical and spiritual traditions. Our study also noted that excessive reliance on ‘Bollywood’ compounded these errors. As part of our project of de-Westernising film/ media studies, our study raised several ethical issues involved in such literary studies which are lacking a scientific or relevant theoretical anchor. Simultaneously, we situated both the film Devdas and its original text in its contemporary philosophical discourse. Using text-to-film as a theoretical frame, we deconstructed the philosophical and religious implications of the love triad of Devdas, Paro and Chandramukhi based on Upanishadic interpretations. The relationship between Devdas, Paro and Chandramukhi is found to be akin to atma–paramatma (soul and absolute soul) as set out in the Karma Yoga and Bhakti Yoga of the Gita, as well as the Upanishads. We further strengthened our argument by adducing evidence from the philosophical properties found in the compositions of frames (such as binary oppositions and metaphors) in the mise-en-scene and songs in the films. Our study not only refuted the misinterpretations and distortions found in the studies of Bollywoodised academia but also suggested that the film Devdas, like the original novella written by Chattopadhyay, would be situated and understood best in the wider context of an ahistorical and philosophical tradition rather than purely in a postmodern or post-critical theoretical perspective.

South Asia Research  Vol. 36(1): 24–40

38

South Asia Research  Vol. 36(1): 24–40

Notes 1. That there were abuses of this tradition is an entirely different matter. Editorial intervention regarding space restraints prevented us from providing further references on this topic. 2. Space constraints also precluded elaboration on the fact that much academic discussion about these different films, in the increasingly prominent context of gender studies, concerns the relationship between Paro and Chandramukhi.

References

N

ot

fo

rC om

m

er ci

al u

se

Ahamed, Kabir (2002) ‘Devdas: A Critical Analysis’. URL (consulted March 2015), from http://www.oocities.org/mamavatu/devdas1.html.tmp Arora, Poonam (1995) ‘Devdas: Indian Cinema’s Emasculated Hero, Sado-masochism and Colonialism’, Journal of South Asian Literature, 30(1–2): 253–76. Barthes, Roland (1994) The Semiotic Challenge. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Bazin, Andre (2000) Adaptation or the Cinema as Digest in Film Adaptation. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press. Benjamin, Jessica (1984) ‘Master and Slave: The Fantasy of Erotic Domination’. In Ann Snitow, Christine Stansell & Sharon Thompson (Eds), Powers of Desire: The Politics of Sexuality (pp. 460–7). New York, NY: Monthly Review Press. ——— (1985) ‘The Bonds of Love’. In H. Eisenstein & A. Jardine (Eds), The Future of Difference (pp. 41–70). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Chakravarty, Sumita S. (1996) National Identity in Indian Popular Cinema, 1947–1987. Bombay: Oxford University Press [Texas Film Studies Series]. Chattopadhyay, Saratchandra (2002 [1917]) Devdas (Original in Bengali, translated into English by Sreejata Guha). Delhi: Penguin. Creekmur, Corey K. (2001, December 13) ‘The Devdas Phenomenon’. University of Iowa. URL (consulted March 2015), from http://www.uiowa.edu/~incinema/DEVDAS.html Das, Subhamoy (2011) ‘Immortal Love Legends. Romantic Tales from Hindu Literature’. URL (consulted May 2015), from http://hinduism.about.com/od/scripturesepics/a/ lovelegends.htm Deshpande, Sudhanva (2002, August 17) ‘The Unbearable Opulence of Devdas’. Frontline, 19(17). URL (consulted March 2015), from http://www.frontline.in/static/html/ fl1917/19171320.htm Dissanayake, Wimal (2006) ‘Asian Approaches to Human Communication: Retrospect and Prospect’, Intercultural Communication Studies,12(4): 17–37. Dwyer, Rachel (2014) Bollywood’s India: Hindi Cinema as a Guide to Contemporary India. London: Reaktion Books. Dwyer, Rachel & Pinto, Jerry (Eds) (2011) Beyond the Boundaries of Bollywood: The Many Forms of Hindi Cinema. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Fanon, Frantz (1967) Black Skin, White Masks. Transl. Charles Lam Markmann. New York, NY: Grove Press. Foucault, Michel (1995) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York, NY: Vintage Books.

Murthy and Meitei: Intertextuality of Film Remakes of Devdas 39

N

ot

fo

rC om

m

er ci

al u

se

Gokulsing, K. Moti & Dissanayake, Wimal (2004) Indian Popular Cinema: A Narrative of Cultural Change. Stoke-on-Trent: Trentham Books Limited. Hansen, Miriam Bratu (2000) ‘The Mass Production of the Senses: Classical Cinema as Vernacular Modernism’. In Christine Gledhill & Linda Williams (Eds), Reinventing Film Studies (pp. 332–50). London: Arnold. Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich (1952) The Independence and Dependence of Self-consciousness Master and Slave: The Phenomenology of Spirit. Hamburg: Felix Meiner. Kracauer, Siegfried (1960) Theory of Film: The Redemption of Physical Reality. London: Oxford University Press. Kristeva, Julia (1985) Revolution in Poetic Language. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Leitch, Thomas (2008) ‘Adaptation Studies at a Crossroads’, Adaptation, 1(1): 63–77. Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1978) Myth and Meaning: Cracking the Code of Culture. New York, NY: Schocken Books. Mehrotra, Arvind Krishna (Ed.) (2002) A History of Indian Literature in English. London: Hurst & Co. Mishra, Vijay (2006) Bollywood Cinema: A Critical Geneology. Wellington: Asian Studies Institute. Murthy, C.S.H.N. (2012) ‘Indian Cinema as a Model for De-Westernizing Media Studies: A Comparative Study of Indian Philosophical and Western Cultural Theories’, Asia Pacific Media Educator, 22(2): 197–215. ——— (2013) ‘Film Remakes as Cross-cultural Connections between North and South: A Case Study of the Telugu Film Industry’s Contribution to Indian Filmmaking’, Journal of International Communication, 19(1): 19–42. Murthy, C.S.H.N., Meitei, Oinam Bedajit & Baruah, Amrita (2015) ‘Breaking Western Filmmaking Models: An Unexplored Indian Frame of Film Communication: Evidence from Telugu Cinema’, Journal of Communication Inquiry, 39(1): 38–62. Nelmes, Jill (1996) An Introduction to Film Studies. New York, NY: Routledge. Prasad, M. Madhava (1998) Ideology of the Hindi Film: A Historical Construction. New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Propp, Vladimir Yakovlevich (1968) Morphology of the Folktale. Translated from Russian into English. Second revised edition. Austin, TX: University of Texas. Rajadhyaksha, Ashish (1993) ‘The Epic Melodrama: Themes of Nationality in Indian Cinema’, Journal of Arts and Ideas, 25–26 (December): 55–70. ——— (2003) ‘“The Bollywoodization” of the Indian Cinema: Cultural Nationalism in a Global Arena’, Inter Asia Cultural Studies, 4(1): 25–39. Rajadhyaksha, Ashish & Willemen, Paul (1994) Encyclopaedia of Indian Cinema. London: BFI. Rangan, Pooja (2007) ‘Transitions, Transactions: Bollywood as a Signifying Practice’, The Sarai Reader 07: Frontiers: 273–85. Roy, Piyush (2012) ‘Filming Metaphor: Cinematic Liberties, Navarasa Influences and Digressions in Adaptation in Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s Devdas’, The South Asianist, 1(1): 31–49. Smith, Philip (2001) Cultural Theory: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Stam, Robert (2000) ‘Beyond Fidelity: The Dialogics of Adaptation’. In James Naremore (Ed.) Film Adaptation (pp. 54–76). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Virdi, J. (2003) The Cinematic Imagination: Indian Popular Films as Social History. New Delhi: Permanent Black.

South Asia Research  Vol. 36(1): 24–40

40

South Asia Research  Vol. 36(1): 24–40

C.S.H.N. Murthy is a Professor at the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, School of Humanities and Social Sciencesof Tezpur University. Address: Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, School of Humanities and Social Sciences, Tezpur University, Napaam, Tezpur, Assam 784 028, India. [e-mail: [email protected]]

N

ot

fo

rC om

m

er ci

al u

se

O.B. Meitei was formerly a doctoral research scholar under Professor Murthy and part of the project on Devdas. He is currently an Assistant Professor in the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Manipal University Jaipur. Address: School of Journalism and Mass Communication at Manipal University Jaipur, Jaipur, Rajasthan 303 007, India. [e-mail: [email protected]]

Suggest Documents