Shyam Benegal

"If Ray reflected the Tagorean enlightenment, Benegal is undoubtedly the chronicler of Nehruvian India. He shares its ‘socialistic’ bias and its foundations in secularism, pluralism, democracy, equality of opportunity, human rights, women’s rights and all their concomitants. His all-India identity is pronounced, obvious. Compare him to Satyajit Ray and Ritwik Ghatak and the difference leaps out. Ray was a Bengali and an Indian; Ghatak was only a Bengali; Benegal is only an Indian.” -- Chidananda Das Gupta, Seeing is Believing

Chidananda Das Gupta’s words about Shyam Benegal being “an Indian” certainly ring true. Benegal’s films cover India’s diverse landscape by focusing on a range of characters living in different social circles. His camera is not rooted in a specific region but instead effortlessly takes a journey from rural to urban centers to depict stories about villagers, landowners, priests, politicians, policemen, prostitutes, businessmen and industrialists. Benegal’s camera does not judge but instead presents characters in their moments of agony, suffering or happiness without melodrama thereby creating rich portrayals. Chidananda Das Gupta describes the key component to this style:

But the strand central to Benegal’s ideology and his oeuvre is of the documentary. His feature films turn fact into fiction; they grow out of the documentary approach. One should first look at his Fabian semi-documentaries on the theme of the cooperative movement, best illustrated by Manthan (milkmen and women), Susman (handloom weavers) and Antarnaad (fisher-folk).... -- page 268, Seeing is Believing

Looking at Benegal’s career, it is easy to understand why documentaries play such a fundamental role in his films. He started his film career by directing 22 documentaries in a seven year period from 1967 to 1974. Through these docs, Benegal examined social and economic issues affecting Indian society. He continued this keen examination in his early feature film career as Ankur (1974), his feature film debut, along with Nishant (1975) and Manthan (1976) appear as extensions of his documentary style packaged in a fictional framework. Such a style perfectly balances the villagers way of life, their economic hurdles, social oppression with intimate accounts of their lives. Manthan is a shining example of this approach. The film describes steps the villagers need to take in order to set up a milk cooperative, something which will prevent their exploitation at the hand of the local landowner. The cooperative debate is vital to the story but does not dominate the fictional framework of the film and instead forms just one of the tension points shown between the villagers, landowners and the city workers. As a result, one can understand the concerns and suspicions that exist on the opposing sides because the story and Benegal’s style allows a closeness to all the subjects including villagers, landowner and city workers thereby creating a realistic depiction of events.

In Chapter 8, "Film as Visual Anthropology", Chidananda Das Gupta uses the term "realistic New [Indian] Cinema" to perfectly explains Benegal’s style:

Both [Manthan & Susman] show a singular ability to make fiction out of documentary material without compromising the complexity and basic truth of the material. Technical fluency plus an extraordinary penchant for good casting and for the structuring of material make the films dramatic without being too fictional to be true. A remarkable sureness of feeling for people and places in this prolific film-maker enables him to overcome some elements of contrivance in the mix of drama and documentary. With Benegal we reach the frontiers of documentary and fiction and get the feeling that beyond this point, the portrayal would cease to be recognizable.

Near the end of the chapter, Chidananda Das Gupta also briefly mentions "Direct Cinema" when talking about North American cinema movement:

Later, the 'Direct Cinema' movement in the USA remained mainly peripheral both to the film industry and the corridors of power.

Even though he does not link the movement directly to Benegal’s films, the appearance of the words in the same chapter provide some food for thought. If one had to follow the pure definition of "Direct Cinema", then Benegal’s films won’t fit the bill but his films share plenty of sentiments not only with “Direct Cinema” but also with the “Actuality Dramas” of Allan King. In order to explore some similarities between Benegal’s style and Direct Cinema, I refer back to David Clandfield’s insightful essay From the Picturesque to the Familiar: Films of the French Unit at the NFB (1958-1964) which discusses the difference between Candid Eye movement and Direct Cinema.

Technically, of course, both movements had much in common: shooting without script or conscious staging, use of light-weight equipment, a search for the real which deliberately shunned the dramatic of the heroic.
...
For the Candid Eye filmmakers, the subject of the film was its subject matter rooted in objective reality. The starting point was a social or human event-- ephemeral, inscribed in an ephemeral world-- the form and meaning of which require the mediation of the filmic process to become evident. The function of the filmic process, then, was not to mould but to reveal form, and with it meaning.

For the cinéma direct filmmakers, the point of departure is the filmmaking process in which the filmmaker is deeply implicated as a consciousness, individual or collective. It is this process--this consciousness--which gives form and meaning to an amorphous objective reality. Instead of effacing their presence, the filmmakers affirm it.

Instead of rendering the technical process transparent (supposedly), they will emphasize its materiality. Instead of standing apart from their object of study or enquiry, they will implicate themselves within in. Their search for the authentic will involve not only the critical detachment of the empirical investigator in order to strip away “myth” or misconception, but also commitment to the social project under investigation in order to avoid the pitfalls of he aesthetic or the “picturesque.” The overt personal involvement of the subject-filmmaker in the object-reality of the pro-filmic event was, then, the key distinguishing factor of the Québécois cinéma direct from the Anglophone Candid Eye.

1) "shooting without script or conscious staging":

Benegal’s scripted trilogy was filmed with actors so that would not qualify it under a pure direct cinema label.

2) "a search for the real which deliberately shunned the dramatic of the heroic.":

These words apply to Benegal as his trilogy highlights “the real” in opposition to conventional hero vs villain scenarios. Benegal’s films presented both sides of the story and the camera peered into the homes of both landowners and villagers. At times, it is hard to tell who is the hero in these films as most characters are driven by their own fear and insecurities which clash with the needs of others.

3) "overt personal involvement of the subject-filmmaker.":

In Manthan, a milk cooperative paid for the film thereby forming a very valid connection with the filmmaker and the subject of the story. Also, the subject matter of the films show Benegal’s interest in the social plight of the villagers and the story gives a rare voice to the villagers. Although the villagers voice is provided by actors.

Direct Cinema-Actuality Dramas-New Realistic Indian Cinema

Michel Brault’s Direct Cinema, Allan King’s Actuality Dramas and Shyam Benegal’s Realistic Indian Cinema all share traits of portraying pure reality. Not surprizingly, all three directors started their career by making documentaries. Even though Benegal’s realistic cinema are fictional films, they contain elements of documentaries in depicting genuine events. And even when Brault directed Les Orders, a fictional film, it was a retelling of actual events based on interviews. Interestingly, all three directed some of their breakout works within a decade of each other. King’s Warendale and A Married Couple came out in 1967 & 1969 respectively, Brault’s Acadia Acadia?!? was released in 1971, Les Orders in 1974, and Benegal’s debut fictional film Ankur came out in 1974. King and Brault would have crossed paths because they worked in Canada but Benegal was probably not aware of either movements. Just like the 1950’s and 1960’s were a period of rich foreign cinema, it appears that the 1970’s and 1980’s were a period of rich reality based movements such as Direct Cinema, Actuality Dramas and the New Realistic Indian Cinema.

Equal Voice and balanced portrayal

Ankur, Nishant and Manthan are completely realized works because they provide an equal voice to both opposing sides whether it be villagers vs landowners, villagers vs city workers or men vs women. The female characters are essential to all three films and the camera ensures that they are given enough screen time to properly understand their situation. This balanced approach ensures the films are not one-sided. Benegal is also a rare Indian filmmaker who has given women a proper spotlight in his films, not only in terms of acting but also by story focus. Shabana Azmi and Smita Patil are key components of Ankur, Nishant and Manthan and would go on to play relevant parts in other vital Indian films. Later in his career, Benegal directed a women centric trilogy, Mammo (1994), Sardari Begum (1996) and Zubeidaa (2001), films which featured focus on three Muslim women. This equal portrayal just affirms his status of a genuine Indian filmmaker.

The past & present, religion & myth

Shyam Benegal not only depicted current state of events in Indian society but also explored Indian’s colonial past. Junoon (1979) takes place in colonial Indian and is set against the backdrop of the Indian Rebellion of 1857. Whereas, Kalyug (1981) is a brilliant retelling of the Mahabharta in the closed Indian economy of the 1980’s when strict quotas for production resulted in corruption and labor disputes. The business model depicted in Kalyug was due to "License Raj", a term going back to 1947. In essence, Kalyug brings together one of Indian’s famous epics, post-British Indian legacy and contemporary Indian society in the 1980’s. So it depicts three time periods, or Trikal, which also happens to be the title of Benegal’s 1985 film which explores three time periods in Goa.

The dangers of blindly following a sage’s advice are perfectly highlighted in Kondura which shows that blind faith can sometimes result in someone being manipulated and committing a grave error. In the film, Parashuram (Anant Nag, a regular in Benegal’s films) gets a vision first from the sage Kondura (Amrish Puri) and then from a Goddess, both of whom warn Parashuram about stopping the growing sin in the village. Their instructions are vague and they never point to a specific case of evil in the village. It is left up to Parashuram on how to interpret their words. Parashuram’s few attempts to correct things, such as rebuilding a temple and the discovery of water in an arid land, lead some villagers to regard Parashuram as a sage. His ego is buoyed by his new found followers and combined with his intent in fulling the sage’s words causes Parashuram to fall into a trap set by the local landowner Bhairavmoorthy. The film cleverly includes some elements which question the authenticity of Parashuram’s visions. Kondura is only shown in one scene and is played by Amrish Puri, who provides the voice for Bhairavmoorthy even though the landowner is played by a different actor. Also, the Goddess that visits Parashuram takes the form of his wife Ansuya (Vanisri) which also lays a seed of doubt about whether Parashuram is imagining his visions.

Mandi stands apart from other Shyam Benegal films because of its sharp witty humor. Despite being light hearted than his other films, Mandi tackles plenty of relevant social issues in its portrayal of the women working in a bordello, the clients, landowners, policemen and politicians whose lives hover around the bordello. In fact, the humor manages to highlight the hypocrisy and selfish nature of the characters perfectly. The film is jam packed with movement where characters are constantly entering and exiting a frame thereby creating a theatrical like feel to the work. All the performances are top notch which is not a surprize given that the film contains a stellar cast of Naseeruddin Shah, Smita Patil, Shabana Azmi, Amrish Puri, Kulbhushan Kharbanda, Saeed Jaffrey, Om Puri, Neena Gupta, Ratna Pathak, Pankaj Kapur, Satish Kaushik, Harish Patel, Annu Kapoor and Ila Arun. Only Anant Nag is missing otherwise the film would have featured a complete lineup of key actors featured in India’s parallel cinema. Mandi also stars Aditya Bhattacharya, director Basu Bhattacharya’s son and director Bimal Roy’s grandson. Aditya is not well known as an actor even though his few acting titles include Anurag Kashyap’s Black Friday and Sudhir Mishra’s Hazaaron Khwaishein Aisi but more importantly Aditya is know for his directorial debut film Raakh. Released in 1989, and starring Aamir Khan, Supriya Pathak, Pankaj Kapur, Raakh is one of the best Indian films to have been made in the last few decades. In fact, along with Parinda, Raakh set the stage for the wave of gritty and dark crime movies that emerged in India near the end of the 1990’s.

---

The following seven films were seen as part of this spotlight:

Ankur (1974)
Nishant (1975)
Manthan (1976)
Kondura (1978)
Junoon (1979)
Kalyug (1981)
Mandi (1983)

Only Manthan and Kondura were first time viewings while I revisited the remaining five after a long gap. Kalyug is the only film that I have seen multiple times while growing up and the recent viewing was particularly rewarding. Girish Karnad and Shyam Benegal’s screenplay incredibly adapts key characters and situations of the Mahabharta in a corporate business setting. The background score heightens the tension and sentiments of revolution and violence beautifully. For these reasons, Kalyug is a personal favourite film.

The Actuality Dramas of Allan King

The first time I heard a film described as an actuality was when Allan King mentioned it in the Q&A session following a special screening of his film A Married Couple. The word perfectly described A Married Couple because the film was an actual documentation of the ups and downs of a married couple’s relationship. Sadly, a few months after the special Calgary Cinematheque screening Allan King passed away. That made the screening of A Married Couple even more special.

The 2008 screening of A Married Couple meant that the film was once again starting to get some attention almost four decades it was released. Then last year, Criterion released a box-set of Allan King’s films, naturally called The Actuality Dramas of Allan King. Having already seen A Married Couple, the other four films were part of this spotlight.

Warrendale (1968)
A Married Couple (1969)
Come On Children (1972)
Dying at Grace (2003)
Memory for Max, Claire, Ida and Company (2005)

The subject material of all five films is sensitive and intimate. Warrendale captures day to day life in a rehabilitation home for emotionally disturbed kids, A Married Couple shows the turbulent and tense moments of a marriage, Come on Children brings forth some teenage concerns and attitudes, Dying at Grace shows terminally ill patients in their final moments of life and Memory for Max, Claire, Ida and Company sheds a light on behaviour and moments associated with human aging.

The only film out of the five that is not shot in its original location is Come on Children. Warrendale is shot exclusively inside the rehabilitation home, A Married in Couple takes place in either the couple’s home or their office and both Dying at Grace and Memory... are shot respectively in the health center and nursing home where the patients lived. On the other hand, Come on Children required the subjects to leave their natural homes to go live in selected location. This is how the idea for the film came about:

King interviewed three or four hundred people between the ages of thirteen and nineteen from the middle-class suburbs of Toronto about their unsatisfactory presents and desired futures. The most common comment he heard was that they wanted to be left alone by hassling cops, teachers, parents, and other authority figures. So King granted their wish, inviting a cross section of them (five boys, five girls) to live on a remote farm for ten weeks, without supervision, to be filmed at all times.

The end result is a cinematic experiment decades ahead of its time. Basically, the film predicts modern day reality shows such as Big Brother by having a camera capture the life of its subjects round the clock. Initially, the constant presence of the camera draws hostile reactions from two teenagers with one of the teens trying to place his hand on the camera and telling the camera man to get lost. But eventually, the teens go about their lives naturally as the camera becomes a part of their lives.

Memories and Death

We have a desperate need as human beings to understand reality, and we go to desperate ends to avoid that reality......

The curious thing is that when you do look at reality and face it, it is no longer fearsome. -- Allan King

Both Dying at Grace and Memory for Max, Claire, Ida and Company go to great lengths to portray that reality and as such present plenty emotionally touching and tearful moments. It is hard to imagine how Peter Walker shot both films objectively because the material certainly would not have been easy to film, especially that of Dying at Grace where some of the patients pass away in presence of the camera. At times, it feels intrusive to observe intimate family moments when a loved one has passed away but the film was conceived with the blessing of the patients and their families. In that regard, one hopes audience find positives in observing such tender moments.

Interestingly, Allan King’s first and second last feature complete a cinematic circle. In Warrendale, there is a significant moment when the staff talk to the children about the death of a cook. This discussion leads to the film’s main crisis point as some children emotionally break down and become difficult to control. In Memory for Max, Claire, Ida and Company, the nursing home staff talk about the death of Max to the other residents. Naturally, given their age and health, the reaction of the other residents is muted and different from the children in Warrendale. Yet, the discussion about death is similar in both films even though the people listening to the news are on opposite ends of an age spectrum.

Overall

Personally, A Married Couple is my favourite overall film from the five. Also, it is a film that one can objectively observe without letting any emotional filters get in the way. Any person who has experienced a relative losing their memory as they aged would find Memory for Max, Claire, Ida and Company a tough viewing while Dying at Grace would be more difficult to view for anyone who has ever lost a loved one. Warrendale is an amazing film from a cinematic technique but some of the methods for the children's rehabilitation are not the easiest to digest. The weakest film in the group ends up being Come on Children. That has a lot to do with the subjects captured on camera. The children had total freedom to do as they pleased but after a few days, they settled into a routine of singing and lying around. Their biggest struggle came when they had to discuss who had to clean the kitchen. No amount of editing could have enriched the material but still the film offers an interesting case study about the behavior and concerns of some teens in the early 1970’s.

Actuality = Direct Cinema - embedded presence

Allan King’s debut feature Warrendale is an incredible piece of cinema that lays out the actuality filming style King would follow in his subsequent films. This style involved shooting primarily in an indoor location, acutely observing humans in tender and sensitive moments without the presence of a director or a narrator. Allan King removed himself from the room while his cinematographer lived and filmed freely without inhibitions. The fact that Allan King was not present in the room during filming is what probably differentiates his actuality style from Direct Cinema which required the filmmaker to be embedded constantly in their shooting environments. The tender and sensitive subject material of Allan King’s films necessitated him to be absent from the room because his presence would have indirectly influenced his subjects or would have broken the intimacy that could be offered by a silent cinematographer whose job was to shoot everything without any filters or editing.

Allan King’s techniques should be treasured and his works deserve a wider appreciation. His topics may not find many takers but the technique used in his actuality films can certainly lead to a more rich and pure form of cinema.

note: The subject material of Memory for Max, Claire, Ida and Company reminded me of Jean-François Caissy’s Journey’s End, a Canadian film that I saw at last year’s CIFF. Journey’s End also observes its elder subjects without any voice-over narration and offers an unfiltered look at their lives.

Vintage Canadian Cinema

The Calgary Cinematheque hosted an outstanding film series this past weekend -- Pushing Boundaries: Independent Canadian Cinema of the Sixties & Seventies. The four films shown were:

A Married Couple (1969, Director Allan King)
High (1967, Director Larry Kent)
Montreal Main (1972, Director Frank Vitale)
Rubber Gun (1977, Director Allan Moyle)

The series was hosted and moderated by film critic Geoff Pevere, in the presence of all the four directors. There was a brief introduction both by Geoff and the film director in question before each screening and a very informative Q & A session afterwards. I would have loved to attend all four films but thankfully I managed to catch two of the groundbreaking masterpieces.

A Marriage in collapse

A Married Couple is an excellent case study of the difficulties a relationship poses for couples sharing the same living space. By observing the lives of a married couple, we can see the struggles and compromises that take place when two people share the same space and how things can start to go wrong. Even though the material is isolated to just one couple in late 1960's Toronto, the genius of Allan King has ensured that the topics displayed on screen can apply to virtually any marriage over the last few decades.

In making the film, Allan sought out couples whose marriage was in trouble but as he mentioned in the Q & A session afterwards, most of the couples he found were "boring". It so happened that the couple Allan was staying with (Billy Edwards and his wife Antoinette) agreed to allow themselves to be filmed so as to save their marriage. Allan was never in the room because he felt his presence would have influenced the couple, so he left his cameraman Richard Leiterman and soundman Christian Wangler with the couple and their 3 year old son, Bogart, for about ten weeks of filming. In the end, they collected more than 70 hours of footage and Allan worked with the editor after each day's shoot. The end result is a brilliant piece of verite film-making. No acting or fake emotions but raw feelings of anger, hurt and disappointment. Allan called this film an "actuality" as opposed to reality film-making.

It is such a complex matter when two people decide to share their lives under one roof as demonstrated by how small arguments can spiral into a full blown war. Of course, most small arguments are never about one issue. Each argument is an accumulation of past incidents and events. An example in the film illustrates this problem when Antoinette mentions to Billy that she is fed up with him leaving his shoes lying around the house. The argument that results shows that the real problem is not about the shoes but about each person not taking share of their daily responsibilities.

Allan King felt that the movie was a two way projector where even the audience projected their feelings onto the screen. In an initial Toronto screening, some audience members identified with Billy while others sided with Antoinette. Allan mentioned a particular example from the film that caused a differing perception in the audience. In one argument, Billy pushes Antoinette out of the house and slams the door. Allan mentioned that some people were sure they saw Billy hit Antoinette but that was not the case. In reality, he was afraid of her and when he pushed her out, he had a worried look on his face as quickly tried to slam the door lest she retaliate back. It was clear from the footage in the film, before and after the scene, that Antoinette was the stronger of the two and it was Billy who was more afraid of her.

Overall, a true gem of a film! Incredible!!!!

Rating: 10/10

Verite again, but on the streets of Montreal

Frank Vitale's Montreal Main is a living breathing work of art. As Frank mentioned, he didn't have a script with dialogues but just had a framework of the story with some scenes outlined; he knew how he wanted the scenes framed and shot, something that interested him more than coming up with the dialogues. Frank's friends and the other actors improvised the dialogues for a film that was shot on and off, sometimes shooting only a scene per day, for about 15 days. In order to get funding for the film, Frank shot most of the movie on video as a demo. Only after the movie got some money ($25,000 CAD) was the beautiful original score added and a 16 mm camera used to re-shoot the film.

In terms of a story, the film follows Frank (played by Frank Vitale), Bozo (Allan Moyle) and their friends around on their daily exploits in Montreal. The key cinematic thread involves Frank's attraction to a teenage boy (Johnny), whom he befriends and hangs out with. The friendship causes problems not only among Frank's circle of friends but also with Johnny's parents. While nothing sexual is depicted regarding their friendship, the film tests the boundaries of society's acceptance of relationships.

The film takes place in a vibrant energetic English speaking art community in Montreal. Frank and Allan Moyle were part of the community and Allan even made a sequel (Rubber Gun which followed Montreal Main's screening) using the same characters. As the community consisted of various artists (painters, writers), it is natural that Montreal Main has an artistic feel to it and flows along beautifully. There are some amazing camera shots in the film with a very open yet poetic ending shot which features faces of customers at a hot dog/arcade shop.

The Q & A session was particularly enriching as both Frank and Allan expressed differing reactions on seeing the film again and looking back at its creation. Allan felt the movie's topic gave him the creeps while Frank talked about the emotional aspects of the film, citing how now as a father he has trouble seeing the character Frank abandon Johnny in the film near the end. The open ending can either be seen as hopeful in that Johnny is ok or can be taken to mean that Johnny is lost forever.

Rating: 9/10

Comments

Canadian Cinema hardly has a cinematic presence in this country. It is hard to believe that are many countries like Canada where local films struggle to get distribution and theatrical releases. So it was particularly refreshing to see that despite the near invisible presence, Canadian cinema in the past produced such amazing films. Frank Vitale mentioned that he has been surprised to see that Montreal Main has been getting a revival in the past 2-3 years with even a DVD release out in the market. I really hope that more Canadian gems can be found and atleast released on DVD. Great cinema is always welcome!