| |
My interest in cinema is only a few
years old and I am admittedly a novice in understanding its grammar
and its aesthetics. My attempts at making sense of film are mostly
grounded in the social philosophy that they articulate to me. In
the comments on selected films that follow, you will find mostly
social and philosophical (epistemological, ethical etc) analysis
and very little analysis of sound, image or the logic of film itself.
Ankur (1974, Dir: Shyam Benegal)
image source: http://www.bollywood501.com/films/Ankur/
 Ankur
is the film that shot director Shyam
Benegal to
fame and in my opinion it is a beautifully nuanced portrayal of
contemporary social
dynamics in rural India. I say contemporary in the long-historical
sense since 32 years have passed since the making of the film.
I think that the most prominent conflict the story depicts still
remains important. The two characters of central importance are
the kumhar woman Lakshmi (Shabana
Azmi) and the landlord’s
son, Surya (Anant Nag). Lakshmi’s husband, Kishtaya (Sadhu
Meher) is also an important part of the puzzle. I understand the kumhar couple
(Lakshmi and Kishtaya) as articulating, through their acts more
than their words, the central problematic
of the twin evils of feudal-capitalism and industrial-capitalism.
This is not the place to go into an elaboration of these two concepts
but briefly, I construct these
categories to capture, in very abstract terms, what has also been
referred to variously as the Bharat-India or the bahishkrit-paschimikrit
divide, the dual economy etc. “Feudal-capitalism” (a
contradiction in terms for many Marxists and perhaps even for non-Marxists),
but a concept well-developed by World-Systems Analysts, is meant
to convey the idea that those social formations that are
routinely labeled “feudal” in the Indian context (for
e.g. the type of rural society depicted in Ankur) are themselves,
in the form that we know them, a product of the development of
the capitalist world-economy. Thus the “feudal” rural
economy is a vital part of capitalism. “Industrial-capitalism” refers
to social formations that are mostly labeled simply as “capitalist” or “industrial” or “modern”.
In the film, this world enters the story via the character of Surya,
the city-educated, feudal lord.
If Lakshmi and Kishtaya constitute a (feminist and
subaltern) critique of the central problematic, then Surya epitomizes a “worst
of both worlds” distillation
of the same problematic. As noted in the film’s
review on the Strictly
Film School site, “Surya soon disrupts the dynamics of everyday life
in the village by flouting tradition and local custom: asking the lower caste
Lakshmi to brew his tea and cook his meals”. Thus, when Lakshmi expresses
disbelief at Surya’s request to cook for him (“aap mere haath ka
khana khayenge?”) Surya asserts that he does not believe in caste-prejudice
(“main jaat-paat nahi manta”). So far Surya seems to behave as
the stereotypical city-educated, modern young man over whom the “customs
and traditions” (riti-rivaaz) hold little sway. However, Benegal makes
the story a good deal more interesting by exploring the limits to Surya’s “progressive” qualities.
Here I disagree with the analysis presented at the Strictly Film School site.
It is stated there that “despite Surya's seemingly progressive ideas
on the irrelevance of the caste system, his moral integrity proves suspect
when
he
develops an irrepressible attraction towards his enigmatic and beautiful servant”.
I think that blaming Surya’s crimes and misdemeanors on lack of “moral
integrity” misses the other half of Benegal’s civilizational critique.
Having shown us the evils of feudal-capitalism, through Surya’s vacillating
nature, Benegal is showing us the sexism or patriarchy of modern-capitalism.
To put it another way, if we can blame Surya’s failings on lack of moral
integrity why not credit his “progressive ideas” to moments of
high moral integrity? Or conversely, why not portray all the myriad crimes
committed by agents in the feudal-capitalist social formation as resulting
from individual moral failings? We do not do the later because we recognize
the systemic nature of abuses such as caste exploitation. Well, the failings
of industrial-capitalism are systemic as well. If we credit progressive ideas
to it as a system (of values imparted via education etc) we must debit the
failings of its product (Surya) as the system’s failings as well.
Thus through Surya’s blunderings and moral cowardice,
Benegal, in my opinion, shows us the devil (feudal-capitalism) and the deep-blue
sea (industrial-capitalism)
between which women (Lakshmi) and the subaltern (unemployed, ex-artisan Kishtaya)
are trapped. The deeply symbolic ending shows a little boy, who we have previously
seen observing the film's climatic moment of violence (which itself symbolizes
for me the clash between industrial capitalism and its hapless dispossed victims),
hurl "the first stone" crashing the window of Surya's home. It is the innocence
that we attribute to a child that makes this action something more than a venting
of anger at the local tyrant and yet the film's ending leaves something to
be desired. Of course I do not expect Benegal to "offer solutions". His job
as
a socially conscious artist is to hold a mirror (as in the shot above) which
reflect his own understanding of social processes.
|
