Satyajit Ray, a master filmmaker, abandoned by his own film industry. Why?

My introduction to the great Satyajit Ray, his cinematic method and why such a renowned artist is not appreciated enough by Bollywood.

My introduction to the films of Satyajit Ray was not an accident. After all, I was in a film studies class in college when our instructor, one day after screening Tarantino’s Kill Bill volumes 1 and 2, began mentioning the name Satyajit Ray. Our instructor, a tall figure with wide shoulders and affable in nature, could have easily joined sports. But he instead chose to teach film. He was also a director, and I often watched him direct other experts to build realistic looking sets on stage for plays and how he directed his actors. 

I did attend one of his plays on a hot summer evening. After the show, I congratulated him while his wife stood behind him. He asked if I could write a short analysis of his play. Perhaps it was a test, I thought. When I did pen my review, I focused on all aspects of the play. He ended up approving the analysis, even though I criticized a few things here and there. I had to be honest, and I think it’s the honesty that he approved of rather than all the weaknesses and strengths of his play that I was pointing out.  

He also had a habit of quizzing the class at the end of the week after showing a film. I remember when he would pause Terrence Malick’s The Thin Red Line almost scene after scene to discuss its elements. The class was under the impression we were watching a film in its entirety, as if in an actual theater, whenever he played a film. But in this instructor’s case, it was a different viewing experience. 

I realized that there are two ways one can watch a film: to pass the time or to understand the process of a film while being played in front of you. I found myself to be a proponent of the latter technique, for as viewers, if we dig in, we can witness the magic and work of a good filmmaker. I say a good filmmaker, as only a good filmmaker can get his or her audience involved. A sign of a good filmmaker is that when watching the film, as a viewer, you will know that all aspects of filmmaking are thoroughly covered. In other words, a good filmmaker allows the viewer to understand his or her rituals. A good filmmaker welcomes you.

The day the instructor mentioned Ray, an hour had passed. I took notes, asking myself about Ray. Is he as important as Tarr, Tarkovksy, Kurosawa, Fellini, Vittorio De Sica, Leone, and Rossellini? Ray, to me and to most in the class, was completely unknown, although I was familiar with the Indian film industry thanks to all the Indian films I used to watch. The Apu Trilogy was shown for the first time in the class, but due to some circumstances, I did not get to watch the second and third in the trilogy. I could not attend the class as I was leaving the city and the college behind. 

But not long ago, for the first time, I got the chance to watch the Apu Trilogy in its entirety. I thought to myself, "How grounded the films are." How simple, yet effective Ray’s approach was. He was an informed artist, a visionary, who was an intellectual in the profession he admired and was advanced in his thoughts. He was way ahead and still is. Compared to what the Indian Film Industry is on the verge of today, Ray was at a higher level of artistry. He introduced Indian cinema to the rest of the world in a glorious manner, putting the industry on the map.

As an aficionado of cinema, one must lean towards any work of cinematic art from any culture. As much as I adore the highly regarded films of the American cinema, I also admire films of the Russian cinema, as well as Italian, Persian, and Afghan, or of any other culture. But, as a viewer, I have abandoned Indian cinema. Perhaps not for good, but let’s hope that the Indian film industry—Bollywood—changes for the better. 

It was in the early 2000s that I only witnessed 3 films from Indian cinema that I deemed necessary to be viewed, not just for entertainment reasons, but for something more. Lagaan (2001) by Gowarikar, an Academy Award nominee in the Best Foreign Picture category, was one of them. The other two post-Lagaan that I think are still watchable are Varma's crime thriller Company (2002) and Bhansali’s Devdas (2002). But, I have found myself admiring the work of Varma more as his film, Company, I think, is kind of a meticulous piece of work. 

When I think of Ray, or anyone mentions him, I immediately think of the Indian film industry as to what went wrong. What did Ray do so badly that almost no artist in the Indian film industry has followed in his footsteps? If we mention Russian cinema, we immediately think of Tarkovsky or Fellini when it comes to Italian cinema, but Ray’s name, unfortunately, does not come to mind when one mentions Indian cinema. Perhaps the cinema of India has purposefully buried the name for good, and to me, that’s just unfortunate, because there is so much to learn from the great Satyajit Ray.  

Fortunately, Ray’s name is still alive when we just mention cinema. This is because Ray’s work was universal. He paid close attention to the music, as any great director should, but the conflict and sense of realism that he wanted to portray were also important to him. Ray could have easily made his films in Europe at the time to focus on the issues people faced in Europe or in America, but he chose to stay home and focus on the issues that his people faced in his own country thanks to the Italian neorealism he was so inspired by. 

Ray, as an artist, had a point of view. He was an artist with a cinematic language born with him, and he was generous enough to share that vision. The journey that he took, he shared with us beautiful and thought-provoking films consisting of powerful performances, music, and some of the most gorgeous and poetic shots of all time. To say that Ray was a master is not enough. He indeed earned such a status, but when your work lives on stirring all the emotions in one's heart till this day and on, you’re perhaps more than just a master. 

I’d like to say that Ray was an operator. That’s what makes a filmmaker, a true filmmaker. A filmmaker calls the shots, but he/she is not a filmmaker, in my opinion, until the shots that are called are intact with a point of view first. There’s a unique mannerism and method to everything we do in life and same when it comes to making films. Ray was well-aware of that. When I say Ray was an operator, does not mean he was literally operating the camera, which was indeed the case, because he also worked closely with his cinematographer to make sure shots were coming exactly the way he wanted. Ray, as an operator, also managed the screenplays, even designed the title sequences and composed the music. Of course, he wasn’t the only one who operated in such a way, but if anyone is doing it today, it has to be because of artists like Ray. 

For someone like Ray, a film first plays from beginning to end in his mind. This is shot by shot, of course. That's a sign of being a serious artist who is competent in his profession. I don’t believe for one second that a filmmaker today, of the Indian film industry, knows how to think of a film before rolling the camera. I’m not saying this with joy, of course. It saddens me that in a country where someone like Ray lived, not a single filmmaker from its film industry is capable of making a decent film anymore, let alone something as powerful as Ray’s work. Perhaps the Indian film industry is doomed, artistically speaking. But for Ray, his name is bigger than that industry and will always be, for he was a careful genius. An artist who had self-respect.

While Ray’s work will continue to be hailed, it is essential to note that such an act of kindness isn’t easily earned. Ray is considered the master of world cinema for no reason. So, in no way am I suggesting anyone can be just as great as Ray was. However, anyone can be as alert, careful, and subtle as Ray, especially in the Indian film industry, for it is in desperate need of a savior.