by B. R. GOWANI
VIDEO/Mesum Sakhawat/Youtube
VIDEO/Shemaroo/Youtube
After a long wait, Mughal-e-Azam, the epic film (mired in so many problems), was finally released in 1960 in Mumbai’s Maratha Mandir Cinema hall. At its premier, some Pakistanis, including Nazir and Swaranlata (famous actor couple), were also invited. The most expensive movie of its time – it cost over a crore rupees – had Madhubala, Prithviraj Kapoor, and Dilip Kumar in the lead roles. The especially-built set of Shish Mahal had many visitors, including poet Faiz Ahmad Faiz and politician Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.
One other film that created similar expectations was Kamal Amrohi’s Pakeeza, released in the early 1970s, with Meena Kumari, Ashok Kumar, and Raj Kumar. That movie also took many years to complete and with a huge budget. It was an epic film, too. Both were excellent movies with memorable songs and music.
Another epic, i.e., the year’s most awaited and the most expensive South Asian movie of all time – made at an exorbitant price of 60 crore rupees or 12 million dollars – with Madhuri Dixit, Aishwarya Rai, and Shahrukh Khan was released on July 12, 2002.
The film is based on Sarat Chandra Chatterjee’s (1876-1938) famous Bengali novel Devdas: a tragic love story that revolves around the younger of the two sons of an aristocratic family. Devdas’ carefree and loving nature doesn’t fit well with his class conscious and authoritarian father, and so he is sent off to London (in the novel it is Calcutta, though it was not unusual for the wealthy to go to London then) to study.
He returns after a decade and again starts seeing his childhood girlfriend Paro. Both have individual pride, however, both love each other too. On a family level, there is a big class difference; so the marriage proposal from her family is rejected. Paro risks her honor to pursue her goal, but a couple of wrong moves on part of Devdas sealed their fate. She is married off to a wealthy but older landlord. Thus begins a thirst never to be quenched – always to be intensified. He ends up an alcoholic and befriends a courtesan, Chandramukhi, whose profession he is never comfortable with, but he sympathizes with her plight. She makes life somewhat bearable. Nevertheless, his heart yearns for Paro.
Many versions of the story have appeared on celluloid: one during the Silent Era in 1928; then by Promatesh Chandra Barua in 1936 with Kundan Lal Saigal in the lead; Bimal Roy’s in 1955 had Suchitra Sen, Vyajantimala, and Dilip Kumar; and the Pakistani (1964) version had Shamim Ara, Nayyar Sultana, and Habib. About seven other depictions exist in regional languages, including the 1935 Bengali version by P. C. Barua (also in lead role), and the current Bengali one, by Shakti Samanta, (“Amar Prem” fame).
It has been long since the last Hindi/Urdu version was made. Director Sanjay Lila Bhansali in one of his interviews said this was his interpretation for the present generation; to an extent one has to agree with him keeping in mind the changed times.
However, too loose an interpretation runs the risk of becoming a misinterpretation. After seeing “Devdas,” it is difficult to brush off that impression. There are scenes, songs, and situations he could have avoided:
The first scene is too long and superficial (similar to Hum Aap ke Hain Koun and Bhansali’s own Hum Dil De Chuke Sanam). Devdas’ mother’s anxiety could have been conveyed in much reduced time.
Kiran Kher’s (Sardari Begum fame) dramatic dialogue and dance number is not only unnecessary, but is out of place. The novel had no such scene.
The heated encounter between Madhuri and Milind Gunaji at Aishwarya’s place is irrelevant to the movie. Maybe Bhansali wanted to show a strong female. However, there was no need, because the scene where Paro goes to meet Devdas at 2:00 AM at night conveys that message. (“Devdas” was written in early 1900s. Much more radical, and more feminist, was Bengal resident Rokeya Sakhawat Hossain’s, “Sultana’s Dream” written in 1905 that shows women as rulers and men as domestic workers.)
The catchy “Dola re, dola re…” could have been shown as Devdas’ fantasy when he was in one of his drunken state rather than a real meeting and a dance between Paro and Chandramukhi. The novel mentions that images of both women came alternately and sometime together in his mind. He fantasized that both have become close friends.
Another unnecessary song is “Chhalak chhalak.”
Was this much expense necessary?
Even if the film were about rajas and maharajas or nizams and nawabs, so much expense cannot be reasonably justified. The class clash is only in the beginning, otherwise the movie is basically about Devdas’ longing for Paro. Even the lower class Paro’s haveli is huge. Only in one scene – may be the director realized it – Paro’s father discusses their financial condition, and afterward when Paro’s mother goes to bed, it breaks. Paro’s new haveli is the biggest one – probably to make her run longer in the end. However, in the novel Paro comes to know about her beloved’s demise in the evening – hours after his corpse was taken away by chandals or men of low-caste to the samshan or burning ground. The fire didn’t burn too long and so they left. His “half- burnt body” became food for the vultures, and then for dogs and jackals. (V. S. Naravane’s English translation.) (Yes, realistic literature and art have their own ways to interpret unlike the “Bollywood” way – or for that matter Hollywood or “Lollywood,” i.e., Lahore, Pakistan.)
The movie should have been more Devdas oriented – Bhansali should have tried to bring out the antagonist’s psyche more forcefully. It is two childhood scenes, his whipping by his father, and Paro’s yelling and running after him that are repeated a few times. Bhansali could have shown:
His lack of interest in studies; his running away from school; his fighting with his classmates; his occasional violence with Paro; her bringing of food for him.
(The same flash back technique could have been used for the above scenes too.)
After saying all these things, I would say that anybody who watches films should see this movie at least once. One nice thing is to introduce a generation to good South Asian music. The sets are spectacular, photography is brilliant, camera work is done in such a manner that things look much bigger and grander, dialogues are good but such as “I don’t like anyone touching you” reminds of Bombay films’ anti-heroes, or “This kind of advise even a pimp won’t offer to his daughter” is a bit too crass. In acting, Shahrukh Khan is very good. On the commercial Hindi/Urdu cinema scene in South Asia, after Dilip Kumar and Amitabh Bachchan, it is Shahrukh Khan who can be truly regarded as both an actor and a star.
Aishwarya is good, still in few scenes the director could have extracted more from her. Madhuri is nice. Jackie Shroff as Chuni Babu is not constant. In at least one scene his voice sounds like that of Motilal (Bimal Roy’s Chuni Babu), but a little later he is back to his own voice. Additionally, in some scenes he over-acts.
One cannot dismiss “Devdas” as Bhansali’s expensive fantasy or belittle his talents to make a grand epic film. He can be considered an heir – as far as grandeur is concerned – to K. Asif and Kamal Amrohi. (When young, he was asked by his father to go and see “Mughal-e-Azam.”) (Those who have seen “Pakeeza” would be reminded of “Inhi logon ne le liya dupatta mera,” when Madhuri is shown dancing with other nautch girls dancing in background.) British film director David Lean was once asked to give his opinion about Mughal-e-Azam’s epic-ness: he was not very kind. If he were alive today, one can’t say whether he would have openly appreciated the technical excellence of “Devdas,” but probably he would have grudgingly thought about it.
The film’s grand that cannot be denied; but may not be regarded as great. Paro’s beauty is marred when she got hit. One wishes the same were true for the movie too – in a sense that so many avoidable things did not mar it.
A song’s couplet in the movie says:
The scar that you gave me
has enhanced my facial beauty
But with too many scars, it just doesn’t work.
(Devdas was reviewed in 2002.)
B. R. Gowani can be reached at brgowani@hotmail.com