SATYAJIT RAY

Satyajit Ray is one of the great directors on the Indian movie industry. He has made comedies, musical fantasies, detective films, and documentaries. His comedies are a combination of comedy, fantasy, satire, farce and a touch of pathos. The music in his films mesmerizes the audience in addition to expressionistic lighting, utterly convincing sets and the actors monumental performances. Ray had a penchant for Sherlock Holmes and that is the reason he made three detective films. His documentary films about people keep the audience informed of the subject and they are self effacing. His appeal to particular personalities led him to direct such films.

Ray as a film maker: Ray’s best technique in film making is one that is noticeable. His films are simple, immediate and full of essence. Ray conveys through his films a sense of a whole personality. Ray is a cinema of thought and feeling in which the feeling is deliberately restrained as it is so intense. Ray’s films are antithesis of conventional Hollywood films both in state and in content. He never indulges in emotional rhetoric. He consciously eschews glamour, gimmicks and technical polish. Ray is instinctual by making films for Bengalis rather than reliance on foreign audience. Ray won the Reznick Golden Laurel Award thrice at the festival for ‘Patner Panchal’, ‘Aparajito’ and ‘Two Daughters’.

Ray’s films are meaningful and pleasurable to everyone. Ray ideally likes complete freedom to portray what a story demands and he believes that overall are hit in India. Rays love for the land of his birth is evident in his films. He has never felt the need to leave India for his films or subjects. Ray is too original for both Western and Oriental themes. As an artist he has faith in the idea of East-West synthesis and his films reveal ideas of Indian and Western civilization. Ray has experimented with subject matter and style more than any other director in cinema. He has always been true to his conviction that the finest cinema uses strong and simple themes, with hundred little irrelevant details which help to intensify and create the illusion of actuality better. Ray continued creating his films unclouded by cynicism. Ray’s work reminds us of the wholeness and sanctity of the individual and offers us intimations of a mysterious unity behind the visible world. He has created an indelible impact on the minds of the audience.

Some aspects of Ray’s craft is as follows: Ray has used a high degree of discipline to achieve simplicity and immediacy on screen. The unobtrusiveness of his technique stands in direct proportions to the power of his concentration on it. Ray’s principle is that all departments of film making must serve the needs of the source material. His films have organic cohesion grown from original inspiration.

Story and script: Ray’s films have not been entirely original. He borrows tremendously from other people’s work. His experience is all middle class. A strong developed screenplay before shooting is something Ray regards as a necessity. It makes his film-making more economic. He believes that the most fruitful improvisation results from the most thorough preparation. His ear for dialogue and his ability to write it for films is among the finest in cinema. His exposure to Bengali films helped him to draw out his latent talent. Besides the characters who are speaking the dialogue Ray has the actors in mind when he is writing a screenplay. His script is so clear, fluent and natural that no discussion is necessary.

Editing – Ray state that editing is the stage when a film begins to come to life. Ray is quite ruthless with his own footage and that of others. His work can be described as following composedly like a big river. He wants to preserve a life like sensation in his films beginning with the screenplay and culminating with the editing. He has managed transitions in his films with surgical skills.

Casting and handling of actors: Ray has no taboo about the actors he selects. He has worked with all kinds of people from box office starts to people who had never seen a film. He picks a new actor if the story dictates it and moulds his performance by whatever means bringing the right result. Ray generally keeps rehearsals to the minimum. He waits until the sets or location is ready with the exception of certain technically demanding shots. He feels prolonged rehearsal is more likely to produce stiffness than perfection of the screen. He had an eye for continuity and realism which was fantastic. He was clear as to what he wanted in direction. He creates an atmosphere on the set of alertness and concentration that is both economical of time and money and a reflection of himself. It is really the devotion he elicits, more than any specific technique of directing that produces the on screen miracles of his work. Ray’s attitude draws out the improvision technique and depth that an actor is capable of giving to his performance. He never strains the actor. He never attacks the actors self confidence but expects it.

Camera work and lighting: The pioneering system of shadowless bounce lighting was used in Ray’s films. The screening of his film ‘Charulata’ is so satifying; the mobility of the camera and the use of zooms and close-ups matches the playful, restless, border behavior of the actress Charu. The relative stillness of the early part of ‘The Goddess’ is equally appropriate allowing us to absorb the lethargic brooding atmosphere of the zamindars mansion. Ray does not wish to call attention to the camerawork but each style acts on the mind as part of an integrated composition of light movement, sound, speech and music. The viewer feels himself to be in direct touch with Ray’s character and settings through the lens of his camera.

Music composition: Ray has evolved his own style and method of composition to suit his peculiar situation and talents. He painstakingly writes out score in both Indian and western citation depending on the musicians involved. Ray felt that music is an extraneous element. He preferred to be his own composer as he gets clear ideas of what the film needs by way of music. He favors employing elements from well known ragas and raginis and shifting from raga to raga. His overall aim is to compose background music that brings to the particular film than to any recognizable tradition. Ray’s goal in the music of ‘the Home and the World’ was comparable to adapt certain western elements along with Indian and specifically Tagorean ones and make music to interest and satisfy viewers with both backgrounds while expressing the inextricable mixture of influences as work with the characters.

Ray’s films are slow as regarded by some viewers but are also interesting to some others. His films have supple life like dialogue and probing telling camerawork. His films follow certain preoccupied patterns and dramatizes trivial phenomena which are woven together in a carefully calculated manner. His films for children involving tricks and magic are the most striking things ever done in cinematic choreography. The main value of some of his films is archival. The ingenuity of his films have won his accolades and awards in India and abroad. He never differentiated between a major or minor artist or technician.

Satyajit Ray is one of the genius veterans of Indian Film industry and will always be remembered for his good films.

EFFECTS OF PERSIAN CONTACT ON INDIAN CULTURE

Impact on administration – there are many similarities between the Persian administration and the administration of the Indian states.

a. Both Indians and Aryans belonged to the same race and this racial affinity could well have produced certain similarities.

b. There were trade relations even before the political contacts; and the commercial contact could have resulted in borrowing some of the features of the Persian administration by the Indian.

c. The similarities might be due to sheer coincidence. Nevertheless it is quite probable that at least some of the similarities were the result of Persian Invasion of India.

In Persia the Emperor was all powerful, but this was in theory. In practice he consulted his nobles in administrative matters and his judges in legal matters. The same was the case with the great emperors of India. In theory their word was law. In practice they consulted their nobles and the brahmins.

The Persians established a mighty empire. We find that in India also there arose the concept of ‘Universal’ sovereignty. This Universal monarchy seems to gain ground after the Persian Invasions, and it gains further ground after Alexander’s invasion.

The Persian Empire embraced numerous civilizations and cultures and religions. The Persians not only tolerated these but encouraged them. We find the same tendency in India when large Empires arose. There was seldom any religious intolerance in ancient India. Hindu emperors like Guptas encouraged Buddhists. Buddhist emperors like Ashoka patronized Brahmins. Moreover, the Indian emperors seldom tried to force their own laws, customs, manners, etc., on the conquered people. They realized that what was good in the land of the conqueror might not be suitable in the land of the conquered.

The Persians realized that previous empires had decayed because the race that built up the empire lost its vigor and took to vice, luxury and corruption. To prevent this, they inculcated in their youth a love for certain virtues like honesty, fairness, respect for women, etc. They also taught their youth to lead hardy lives, and encouraged them to ride hard, to hunt, etc. We find that in India, the education of princes was also undertaken on similar lines.

The backbone of the Persian empire was the Persian aristocracy, trained from youth to man the military and civil services, so that the emperors did not have to depend on mercenaries. In India also the Brahmin and Kshatriya aristocracy supplied the Emperor with his requirements of civil and military officials.

There were many features in the administration in India which were probably copied from Persia: the system of espionage, the system of communication by building trunk roads, etc.

The Indian term ‘Kshatrappaa’ meaning ‘governor’ or ‘vassal prince’ is derived from the Persian term ‘Satrap’.

Until long after the Persian invasions, the Indians used Persian officials. Chandragupta Maurya engaged Persians in his excellent system of administration. The Girnar Rock inscription refers to Tushaspa, a Persian, as being governor of Kathiawar. Probably these officials introduced the Persian court ceremonies in Indian courts. The tradition of engaging Persian officials was continued until Mughal times.

Impact on script: The official language of the Persian Empire as Aramaic. It became the language of commercial intercourse. It became the ‘Lingua franca’ of a large part of the civilized world. Long after the fall of the Persian Empire, Aramaic continued to be used. This form of writing came to India and thus was developed the Kharoshti Script, written from left to right. Tablets on which this script have been inscribed have been found in India. Kharosti was one of the principal scripts of Bactria, Afghanistan, Punjab and Sind for several centuries. The Bactrian coins often have legends in Greek on the obverse and in Kharosti on the reverse. These are the coins of the Bactrian Greek invaders of India, who came to India after the fall of the Mauryan Empire.

Impact on Art: It is generally accepted that Persian Art influenced Mauryan Art. The Ashokan Pillars were to some extent inspired and influenced by the Persian pillars, although the Ashokan pillar is not a carbon copy of the Persian pillar. The capital of the Ashokan pillar has an inverted lotus, which resembles the Persian bell-shaped capital. The capitals of both Persian and Ashokan Pillars generally have animal sculptures which show a remarkable degree of artistic excellence.

Thus we see that the Persian contact did influence Indian culture.

GANDHARA SCHOOL OF SCULPTURE

Intimately connected with the Mahayan School Buddhism was a new school of Indian sculpture known as the Gandhara School. It flourished under the Kushans especially Kanishka during whose time a number o Buddhist monasteries, stupas and statues were constructed. They bear a distinct influence of the Old Greek School of Art. The province of Gandhara, the center of the new school of Buddhism, was so situated as to be the meeting ground of the Indian, Chinese, Iranian and the Greco- Roman cultures. It was therefore quite natural for the province to absorb foreign ideas and influences. Hence the art of the province could not but be a mixture of the West + the East. It owed its origin to the Greek rulers of Bachia + North West India. The Gandhara art is undoubtedly derived from Greek art or to be more precise the Hellenistic art of Asia minor + the Roman Empire. Accordingly, it is also known as Indo Greek or Greco Roman Art. As this art was adopted to Indian genius and applied to Buddhist subjects, it is also called the Greco- Buddhist School of art. But though the technique was borrowed from Greece, the art was essentially Indian in spirit and it was solely employed to give expression to the beliefs and practices of the Buddhists. With a few exceptions, no Greek story or legend and no Greek art motif has been detected among the numerous specimens of Gandhara sculpture. The Indian subjects were interpreted through the Greeco Roman technique. In fact the Gandhara artist had the hand of a Greek and the heart of an Indian. The sentiment is Buddhist but the technique is grafted on foreign soil. Outside India Gandhara Art became very important as it turned to be the parent of the Buddhist art of Eastern or Chinese Turkestan, Mongolia, China, Korea and Japan.

The Gandhara sculptures have been found in the ruins of Taxila in various ancient sites in Afghanistan and the northwest frontier province of Pakistan. They consist mostly of images of Buddha and relief sculptures representing scenes from Buddhist texts. They were executed in stone, stucco, terracotta, and clay and appear to have been invariably embellished with gold leaf or paint. Specimens preserved in Peshawar, Lahore and other museums are executed in stone. But at Taxila, the archeologists have discovered in addition to stone images, a large number of stucco ones, a smaller number of terracotta and clay figures. The discoveries have greatly added to our knowledge of sculpture and the technical skill employed by the artistes of the Gandhara school.

There are some outstanding technical characteristics of the Gandhara School of Sculpture that easily distinguish it from other Indian sculptures. In the first place, Gandhara School has ‘a tendency to mould the human body in a realistic manner with great attention to accuracy of physical details, especially by the delineation of muscles and the addition of moustaches, etc. Secondly the representation of the thick drapery with large and bold fold lines form a distinct characteristic. Lastly, the Gandhara sculptures reveal rich carving, elaborate ornamentation and complex symbolism.

For a long time it was believed that the images of Buddha and Boddhisattvas executed by the Gandhara Art served as the model for those executed at Mathura and Gandhara. There appears a striking difference between the Buddha images of Gandhara and those of the Indian interior. The former laid stress on accuracy of anatomical details and physical beauty, while the latter strove towards imparting a sublime and spiritual expression to the figure. The one was realistic and the other idealistic – the vital difference between western and Indian art.

The main theme of the Gandhara School of Sculpture was the new form of Buddhism and its most important contribution was the evolution of an image of buddha. The Gandhara schools of art was a tremendous iconographic success, because from now onward the figures of the Buddha were much in vogue. Fine images of Buddha and Bodhisattvas and relief sculptures illustrating various episodes of Buddha’s present and past lives are remarkably executed in a kind of black stone. The life of Buddha forms the inspiring motive of this art. In fact, the Gandhara school of sculpture is a lively commentary on the life and deeds of Lord Buddha. However, it should be noted, as Sir John Marshall points out that the Gandhara School of Art never took real hold upon India, because the Indians and the Greeks were radically different and dissimilar.

Besides this school of sculpture, there were other schools of art particularly flourishing in Mathura and Amravati in the south. Simplicity and restraint were the marked features of these schools.