It’s very important to understand Ritwik Ghatak to understand Indian film with Indian ethos. He is very much like Ozu to Japan, Bresson to France or Parazanov to Georgia.Ritwik Ghatak is only Indian film director among very few with genuine originality and survived the influences of others. His films are very much Indian (as Ozu’s films are very much Japanese ) and which are mean to be Indian with Indian layers of life and culture, uniqueness.
According to another master of Indian film Satyajit Ray “One doesn't notice any influence of other schools of filmmaking on his work. For him Hollywood might not have existed at all. The occasional echo of classical Soviet school is there, but this does not prevent him from being in a class by himself”.
According to another master of Indian film Satyajit Ray “One doesn't notice any influence of other schools of filmmaking on his work. For him Hollywood might not have existed at all. The occasional echo of classical Soviet school is there, but this does not prevent him from being in a class by himself”.
Here is an interview with Ritwik Ghatak and recent indian auteur issue on him.
Q. You obviously feel that film-making for pecuniary gin or powerful mass medium should be used instead for reformist propaganda and active proselytizing, in the way some of our rather well known well known film makers have done-often at the cost of art?
R.G. I am quite old-fashioned about this. Tagore once said, art has to be beautiful. But before that, it has to be truthful.
Now what is truth? There is no eternal truth. Every artist has to learn his own private truth through a painful personal process. And this is what he has to convey. There is no such thing as yet in the world called a class-less art. The reason: there is no class-less society. Every work of art is relative, and it is no class-less society. Every work of art is relative, and it is in relation to man. All art worth its name must work for the betterment of man.
I do not believe in any rigid theory, but at the same time I am quite amazed at those so-called ‘great’ film makers, who are fundamentally nothing but dilettantes who clamour about the art of human relationships. It is a very clever way of evading one’s social reposnibility. What they practice only goes to serve the purpose of their establishment. They are as partisan as can be, but wear a mask of nonpartisanship. I detest this kind of slogan.
R.G. I am quite old-fashioned about this. Tagore once said, art has to be beautiful. But before that, it has to be truthful.
Now what is truth? There is no eternal truth. Every artist has to learn his own private truth through a painful personal process. And this is what he has to convey. There is no such thing as yet in the world called a class-less art. The reason: there is no class-less society. Every work of art is relative, and it is no class-less society. Every work of art is relative, and it is in relation to man. All art worth its name must work for the betterment of man.
I do not believe in any rigid theory, but at the same time I am quite amazed at those so-called ‘great’ film makers, who are fundamentally nothing but dilettantes who clamour about the art of human relationships. It is a very clever way of evading one’s social reposnibility. What they practice only goes to serve the purpose of their establishment. They are as partisan as can be, but wear a mask of nonpartisanship. I detest this kind of slogan.
To download full interview visit here
1 Earthling’s comments:
Well… couldn’t have put the intro on Ghatak any better. I'm happy that, even in a small way, we are doing our bit to spread information about his works and ideas.
Thanks for linking. :)
Post a Comment