Parineeta(1953) - Dir. Bimal Roy

This is the final write-up in a series on Bimal Roy films.

With Parineeta(1953), I bring another Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay novel adaptation to the viewers after the previous one i.e Devdas(1955). This novel was written in 1914 and is once again set in the same period. The story is essentially a love story that is riddled with misunderstandings that arise out of various societal traditions. It is not a tear-jerker like Devdas but has its moments of sorrow that are mostly self-imposed. As was the nature with most Sarat Chandra novels, the male protagonist is a morally weak character compared to the female protagonist whose character shines despite her socially unprivileged status. As expected, this is a premise that goes well with Bimal’s thematic concerns as we have seen so far. We will also see Bimal pulling punches against other ugly traditions like caste and dowry along the way.

The pleasures of this film arise from the way Bimal develops this romance between the protagonists. Two people who have pretty much grown up in each other’s company; so much so that they seem to develop some sort of possessiveness and responsibility for each other. On one hand we have Shekhar who considers himself as a teacher and guardian to Lalita and on the other hand we have Lalita who seems to reciprocate this by serving Shekhar by keeping his room tidy and doing other chores for him. We will also see Lalita taking money from Shekhar’s cupboard at will. An arrangement that reflects on the level of comfort that the two share. We will see Shekhar speaking sarcastically to Lalita and teasing her. Lalita on the other hand comes across as a demure girl who accepts Shekhar’s taunt’s that do hurt her sometimes but it is evident that she cares for him. Their relationship is almost like that of a married couple and yet they are far from that.

Lalita is staying with her uncle who is in debt of Shekhar’s father. Both families are high caste Brahmins but are separated by the rich-poor divide and it is unthinkable for the protagonists to be married. In the meantime, we will see the entry of the character Girin who unlike Shekhar is much more liberal and it is his presence that will make Shekhar go through an emotional turmoil as well as make him appreciate his relationship with Lalita. Once again, Lalita’s character shines as being devotional in her love towards Shekhar who is clearly not as virtuous as her. Does Shekhar deserve Lalita’s affection? Quite possibly not, and both Sarat and Bimal would agree with you on that. Ultimately though, what will happen is the ironic reality of most couples. It is a man-woman dynamic that is skewed in the favor of men and yet women for some unknown reason are willing to tolerate this inequality with an emotional strength that would make most self-respecting men feel ashamed of themselves. Bimal through Sarat’s Parineeta, once again paint’s a paean to this woman.

Bimal also very beautifully creates the atmosphere of the Bengali household; whether it is the idyllic afternoon’s playing cards at the neighbour’s place or doing daily chores or visiting a nearby theatre for a comic dance drama performance. I hope people enjoy this experience. I will leave you with some screen shots:

Note:
If the resolution appear’s hurried and unreal, I will not blame you. At the same time, I can only say that irrespective of the resolution, Bimal achieves what he set’s out for in the film. I hope viewers can appreciate that.

In Search of Famine (1981) - Dir. Mrinal Sen

Note: Another of the film intro's; this time for a Mrinal Sen film.

In Search of Famine is a film that comes during Mrinal Sen’s third phase of film-making(as described in his intro thread) when he had started making more introspective films compared to his overtly political second phase. This could be explained due to the election of the party of his allegiance i.e CPM (Communist Party (Marxist)) in the state of West Bengal in 1977, overthrowing the erstwhile Indian National Congress Government. The CPM would continue to helm the affairs in West Bengal for the next 30 years.

Bengal Famine, 1943

The state of Bengal has seen several famines in its history. The most famous amongst them is the 1943 Famine which occurred during the Second World War when the Japanese had invaded Burma. The 1943 famine was largely a man-made calamity that claimed millions of lives. This is an article on International Business Times by Joseph Lazzaro that gives an idea of what happened:

When British Prime Minister David Cameron expressed regret this week for the Jallianwala Bagh massacre of 1919 in Amritsar (in which at least 400 unarmed Indian men, women and children were massacred by British soldiers), he omitted any reference to Britain’s role in a far greater tragedy of colonial India: the Bengal famine of 1943. Seventy years ago, at least 3 million people died from starvation and malnutrition during a famine in the Indian province of Bengal — a partly man-made disaster that has been largely forgotten by the world beyond northeastern India. A complex confluence of malign factors led to the catastrophe, which occurred with the world at war, including, as Indian parliamentary member and leading agricultural scientist M. S. Swaminathan cited in the Hindu newspaper, the Japanese occupation of neighboring Burma and damage to the local rice crop due to tidal waves and a fungal disease epidemic. Swaminathan also blamed “panic purchase and hoarding by the rich, failure of governance, particularly in relation to the equitable distribution of the available food grains, disruption of communication due to World War II and the indifference of the then UK government to the plight of the starving people of undivided Bengal. But while famines were not uncommon in India throughout history, largely because of periodic droughts or monsoons, the tragedy in Bengal had the unmistakable hand of man in it, making it an even greater calamity of recent global history.In the prior year, 1942, when Japan seized Burma, an important rice exporter, the British bought up massive amounts of rice but hoarded it. The famine only ended because Bengal thankfully delivered a strong rice harvest by 1944.Dr. Gideon Polya, an Australian biochemist, has called the Bengal famine a man-made holocaust. “The British brought an unsympathetic and ruthless economic agenda to India,” he wrote. Polya further noted that the “loss of rice from Burma and ineffective government controls on hoarding and profiteering led inevitably to enormous price rises. Thus it can be estimated that the price of rice in Dacca (East Bengal) increased about four-fold in the period from March to October 1943. Bengalis having to purchase food (e.g landless laborers) suffered immensely. Thus, it is estimated that about 30 percent of one particular laborer class died in the famine. Many observers in both modern India and Great Britain blame Winston Churchill, Britain’s inspiring wartime leader at the time, for the devastation wrought by the famine.In 2010, Bengali author Madhusree Mukherjee wrote a book about the famine called Churchill’s Secret War, in which she explicitly blamed Churchill for worsening the starvation in Bengal by ordering the diversion of food away from Indians and toward British troops around the world.Mukherjee’s book described how wheat from Australia (which could have been delivered to starving Indians) was instead transported to British troops in the Mediterranean and the Balkans. Even worse, British colonial authorities (again under Churchill’s leadership) actually turned down offers of food from Canada and the U.S.“If it was someone else other than Churchill, I believe relief would have been sent, and, if it wasn’t for the war, the famine wouldn’t have occurred at all,” Mukherjee told Inter Press Service.“Churchill’s attitude toward India was quite extreme, and he hated Indians, mainly because he knew India couldn’t be held for very long. One can’t escape the really powerful, racist things that he was saying. It certainly was possible to send relief but for Churchill and the War Cabinet that were hoarding grain for use after the war.” Churchill’s hostility toward Indians has long been documented. Reportedly, when he first received a telegram from the British colonial authorities in New Delhi about the rising toll of famine deaths in Bengal, his reaction was simply that he regretted that nationalist leader Mahatma Gandhi was not one of the victims. Later at a War Cabinet meeting, Churchill blamed the Indians themselves for the famine, saying that they “breed like rabbits. His attitude toward Indians was made crystal clear when he told Secretary of State for India Leopold Amery: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion.”According to the BBC, Mukherjee said that Cameron should have apologized for the Bengal famine on behalf of his predecessor in Downing Street from decades ago — indeed, even former Prime Minister Tony Blair apologized for Britain’s culpability in the Irish potato famine of the 1840s. Outside of India, the Bengal famine of 1943 might only be known through the efforts of Indian filmmaker Satyajit Ray, who directed a movie in 1973 called “Ashani Sanket” (“Distant Thunder”), based on a novel by the same name by Bengali author Bibhutibhushan Bandyopadhyay.

Leaving all the Churchill bashing in the article aside, the important point this article makes and will be relevant to us to understand this film is the fact that famines are largely man made disasters caused by poor and insensitive governance which hasn’t changed much after independence.

So why does Mrinal Sen try to revisit this period of Indian history after almost 40 years? The reasons although not documented appears to be the following:

1>This film comes close on the heels of a major famine in Bangladesh in 1974 which also claimed many lives. India has been home to a large number of refugees from Bangladesh and Sen who also was born in Faridpur (now in Bagladesh) perhaps had sympathy towards this disaster which also appeared to be man made.

2> Sen uses “famine” as a metaphor for the vacuum that exists between the privileged and unprivileged classes which is responsible for increasing the divide between the two communities. A subject that was close to his heart.

In Search of Famine – The Film within the Film

In this film a film crew travels to a rural village in West Bengal to shoot a film that has a narrative set during the 1943 Bengal famine. They stay at a derelict mansion which previously housed the rich landlords family which saw tough times after independence. It currently houses only the ailing landlord and his wife whose children live in the city. This becomes a parallel narrative in the film that also seems to touch upon the large scale migration to the cities. Due to this setting, this film is also considered to be a companion piece to Khandar which we saw in the previous round.

Initially, the film seems to be doing well and shootings are going as per schedule. The village is excited to have the film crew and invite them with a lot enthusiasm. The difficulties are mostly economic reflecting on the times:

Sen will indulge in some irony in the meantime. Hopefully their film may not need a saviour.

But it doesn’t look like even the God’s can escape famine

In the village, our director will find his “man”, a theatre enthusiast whose family were artisan’s. They barely survive in the trade today. This would be the first parallel between the 1943 famine and our film as the famine had badly affected artisans and claimed many of their lives. The second parallel between the past and the present will be portrayed by Durga, a village woman whose life seems to strangely chronicle that of Smita Patil’s character in the film within the film.

Meanwhile, the film shooting continues..

The crew finds an admirer and friend in the village school headmaster who will try to play the role of a bridge between the privileged film crew and the underprivileged villagers.

The crew has an off-day due to rain and our heroine Smita Patil (playing herself) will indulge in an interesting game: Guess the Famine from the picture. Rest assured, Sen will provide us a healthy dose of irony.

Things appear to start getting difficult for the crew when the second herione who is to play a prostitute decides to break the contract and go back to Calcutta. The search for a new actress will begin among’st the villager’s

I will end the film synopsis at this point for viewers to enjoy the rest of the film. We will see what troubles the crew will run into and whether they will finally complete their film or not. Sen will raise some important issues through these events which we will summarize in the conclusion.

Conclusion

As mentioned in a previous section, Sen has approached the subject of 1943 Bengal famine for several reasons. As we have seen in the partial synopsis, it is also dealing with the difficulties involved in film-making on locations, especially in rural areas with a different culture and ideals. Through the difficulties the crew faces, Sen will highlight this gap between the two groups and blame both parties for lack of trust between them; The film crew for its insensitivity in dealing with the villagers and the villagers for being illiterate and not sufficiently liberal in their outlook. It is this gap or emptiness which Sen calls the “famine” and has been searching for in this film and eventually discovers.

There is also a man made famine created by the crew which is buying most of the produce in the village and raising prices which further displays the insensitivity of the filming crew which is ironically also making a film about Famine.

All in all, In Search of Famine is a multi-layered film that deals with several issues with its unique narrative style which makes it immensely rewarding. Most importantly, it is a film dealing with the ethics and morality of film-making which most filmmakers tend to forget in the effort to show us reality.

Madhumati (1958) - Dir. Bimal Roy

This write-up is a part of a number of film introductions I did on Bimal Roy's films that were shown as a part of a web event.

Prologue

Madhumati is one of those films that boast of great talent both on and off screen that simply demands to be seen. It is interesting that Bimal’s most commercially successful movie was penned by Ritwik Ghatak who left a few months after writing the first draft and went on to make Ajantrik. He was happy to get Rs. 500 advance in those days; It was perhaps good enough for him to make a film. Roy was very impressed with Ghatak’s unique story which he believed had all the elements to make a commercially successful film with his trademark aesthetics. Critics weren’t happy with Roy who had until then made films on mostly serious subjects on socially relevant themes. Hrishikesh Mukherjee, the film editor and former roommate of Ghatak in Mumbai, convinced Roy to go ahead with this idea. The rest as we say is history. Madhumati became a blueprint for many successful films in the future even though none could capture the sense of mystery and innocence that Roy managed through his directorial vision.

Madhumati in Images

Madhumati begins on a stormy night when two friends get stuck on a road due to a road block. They seek refuge in a nearby decrepit mansion until the driver fixes the car. The mansion is not just eerie but also seems to evoke some memories in our protagonist played by Dilip Kumar. Perhaps, from a past life…

Then starts the flashback which will recount the past life of our protagonist when he was a foreman at a woodcutting establishment at an estate of a village where nature is blessed with all its glory. It’s difficult not to hum a tune in this weather…

In all this beauty though, there seems to exist a nymph that continues to elude our protagonist…

In the meantime, he will try to capture the natural beauty on canvas.

Eventually, he does meet this nymph who happens to be a beautiful village girl named Madhumati which in Sanskrit means “full of sweetness”. Innocent and pure, she moves like the rollicking waters of the river and dances like the trees in the wind. Our protagonist will try to sketch her as well..

He can’t get enough of her beauty and finds himself incapable…

She on the other hand is busy observing the ants who according to her are rushing home, to protect themselves from the arriving rain…

Their tryst would continue like this at the time the shadow of the tree falls on this stone…

Ugranarayan, the landlord of the estate has other plans for this girl though and things are beginning to get difficult for the couple. The girl has a premonition of something bad happening to her so they decide to get married in the most austere fashion.

Unfortunately, Ugranarayan executes his evil plan…

Our hero is distraught as the nymph has disappeared once again from his life..

Ugranarayan on the other hand seems to be enjoying, blowing smoke circles in the air…

I won’t reveal what happens later but we can be rest assured that the cycle of life and death continues…

Does it remind you something?…

Madhumati and it’s theme of reincarnation

Reincarnation of souls is a concept in several eastern religions.
The Bhagvad Geeta in the words of Lord Krishna proclaims:
The soul is never born nor dies at any time. Soul has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. Soul is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. Soul is not slain when the body is slain.
He further says:
As a human being puts on new garments, giving up old ones, the soul similarly accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones.

In this story we have characters that reincarnate and some even remember their past lives. Does it have any scientific explanation? No, but it makes for a fascinating subject for the story writer. But even more than reincarnation, the film seems to touch upon the concept of “maya” or illusion which our protagonist faces at various points during the film. Even up to the last scene, he fears losing Madhumati. It is funny to observe that he does find her always as they seem to be united by the bond of marriage that is supposed to last for many lives. They are bound to meet even if they may be in different forms. All these things of course have no scientific basis but are a matter of faith which you either believe or don’t. In reality, it doesn’t really matter. Ghatak and Roy though, use these religious and traditional belief’s successfully to not only touch a chord in the audience but also entertain them.

Epilogue

So what do we make of this film? It has the atmosphere of beautifully shot mystical ghost stories like Ugetsu; some even call it gothic horror. It has a unique story of reincarnation that successfully manages to pull emotional and romantic strings; It has a brilliant soundtrack from Salil Choudhry with evergreen songs; It has characters that are part of folklore like the evil horse-riding Ugranarayan, the mystical nymph Madhumati or the drunkard played by Johnny Walker who is miffed at people who don’t blame the peacock dancing in the woods but always blame him for getting a little tipsy. All in all, it’s a film that is difficult to dislike. At the same time, you may say it’s not a masterpiece, but I say it has its own unique cocktail of pleasure which you don’t get in most masterpieces. I hope you enjoy watching it. Thanks for reading.

Note: Veteran actor Pran who plays Ugranarayan died on 12th July aged 93. This thread is a humble tribute to this great actor.

Devdas (1955) - Dir. Bimal Roy

This write-up is a part of a number of film introductions I did on Bimal Roy's films that were shown as a part of a web event.

If I had to name just one Indian novel that seems to have fascinated generations of Indian artists and filmmakers, it is Sarat Chandra’s Devdas

A few words about Devdas before we go on to discussing Bimal Roy’s adaptation:

Devdas (Bengali: দেবদাস, Debdash; Hindi: देवदास, Devdās) (also called Debdas) (1917) is a Bengali Romance novel by Sarat Chandra Chattopadhyay when he was only seventeen years of age. In many ways, it parallels the Krishna, Radha, and Meera myths, the relationships between its three protagonists – Devdas, Parvati, and Chandramukhi. – Wikipedia

Now, Sarat Chandra (1876-1938) essentially wrote romantic pulp fiction in the period of 1915 to 1935 and was hugely popular in his days. His books may not be literary masterpieces but they did capture that period of contemporary Brahmo Samaj social renaissance Bengal rather well and had a sense of drama that perhaps fascinated many artists, especially filmmakers. It is interesting to note that Sarat was very dismissive of his most popular novel which he considered to be an immature effort with deplorable characters.

Till date Devdas has seen countless adaptations on screen and Bimal Roy was associated with the first significant one which was P.C Barua’s Devdas (1935). As I mentioned in the Roy intro thread, he was the cameraman on this film which became extremely popular for its songs and the actor K.L Saigal who played the lead protagonist as well as sung all his songs, became a legend. This adaptation is significant because Roy has dedicated his adaptation to the memory of the late P.C. Barua in the film credits. Those who might have seen Barua’s version will also notice that Roy also uses some of the plot points of the screenplay of the old version which was also mostly faithful to the novel.
Bimal Roy makes one major change in his screenplay which is that he starts his film when Devdas and Parvati (Paro) are kids growing up together just like in the novel. There are moments which will remind people of Pather Panchali and it is strange that both films were released in the same year. If the kids in Pather are fascinated by the train, Devdas and Paro are fascinated with nature, especially the Bulbul bird which acts as a constant comfort in their lives. Roy was a man close to his roots and nature always played a significant role in his films. Devdas who as a child sings songs for the Bulbul, grows up to hunt them and even in his most desolate moments, the bird remains a reminder of the carefree innocence of the past.

The Krishna, Radha, Meera connection is stronger in this screenplay. For those who are unaware of Hindu mythology, it is perhaps worthwhile reading a little about these three. This connection is established in the second song where the minstrels sing for the child Parvati just after Devdas has left for Kolkata.
Roy was brilliant at conveying poetic images on screen and the first significant one is the way he travels forward in time as Paro grows up from child into a beautiful young woman. The waves created in the lake by the pot act as metaphors for the waves of time and the lotus bud blossoms into a flower with Raag Bahar playing in the background.

The children have now grown up and the childhood friendship has blossomed into love. The first meeting of the grown up Devdas and Paro is a great scene showing the coyness of Parvati as well as the discomfort of Devdas.

At this point, it is significant to discuss the character of Parvati. Her character is at the crossroads of the old and the new age Indian woman. We see her as a dutiful but self-respecting woman who expects her man to give her the same respect that she gives him. So on one hand we see several scenes where she touches Devdas’ feet and hopes to serve him as his wife and in others we see her standing for her feminist values. This strange dichotomy is significant to understand some of the cultural background in this film as well as the sympathy that Sarat as well as Roy had for the emancipation of women.

The reason for the discord between Devdas and Paro is very important to understand and so we will come to the scene at the lake. Parvati has received a letter from Devdas saying that he perhaps doesn’t love her and that he would not be able to disobey his parents who are against them getting married as they belong to different castes. Parvati’s ego is hurt and even when Devdas apologizes to her for his naivety she refuses to forgive him. There is a moment of violence between the two where Devdas delivers a blow on Parvati’s forehead. This is perhaps one of the greatest love scenes I have ever seen on film because although there is violence in the act, it actually conveys the intense love between them.

After this significant scene, both Devdas and Parvati embark on a journey of self-destruction. Parvati gets married to a much older male, playing mother to boys and girls of her own age whereas Devdas will slowly and steadily kill himself by becoming an alcoholic. At this point enters the third significant character which is the courtesan Chandramukhi.

The relationship of Chandramukhi to Devdas is a strange one. Devdas hates her and her kind and refuses to speak to her until he is sloshed. Chandramukhi on the other hand is attracted towards Devdas’ honesty and naivety. He, unlike her other patrons, never comes to her to get physical pleasure and that perhaps makes an impression on her. She wants to serve him and hopes for the day when Devdas will stop hating her. Devdas will never really love Chandramukhi but he develops respect for her as the movie progresses. He is bewildered (as are we) that a naïve like him is loved by two beautiful women who are so different, yet so similar. They will seek him and try to restore his derailed life right until the end.

But Devdas has stubbornly set out on a journey of self-destruction even though he has family support and loved ones to care of him. There is no point asking why Devdas refuses to come out of this spiral of destruction. It is almost as if he is destined to punish himself for his naivety and weakness. He is that way a weak minded deplorable defeatist but still we do end up sympathizing with him maybe because we see our weaknesses in him.

A special mention of the actors who play the lead roles in this film. All three are brilliant and have immortalized their roles with their minimalist performances especially Dilip Kumar who plays Devdas. It is impossible to imagine how difficult it must have been for Dilip to step into the shoes of K.L Saigal whose life and death had almost echoed his character in Barua’s Devdas, making him a legend. The fact that Dilip Kumar overcame this humungous challenge and perhaps delivered a textbook performance for method acting is one of the great artistic achievements in the annals of Indian cinema. The cinematography by Kamal Bose once again has moments of sheer brilliance which I am sure viewers will appreciate.

This film is fairly lengthy and I hope people would have the patience to sit through it. I believe Devdas is immensely rewarding if perhaps a little inconsistent but I hope people will be able to appreciate the poetic’s of this beautiful film that celebrates an immortal story of love and destruction.

Naukri (1954) - Dir. Bimal Roy

This write-up is a part of a number of film introductions I did on Bimal Roy's films that were shown as a part of a web event.

This is basically a synopsis of the film although not an entire account of it. I have attached the screenshots for everyone to see which will hopefully make people watch the film. Portions marked {SPOILER) can be avoided

“Naukri” (Hindi for “Job” or “Work”) was Bimal Roy’s follow up to the critically successful Do Bigha Zameen(Hindi for “Two Acres of Land”) which won the International Prize at the Cannes Festival 1954. If Do Bigha Zameen was about the oppressed farmer who had to migrate to the city to save his land, Naukri was about the poor educated youth looking for a livelihood in the city.

Ratan Kumar Chaudhary(played by Kishore Kumar) the protagonist of “Naukri” has a sister who is sick with tuberculosis and a widowed mother who seems to have somehow managed to educate their son who is expected to take the burden of the family’s livelihood as soon as he graduates. His motive is simple. Get a small house, shift his family there, get his sister treated in a city hospital, get her married and then think about his own marriage. This motive is explained in the first song sequence of the film.

A fairly typical background for the protagonist of a neorealist film you may think but right from the outset the film maintains a tragicomic tone. It is neither too serious like its predecessor film nor very funny. It makes use of satire and melodrama to highlight the comedy/tragedy which you will notice at various points during the film. There is also the occasional escapist song sequence which was a given in mainstream Hindi cinema. The good part is that these songs are for the most part well  written and not too lengthy if not entirely indispensable.

So, our protagonist Ratan Kumar having received his B.A results heads to the big city of Calcutta (now Kolkata) with his simple aspirations and joyful optimism. He gets a room in a cheap lodging where he finds many youngsters like him looking for jobs. The faithful servant of the lodge played by Kanhaiyalal turns out to be a good hearted if often overworked soul who develops a bond with Ratan Kumar due to his good nature. Here begins Ratan Kumar’s desperate search for jobs. Every office has a board of “no vacancy” to keep out people or else the position is already fixed for some relative of the employer. Ratan Kumar tries to keep his optimism going, sending out type-written applications from a rented typewriter to any opening he notices in the daily newspapers which he often has to borrow. In the meantime, there is also a romance brewing between Ratan Kumar and a girl in the building opposite to his window whom he hopes to marry after he finds a job.

{SPOILER} Unfortunately the “Naukri” continues to elude him. One fine day he receives two telegrams and there is a fine moment of satire(one among many) when on one hand his sister has died and on the other the hospital bed for which he was desperately trying to get his sister admitted, becomes vacant.{SPOILER}

Ratan Kumar is disappointed but keeps trying for a job until one fine day he gets an offer from a company in Bombay (now Mumbai). He sends a letter asking for the girl’s hand in marriage along with his offer letter. The girl’s father gets mad when he finds that some guy is sending his daughter love letters and simply burns it. 

Now Ratan Kumar is in a quandary as he has comically forgotten the name of the company as well as its address. The letter being burnt, he has no option but to travel to Bombay and hope that he remembers the name on the way.

Bombay also isn’t too kind to Ratan Kumar and he becomes an easy target for pickpockets. When he tries to get the pickpockets apprehended, he himself ends in jail as he has no proof of his intentions or even a relative to vouch for him. Fortunately, after much comedy, he does remember the name of the company and is able to join it, albeit a day late.

At the office, Ratan Kumar now experiences the harsh reality of working life where employees are often overworked but underpaid. Due to his helpful nature when he tries to help an old employee at work, he gets himself dismissed and now again is jobless. To add to his woes, his girlfriend from Calcutta has eloped and he finds her in his room on the very day he has lost his job. Ratan Kumar is obviously desperate and doesn’t know what to do. Does he get a job or does he do something silly out of desperation?

Irrespective of what happens, Bimal Roy through this story beautifully captures the difficulties of youth in a newly independent nation and through satire he pokes fun at the void promises of the political leaders of the country and hopes that the common people take charge of their own lives. I hope all of you enjoy and ruminate over this bitter-sweet comedy of life that at no point becomes didactic.

The cinematographer of Naukri is Roy’s frequent collaborator Kamal Bose who I believe does an excellent job in this film. The protagonist ( Kishore Kumar) was an extremely versatile and accomplished singer and even acted in several films. He gives playback to all his songs here. His comic screen persona was quite legendary but it was fairly unusual to see him in serious roles. Roy was famous for breaking character stereotypes and he did it here as well.