Page 187 - The Apu Trilogy_ Satyajit Ray and the Making of an Epic
P. 187

174                    The Apu Trilogy

                   In general, he recognised the role of the film critic as a con-
                noisseur: someone who can interpret original work for the ben-
                efit of an audience who may otherwise dismiss it. He valued
                critiques of his own work (even Crowther on Pather Panchali)
                when they coincided with his own estimation of its strengths
                and weaknesses, but he felt that few who wrote about films –
                whether Indians or westerners – were properly equipped to do
                it; when they were, he suspected they would have preferred to
                become film-makers themselves, like the  Cahiers du Cinéma
                critics in France, Lindsay Anderson in Britain, and himself in
                India. Reading the total volume of critical writing about him
                since 1955, one can understand Ray’s scepticism. Laudatory
                though much of it is – often amounting to a ‘rave’ – it seldom
                rises to the demands of its subject. ‘What is attempted in most
                films of mine is, of course, a synthesis’, wrote Ray in Sight and
                Sound in 1982. ‘But it can be seen as such only by someone who
                has his feet in both cultures’ – East and West. ‘Someone who
                will bring to bear on the films involvement and detachment in
                equal measure. Someone who will see both the wood and the
                trees.’ The problem is, neither the Bengali nor the western critics
                of his films share their creator’s easy familiarity with East and
                West (as described in chapter 1). Bengali critics are too close to
                and too involved with the stories, while western audiences are
                too distant and too detached from them.


                                          * * *

                What is the future of Ray’s artistic legacy? In 1989, he wrote: ‘I
                am sure Chaplin’s name will survive even if the cinema ceases to
                exist as a medium of artistic expression. Chaplin is truly immortal.’
                What about Ray’s name? Is it likely to be immortal? I should say
                yes – but only as long as the cinema continues to exist as a means
                of artistic expression. Among people who take films seriously,
                rather than chiefly as entertainment, the best of Ray’s work will be
                watched, along with the works of Chaplin, Bergman, Eisenstein,








                                                                        9/16/2010   9:09:31 PM
         Robinson_Ch09.indd   174
         Robinson_Ch09.indd   174                                       9/16/2010   9:09:31 PM
   182   183   184   185   186   187   188   189   190   191   192