Literature and Film

T. Pattabhi Rama Reddy

I am neither a literary critic nor a film critic. I am a poet who has become a film maker. I did not like to take to my family business of Mica Mining and trading or to the family avocation of agriculture. So, because of my interest in literature, the nearest business I could think of, without sacrificing my interest in literature, was film business. Thus it was literature that influenced me to take to films. These are a few stray thoughts and feelings, which I am happy to share with you. Please forgive me if they are not erudite. I can assure you they are genuine.

Most of you may not know that ‘Samskara” the novel was inspired by a film, thus establishing the influence of film on literature. The film that inspired Samskara! The novel, is none other than, the celebrated “Seventh Seal” of the Swedish Director Ingmar Bergman. There are some superficial similarities between both of them, like the pervading plague, the atmosphere of death and the dilemma of the protagonist caused by his indecision. Apart from this the novel is brilliantly original. However the film disturbed and also opened the floodgates of creativity in Dr.Anantamurthy so very much that he has repeatedly written the novel in four furious days, synchronizing with the four day time lapse in the novel. A very great part of the novel reads like a film script. The details and mannerism of the Brahmins are so graphic and visual possibly, due to the influence of the film on the novel. I would request Anantamurthy to throw some light on this aspect of the film’s influence on the novel.

In a film one sees through the eye, while in literature one sees through the mind. The root difference between the two media is that of visual image versus the mental image. The image a poet weaves consists of thousand suggestions which are extremely difficult to parallel them in a film. On the contrary, in literature it is the novel that has a mass readership and hence, a novel is eminently suitable to be made into a film and 90% of feature films are based on novels. It is said of the great novelist Charles Dickens who has an extremely graphic style, that he inspired the American pioneer film maker Griffith to translate literary devices into cinematic devises. Griffith found in Dickens hints for almost everyone of his innovations. Particular passages are cited to illustrate the dissolve, the super-imposed shot, the close-ups, the pan and paralleled cutting of a chase or suspense sequence.

Coming to Samskara, the one major departure of the film from the novel is the latter half. In the novel the burning of Narayanappa’s body, takes place halfway through. In a way, the story ends half way through the novel. The interest in the novel is sustained by Praneshacharya meeting Putta and undergoing experiences the exact opposite of his earlier experiences. His previous religious ritualistic Brahminical world is contrasted with the amoral physical world of the Non-Brahmins, with its cock fights, prostitutes and sensual entertainment. The novel’s interest is further sustained by the device of dramatic irony and black humour where the Brahmins prepare for an elaborate funeral for a non-existing body, which has already been spirited away by the Muslims. We felt that this will not work in the film. Both the novel and the film start with the problem of the dead body. If the dead body is disposed of half way through the film as in the novel, the film will lose interest. In the novel, literary devices like dramatic irony could be made use of to keep interest. Not so in the film. The film starts with the conflict of to burn or not to burn the body of Narayanappa. The conflict is resolved in the very end when Praneshacharya retums back to the village to do the cremation. Thus the interest is sustained till the very end.

Praneshacharya in the book discusses his inner feelings of guilt of his secretly doing what Narayanappa did brazenly. But he is unable to tell it to anyone, while in the film by his open confession to Putta, his stature rises immeasurably. The positive ending in the film contributes to the heroic nature of Praneshacharya. The casting of Girish as Praneshacharya, has something to do with the attributes of a hero. In the beginning, Girish agreed to do the script only. He did not want to act as Pranesha as he thought Praneshacharya in the novel is much older. It took a lot of persuasion to make him agree. What a memorable role he played!

According to Sri. A.K.Ramanujam who translated Samskara into English, Samskara is a novel of decadent Hinduism. This is exemplified by the Madhva Brahmin Community’s concern with materialism and greed and their internecine quarrels. Even Praneshacharya, though inspired by noble motives, is for ever in the grip of indecision and scarcely shows any leadership. The dead body is a symbol of decadent Hinduism and the Brahmin community is unable even to dispose it of: whereas the Muslims in a jiffy can do it away and cremate it. When we made the film, we had no doubt that the Muslims stealing the body and burning it should totally be omitted. There arose a big literary controversy when the book was released. We did not want that to become a communal controversy when the film is released. Besides the censors would have certainly objected to it. We tried to tone down the literary controversy that the novel was anti Madhva by ennobling the character of Praneshacharva in the film. The film has positive ending and Praneshacharya redeems himself by his open confession of his guilt and his new determination act, that is to cremate the dead body.

The book caused a great literary controversy when it was released. And before the film got released, there was a more intense controversy that the film should be banned. It was banned by the Censor Board at Madras and the ban was confirmed by the Central Censor Board, without even giving us an opportunity to defend the film. Thanks to the support of many eminent people all over India and thanks to the liking of the film by the then Minister of Information and Broadcasting Shri I.K.Gujral, the ban was lifted; but only after half a day of discussion on the film by Lok Sabha. Even then, there was a lot of difficulty to release the film, as there were threats that the theatres which will show the film will be burnt. There were also rumors of last minute court action to take an injunction to stop screening the film, which, were it to materialize will surely be the death knell of the film. Luckily nothing happened and the film was released and it proved to be a critical and commercial success. The curious fact to be noted is while the book Samskara created a furore after its release, all furore stopped with the release of the film. Surely the screen adaptation of Samskara has something to do with this.

Virginia woolf, contrasting literature and film, makes this observation that the images of a poet are compact of a thousand suggestions of which the visual is only the most obvious. I quote Even the simplest image, my love’s like a red rose that a newly spring in June”, presents us with the impressions of moisture and warmth and the flow of crimson and the softness of petals inextricably mixed and strung upon the lilt of a rhythm which is itself the voice of passion and the hesitation of the love. All this which is accessible to words and to words alone, the cinema must avoid. A film can be made on saline idea whereas literature has an abundance of ideas.Generally literature is the result of an individual effort, whereas film is the creation of a talented group.

The novel Samskara abounds in a lot of internal monologue. The agony of coming to a decision, that existential dilemma haunts the thoughts of Praneshacharya. This is extremely difficult to depict in the film. The novel can discourse whereas the film must picture. The film maker has to find a method to resolve the thoughts and the hidden life into actions that can be filmed. He has also to devise symbols that work on different levels. This is the major problem between visual art and verbal art. I shall recount how we managed to surmount this problem. After his wife’s death. Praneshacharya abandons the village and aimlessly walks away. He meets Putta who drags him back into social activities. All the while Praneshacharya is immersed in thought. We create a scene where a snake runs across their path in the jungle. Putta the man of action immediately takes a stick and kills the snake; while Praneshacharya is unable to act and passively looks on with disgust. The subtle gestures which are involuntary and not deliberate with their nuisances perfectly reflect his inner feelings. It is important to note that it is the subtle gesture not the loud melodramatic gesture that express inner experiences. The micro drama of the human countenance permits the reading of the greatest conflicts in the merest flicker of an eye. The above episode of the snake is not in the novel. It is an addition in the film. There is a literary base for the snake symbol. Both the snake and Brahmin are Dwijas which in Sanskrit, mean twice born. And Putta’s dialogue that the dead snake is a twice born and can not be abandoned but must be cremated. Pramashacharya’s face shows the reaction.. This clearly reflects the state of mind of Praneshacharya.

Then, when Praneshacharya has a meal in the conclave of Brahmins, he is feeling extremely guilty that as one who has just cremated his wife and slept with a sudra woman, he is polluting the sacred temple feast. This inner conflict is shown by to parallel action by Chandri not only daring to enter the deserted house of Praneshacharya but also drinking water from a brass pot.

Then, cut to Praneshacharya drinking water and squelching. This transition is considered by many to be one of the most beautiful transitions. Then again, when he runs away from the feast and Putta follows him, Praneshacharya is struggling to confess his guilt. He observes a community of ants which symbolically suggests the duties and obligations of every person towards society. He finally makes up his mind to confess.

One last thing I would like to mention is the bird symbolism that runs throughout the film. The opening shot of the film is a flock of white birds used lead by a leader and flying in formation. This symbolises the Brahmin community of Durvasapura. Next when the Brahmins are perplexed by the onslaught of rats and sit dejected, there is a shot of 4 crows perched on, which evokes laughter generally. After that the vultures frighten the brahmin community. The sensuality of sudras is symbolised by the cock fight. When the brahmins are going to the head priest in search of a decision, Chandri at the same time is in search of friends who will dispose of the dead body. There is a shot of an owl, a sort of visual pun symbolising wisdom in the western idiom but idiocy in the Indian Idiom. Lastly the film ends with Praneschacharya, all alone coming to do the cremation. This is syrnbolised by the last shot of a solitary black crow flying in the street.

Thus the bird symbolism works very well and sort of knits the film. This visual symbolism has a literary base. It was suggested by the two meanings of Dwija which are Brahmins and birds, showing the inter disciplinary nature of the inspiration. I had said earlier that in a film one sees through the eye while in literature one sees through the mind. I would like to retract this statement, because even to see through the eye, there should be a mind behind it. Without the mind, the eye cannot see, the ear cannot hear, in fact no sense will work. Since mind is the common source, behind all arts and crafts, everything can influence everything else. Except for the superficial differences of modalities and technique of different media, the mind combines all. A genius is needed to combine seemingly irreconcilable things and I am sure a film can be made out of poem.

Opera and film were combined effectively in “Tales of Hofman”. Ballet and film in “Russian Ballet”, which won many awards Kuraswa made a beautiful episode on Van Gogh’s paintings in his memorable film “Dreams”. Recently poetry and theatre were combined marvellously by B.V.Karanth when he transformed the poetry of Gopalakrishna Adiga to successful theatre. So, I ask, what can’t be done?

Prepared for presentation at the “International Seminar on Indian literatures and films”. September 24-26, 1992.

(Courtesy: Hat's Off Pattabhi)