Satyajit Ray’s 'Nayak' completes 50 years - and still remains relevant

By Rajesh N Naidu

This year India's most formidable and inimitable director Satyajit Ray's Bengali film Nayak (1966) completes fifty years of its release. Arguably, after The Apu Trilogy and Charulata (1964), Nayak remains the most favourite Ray film among his admirers and film-makers he inspired. Nayak has not only inspired similar narratives over the years but one also sees echoes of its narratives in films across languages and geographies. A case in the point is the critically acclaimed Bengali film Autograph (2010) which is a rich tribute to Nayak. So, how do film-makers and admirers who are inspired by the film look at it now even after fifty years of its release? More so, what are the elements that make the film stand the test of the time and make it relatable to audiences across generations?

About ‘us’
Nayak was Satyajit Ray's second original script. He wrote his first original script Kachenjhunga (1962), which had striking resemblance to Swedish director Ingmar Bergman's Wild Strawberries (1957). While he wrote the script, Ray was clear that he would cast Uttam Kumar as the matinee idol. Filmmaker Sujoy Ghosh, who has been self-confessed Ray admirer, says, “"I think Uttam Kumar worked for the film. Even Satyajit Ray said that he might find flaws in the film but he would not find flaws in Uttam Kumar's acting." In fact, in British writer Andrew Robinson’s book Satyajit Ray: The Inner Eye, Ray gives his reason of casting Uttam Kumar. He says, “If you are showing a matinee idol, then you have to cast a star. Nobody else would do; people wouldn’t accept the fact. So I thought that I was doing the only possible thing.’ Over the years as critics and admirers look back at the film and appreciate its timelessness they agree that it is the mere presence of Uttam Kumar which gave the film immense credibility.



Besides Uttam Kumar, another factor that worked for the film is the character itself. Srijit Mukherjee whose film Autograph (2010) was a glorious tribute to Nayak, says “I think what largely worked for Nayak is the demystification of a matinee idol and putting his struggles and triumphs on a very humane kind of level. Audiences could realise that behind that fame, glory, and possibly the ‘mask’ that has a face which is battle-scarred, there lies a journey which is painful.” He adds, “Nayak puts a lot of things in perspective as it deals with basic human story. And it is this element of human story which makes it special film.'

At the core of the film’s human story it is the element of universality in the emotional battles of the matinee idol that makes the film relatable to the audiences. Director Sujoy Ghosh says, “I think the character Ray presented was basically 'us' on the screen. Even though the film’s protagonist was of higher rank the problems that he faced, the kind of contradictions he had in his mind, the kind of choices he had to make are almost 'us". It was like 'us' on that level. So, I think it was great decision of taking a big star and putting that star in a normal milieu by making him travel in a train like the way we would travel.” Director Srijit Mukherjee adds, “Nayak is not just a story of a journey of a person who reaches pinnacles of success. There are subplots in the film through which Ray comments on the middle class hypocrisy of Bengal and the frivolous nature of the petite bourgeoisie. More so, it highlights the eternal debate of theatre versus cinema. It is this emotional dilemma of whether one should follow art or commerce. We all face such kind of challenge in our lives in some way or the other.” Since Uttam Kumar’s character chooses cinema over theatre there is deep regret inside him because theatre is his first love. At the peak of the success, he finds himself lonely and wants to communicate his deeply-felt emotions with people around him. He is unable to find someone who can look at him shorn of his matinee idol image. Because of this, when Sharmila Tagore's character approaches him for autograph and quickly mentions that she wants it for her cousin and not for herself, he is relieved that he does not to play the role of a star with her. Amitava Nag, writer, film critic and author of 'Beyond Apu: 20 Favourite Film Roles of Soumitra Chatterjee, says, "The central character Arindam in Nayak is a prisoner of his own loneliness and has a basic yearning to communicate with others.” This yearning to communicate his regret of compromising over his principles and promises (theatre) is quite identifiable and it transcends the story and connects to the hearts of the audience.



Cinematic language
It is also the way Ray tells the story of Nayak which has inspired film-makers and consciously they imbibed certain concrete elements of his story-telling. Director Sujoy Ghosh says, “There is one scene in the film which is quite inspiring the way tells a story. It is the scene where Uttam Kumar walks into a compartment. Before he walks into a compartment there is a father who is trying to open an orange squash bottle and he cannot open it. Uttam Kumar walks in and opens it. The character becomes not only a hero in the kid's eyes but also in ‘our’ eyes. I learnt that if you want to make somebody a hero to the audience this is perhaps one of the ways you can do it.” He adds, “I follow the same principle in my film Kahaani. There is a scene in the film which shows that before Vidya Balan comes into the police station, a young boy is struggling with the computer. He cannot get his computer right. Suddenly she goes to the computer and with a press of few keys she solves the problem. Immediately she becomes a hero not only in his eyes but also in the eyes of the audience. She solves the problem which otherwise seemed unsolvable. This establishes her as the hero of the film because a hero supposed to do things which others can’t.”

"It is this language of Ray that inspires me. When you tell a story there are a few basic emotions you play with. Emotions such as love, hate, anger, despair, and distress. These emotions keep coming back in our lives. The challenge for a director is how many different ways can you express the same emotions over and over again. What I have learnt from Ray’s film is the ways in which he represents various emotions, characters, and little nuances of life. The way he tells stories, the things they talk about, the message that they give are applicable in any time,” adds Ghosh whose film Kahaani 2, which is a sequel to his film Kahaani, is up for release in late November this year.


Nayak’s temporal settings and minimalism have also provided a much-needed depth and subtlety to the film’s narrative. Amrit Gangar, film historian and curator, adds, "Nayak shows how Ray had transcended the regional or local into global and I think this transcendence into global from local is most important when seen from the perspective of engaging the world and not just local milieu." He says, "It is a minimalistic film. Minimalism is extremely important in the art world as it makes a narrative engaging. You have to keep in mind that Ray did not have economic resources. He did not have crores of rupees like today's directors. From minimum economic resources, he created an austere cinema." He further adds, “"I think cinema transfers pain and other experiences through time and space. Narratives, dialogues and other elements of cinema are forgotten. But what remains in our minds subconsciously is the temporality of films. It is temporality in Nayak which makes the film such a powerful narrative."

Inspiring narratives
Given these factors, it is quite palpable that Nayak has inspired and spawned films which follow its structure, narrative and themes. One of the films where the influence of Nayak is directly evident is Autograph (2010). The film is a remake of Nayak. The film’s director Srijit Mukherjee denies the description. He says, “My film was not a remake. It was my tribute to Ray. Nayak as a narrative was bubbling under my consciousness for a very long time. I would converse with my friends at JNU in dialogues of Nayak. I needed to get off my chest.” He adds, “There is a line in Autograph in which explains why I pay tribute to Ray. When the hero Arun Chatterjee asks the director about his reasons to choose Nayak, the director says it is some kind of Guru Dakshina. It is my Guru Dakshina to the two people who inspired me to become a filmmaker: Ray and Uttam Kumar. The film is dedicated to them."

He says that Hindi film Fan is one of the recent films that which deals with the perils of being a matinee idol. He says, “When seen in the context of Nayak, most recently one film that comes to my mind is film Fan. It deals with the duality of a matinee idol. Even Alejandro Inarritu's film Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) also reflects the same theme.” There is a scene in Alejandro Inarritu's film Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) which closely resembles the mental state of Nayak’s hero. In Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) there is a scene in which the film’s protagonist played Michael Keaton tells his daughter and assistant (played by Emma Stone) that he is bored of playing monotonous and repetitive ‘superhero’ roles and regrets that he has not grown as an actor. This interaction is not very different from interaction between Sharmila Tagore and Uttam Kumar in Nayak. Uttam Kumar’s character tells Sharmila Tagore’s character of his guilt he experienced for going against the wishes of his teacher of leaving the theatre for films and other such inappropriate and unfair things he did.

Even in Hindi cinema there have been narratives where the life of matinee idol forms an integral part of the story. These are Guddi (1971), Dil Hain Ke Manta Nahin (1991), Main Khiladi Tu Anari (1994) and Rangeela (1995) have narratives which has matinee idol at the centre of the story. Director Srijit Mukherjee says, “'Nayak is an evergreen film because it touches universal theme in the most universal way. This is one of the key reasons it has inspired so many other films. It will always remain fresh and evergreen in minds of film-makers and admirers. What makes it timeless is the fact that it is actually a comment on performing arts in general and not just about theatre or cinema. This makes it very special.'