Camera-Stylo Online

Introduction & Research Methodology In the canon of world cinema, Satyajit Ray is a familiar name. Indeed, one could argue that the very articulation of a critical sphere called ‘world cinema’ has been historically shaped, in part, by Ray’s canonized status. However, at times one may fnd it difcult to ignore the suspicion that Ray is included in certain discussions, lists, syllabi, textbooks, et al., vis-à-vis flm and flm history, in a tokenistic manner. In other words, Satyajit Ray is sometimes treated as a common signifer or shorthand for South Asia’s participation in flm history at large. In a sharply written article by Girish Shambu, this point is underscored by the fact that “for decades prior [to an interest in Bollywood], Indian cinema in the minds of Western viewers was associated primarily with Satyajit Ray.”1 Shambu asks why “[Ray’s] flms stand in for the entire cinematic output of one of the most populous and diverse countries on the planet [and moreover,] how did it come to be this way?”2 While Shambu does not profer an answer or attempt to historicize Ray’s reception in the West, the questions he poses are at the heart of this paper. Herein, I ask: when in history does Satyajit Ray become the iconic fgure that we recognize him Satyajit Ray in Western Film Criticism, as today? How was he initially received in the West? How did Ray become inscribed into the canon of world cinema? In short, this research paper seeks 1957-1958 to understand the genesis and trajectory of Ray in Western flm criticism. My research will predominantly study English-language print media— MAHDI CHOWDHURY largely, from American and British sources—in the years of 1957 and 1958. One may ask: why these years? Pather Panchali partially premieres in 1955 at MoMA,3 is sent by the Indian government (with the personal approval of Nehru) to Cannes in 1956,4 and Aparajito is completed in 1956—so why then, does my research take 1957 as its starting year? This is due to the dearth of English-language sources written about Ray and these events in various news-repository archives. This archival gap is moreover evidenced by Proquest and Google Ngram searches, which only yield Lok Sabha conference papers or family genealogies for “Satyajit Ray,” his flms’ titles, and news articles from the aforementioned events. In other words, records of Ray and his flms are practically non-existent in English-language print before the year 1957. However, it is crucial to note that my methodology and argument is contingent upon what print is saved in big-data archives. Therefore, it is fair to say that, despite how vast these archives are, there may be outlier articles regarding Pather Panchali and Ray absent herein. Nevertheless, I use these two years—1957 and 1958—not simply out of limitation and necessity. They are critical years because, from 1957 to 1958: Ray’s flms begin to debut in domestic theatres in England and the United States; his flms screen at Mahdi Chowdhury is a Toronto-based Bangladeshi artist notable Western festivals; and lastly, Ray and his flms enter the circles and and student at the University of Toronto. He is also repertoires of Western newspaper flm commentators. Editor-in-Chief of the Undergraduate Journal of Near & I argue that studying texts produced between 1957 and 1958 challenge our Middle Eastern Civilizations. His favourite Satyajit Ray typical assumptions about the international reception of Ray and his flms. ﬁlm is Apur Sansar. 24 25 Satyajit Ray in Western Film Criticism, 1957-1958 Mahdi Chowdhury Since my research focuses on how Ray is represented, discussed, and framed frst-wave of print media regarding Ray’s Venice win, it is worthwhile to among flm critics, the majority of my historical research is vis-à-vis (i) flm note an exception. Robert F. Hawkins uncharacteristically defends Ray’s distribution and exhibition history, and (ii) comparative, discursive analysis win and writes lengthily about him in a retrospective two weeks after the of this body of print media. Toward the end of this article, I highlight the festival for the New York Times. Although Hawkins defends Ray’s win, he common themes and tropes employed in these texts, including a binary further testifes to the “controversial” nature of the festival and the “divided emphasis on either the exoticism of Ray’s flms or their universal or humane opinions”11 that intemperately defned it. While one of the most authoritative quality. English-language scholars of Ray, Andrew Robinson, opines that Venice solidifed Ray’s reputation, these articles paint a more complicated picture. Early 1957 Controversy, apathy, resentment, the politics of internationalizing festival The earliest records of mass Western print media that explicitly mention Ray spaces are subject to amnesia in Robinson’s account of Ray’s genesis. refer to his win at the Venice International Film Festival. The frst one appears Here, one may even question the idea of ‘genesis’—is there a single point on September 9, 1957. The Los Angeles Times prints a small, single column in history where the stature of Ray aligns with the stature of Ray today? Or article called “India Takes Gold Lion.”5 If these are the earliest records on Ray, is this simply a practice in teleologizing Ray? The task of pinpointing the then it seems tempting to think of him, since his inception, as a celebrated genesis of Ray is further complicated by the messy and ad hoc distribution director among Western critics. Indeed, Andrew Robinson cites Ray’s win at history of his frst two flms. It is telling that Ray’s debut flm in much of the Venice as the consolidation of his reputable status in world cinema. 6 West—and the flm, which went to Venice—was Aparajito, the second Apu However, this Los Angeles Times article, like many others, frame Ray’s win flm, and not Pather Panchali. Indeed, Pather Panchali’s release was further as a general upset. Ray’s win, reports the article, “was followed by mixed delayed until late 1957.12 That said, I nonetheless argue that one can see the applause and booing” and that the runner-up, Visconti’s Notti Bianche, was genesis of Ray begin to form from late 1957, the general moment in which given “thunderous applause” in contrast to Ray’s “cold reception.”7 One Ray’s flms enter into domestic, specialty theatres and Ray becomes a unique may speculate that the unexpected nature of Ray’s win, especially against a discourse among critics.13 respected Italian auteur in the homefeld of Venice, is a conducive setting for these kinds of reactions. Yet, in a more detailed Variety article written by the End of 1957 to 1958 senior flm critic, Gene Moskowitz, a general and apathetic attitude to Ray A shift occurs toward the end of 1957. Independently focused articles and appears noticeable. In this article, Moskowitz argues that Venice’s flm festival, reviews are written about Ray, and there is an increasing paratextual emphasis competing with Cannes, is attempting to re-brand itself as cosmopolitan; on the commercial release of his frst two Apu flms. For example, theatre to emphasize itself as an “international flm fest.”8 Yet Moskowitz does not listings and newspaper ads enter the record of Ray-related print media [Fig. have a celebratory tone about these reforms. He laments the poor quality of 1]. The language of marketability used to advertise Ray’s flms evokes their entries being accepted to meet Venice’s more inclusive and internationalized critical acclaim and their status as immediate classics of world cinema. This branding. That said, he does celebrates select international flms at the becomes an orthodox description of Ray’s flms, but it is evidently a new festival: some of Mizoguchi’s dramas, the Visconti flm which had won second identity for Ray in the context of English-language print media. There is prize, and Kurosawa’s Throne of Blood. However, there is no mention of the something ironic about Sight and Sound—a British publication, whose staf winner, Ray’s Aparajito. One should note that Moskowitz was among the frst reporter passed over Ray’s flm in Venice—publishing a flm guide for the Western flm critics to have seen a Ray flm during the Cannes premiere the winter of 1957, wherein Pather Panchali is given the highest rating of any flm, year before.9 Yet Moskowitz continues to have nothing to say about Ray, even and described as “without question a classic of the cinema.”14 after his win at Venice. There are perhaps two ways of reading this absence: In this body of texts, there is an increasing standardization of the language the frst, is to consider the subtext in Moskowitz’s argument vis-à-vis Ray’s used by critics to describe Ray. By close-reading these texts, one may locate win; and the other is to say that Moskowitz is not spiteful, but rather, at this the genesis of Ray’s icon in Western flm criticism. However, his genesis is not moment in time, Ray was simply not a priority or critical node in discussions the by-product of a critical consideration of Ray as an artistic auteur. Instead, about cinema. In fact, furnishing the latter point, Penelope Houston—who Ray becomes the subject of a common body of thought, writing, vocabulary, reported from Venice for Sight and Sound—acknowledges that she did not and methodological thinking among Western flm critics. His flms are even see Ray’s winning flm while over there.10 Before concluding on this defned as ethnographic spectacles.

Load more