Abohoman: Forgettable review
Cognitive dissonance is a theory which is applicable for most Bengali intellectuals. Off late, this dilemma is gaining prevalence as the central theme in the creations of Bengali artists. To this end it almost becomes imperative for them to muster justifications to convince self. This leads to the treacherous self-fulfilling prophecy which ensures whatever started with a belief ultimately transforms into a fact later on. Examples are galore in mythologies and art – Oedipus being the most significant amongst them. In Indian context the same applies to Kansha, king of Mathura who was afraid that his sister Devaki’s son will kill him. He imprisoned Devaki and her husband and killed all her children sans Krishna who finally killed Kangsha. This attempt to prevent a prophecy ultimately leads to fulfilling it has tremendous relevance.
Krishna’s muse was Radha, whose other name was Srimati. In Rituporno Ghosh’s latest film Abohoman we find film director Aniket’s muse Sikha whose name was changed to Srimati as she made her first film appearance. Aniket wanted to film the mystic life of Nati Binodini the outstanding Bengali stage actress of pre-partition Bengal and her linkage with the legendary Girish Ghosh, her mentor. The first attempt didn’t turn out successful apart from Aniket meeting Dipti for the role who eventually became his wife and mother of his son. Year later, may be decades, Aniket picks up his pet subject again and meets Srimati whom he couldn’t ignore but fell in love with it. Was it Aniket’s self-fulfilling prophecy about the Binodini character (‘deceit is her companion’ we were told) that kept him so harsh in the initial? It may be, Aniket was unsure – his passion for Nati Binodini probably no less than Girish Ghosh’s and after Dipti, he tried to push this topic far away from him for long.
If this type of cognition correlation between the film and theory seems a bit stretched it can well be, since otherwise, the film is quite baffling. There are precise two moods in the film – one is the apparent reality whereas the other being a ‘film-within-film’. Rituporno Ghosh probably squeezed this form too much – nothing interesting hence is difficult to come out of it anymore. This also goes on to show how bankrupt he is in terms of innovation. His earlier film Sab Charitra Kalpanik in-spite of being difficult at times was really experimental which raised hopes that probably after almost two decades of film-making Rituporno is breaking away from his tested style. His idol Satyajit Ray broke away from his classical narrative canvases to mundane contemporariness almost during the same time in his career. However, Satyajit Ray has an implicit reference in Abohoman. Rituporno Ghosh has rejected the idea that Aniket-Srimati’s love affair doesn’t have faintest reference to the same between Satyajit Ray and Madhabi Mukherjee almost four decades back. However this pretentious act needs a heavy beating. Firstly, in interviews and in media publicity this is one topic which has surfaced without fail luring many middle-aged Bengalis to throng the cinema halls in numbers. Also, the reading study of Aniket with its tall windows, pile of books surrounding a giant arm-chair has instant reference to Ray’s study-room. The resemblance is too strong to just wipe off like that. Needless to mention, the other lingering streak remains when Aniket’s son wrote an article which was titled Aniket’s Nosto Niketan (meaning Aniket’s Broken Abode). Instantly Bengali audience gets reminded of Ray’s masterpiece Charulata (The Broken Nest) which featured Madhabi Mukherjee in the lead.
There were some ‘fleeting moments’ in the film in the mountains when Aniket was recovering from his illness accompanied by his son. He was nearing an end to his creative life and a vital question crosses his mind –“What is film all about?” The quest remained unanswered for him. Apart from that the film is more-or-less completely indoors with dialogues brimming from its lean torso. This created the same mundane feeling that previous many films by the same director used to haunt the audience. The tangent between Aniket-Srimati’s relation and the same between Girish Ghosh and Nati Binodini is too uni-dimensional. As always with Ritu, the male character is shown as the active agency in gender-mistrust (sexual and otherwise) and the female only the passive receiver. However in such portrayals, the societal factors that shape such a mind-set needed explanations. For example, how the relation between Nati Binodini and Girish Ghosh changed from being a reverent one (mentor-mentee) to a more complex one needed deft handling. Similarly, we were unsure why and how Srimati engulfed Aniket’s mind. Srimati’s stead-first attitude was initially appreciated by Dipti while Aniket seemed to ignore her. Only when in a dance sequence she winked at the camera that things started rolling from Aniket’s end – so it seems. Probably some more tokens for the coquettish adventures were demanded here. However, one interesting aspect of this winking image is the eternal bond between the actors and the audience. The camera here playing the role of the audience sensationalizes the gaze – the role of cinema (the female) is to seduce the audience (the male)!
That apart, the film is mediocre to say the least. Acting is average, musical scores unimpressive, costume and sets mostly uninspiring. It is interesting if the self-fulfilling prophecy actually works for Rituporno as well – he wants to avoid the trap of being repetitive and in the process gets entangled even more. Whatever it may be, the pretentious questions about the art itself and the irresponsible handling of the themes make the viewing experience of these so-called ‘art’ films extremely painful. Rituporno Ghosh may take a break for a while and refuel his resources to come back better. His Sab Charitra Kalponik had been a pleasant departure and raised hopes. To pass off that initiative into oblivion is no mean offense.
