Do Bigha Zameen, Umberto. D and the Bicycle Thieves: Where Do Bigha Zameen falters
Nirupa Roy, Parikshit Sahni, Balraj Sahni, Nana Palsikar in Do Bigha Zameen
I was delighted to find a copy of its DVD in my University library. Having recently seen Umberto D., and earlier in year The Bicycle Thieves, the comparisons amongst the movies is inevitable as these three were not only made around the same time, but even their principal plot point was same – poverty. The predicaments of characters, vacillating needle between right and wrong, the unusual friendship that only poverty can give rise to is similar too.
Do Bigha Zameen dives straight into the problems of farmers, where the babus never give a moment of respite to the farmers. A world where farmers not only live on Zamindar’s money but also on their mercies. The stark contrast between the cunningness of rich and naivety of poor is portrayed effectively. The first half an hour establishes and exposes the grave problem of the protagonist. But, not before showing a fleeting glimpse of romance between Sahni and Nirupa Roy(My first movie, where no one called her Mataji). Fabulous scenes such as: When he coaxes her, and then drags her deceitfully to get drenched in rain. And when they talk like two love struck teenagers in the field, much to the surprise of a fellow tiller who thinks and suggests romance has no role after marriage. Nice observation, interestingly juxtaposed.
Then, Shambhu (Sahni) moves to Calcutta in order to earn quick cash so that he can save his land. His mother, as he calls those two bighas. The city life slaps him and treats him like a proverbial step child. Then the movie moves into the maudlin zone. And sadly, stays there. Bimal Roy along with the dialogue writer injects maudlin, over the top dialogues scene after scene, and paints a more sorry picture than required where the characters speak out aloud their problem. What could have been some quiet, poignant scenes of sharing sorrow turns out to be loud declaration of love and sacrifice.
Performance wise, the kid is so unbelievably shoddy that he takes the sheen away from what could have been very poignant last 15 minutes of the movie. His performance is a walking, talking guide of the many Don’ts in acting for child actors. Infact, Bollywood had its share of horrendous child actors, mainly in many Amitabh Bachann movies, where a 8 year old’s mouth was filled with such wisdom that you wondered whether to cry or die. Or, both.
Nirupa Roy’s performance is a delight. Her portrayal of a typical coy Indian housewife is not only accurate, it is heartwarming too. Specially that scene where she is dictating the content of the letter to be sent to her husband, and even a remote suggestion of little romance in the letter makes her shrink in veil. Amazing, little scene. Balraj Sahni is spot on as an idealist farmer, though he gets a bit jarringly repetitive towards the end as he sings paeans of morality every second scene with his son. But, that is just a minor blemish to a very controlled and believable performance.
Contrast it to the relationship between the father and son in the Bicycle Thieves, where there is no histrionics on play, the sorrow has bound the father-son together, and they don’t wail over their problem every now and then. Even in Umberto D, what is possibly the last meeting between Umberto and the Maid, when she knows that Umberto has resigned to fate, there is a only a faint eye contact; small, insignificant promise of keeping in touch, and things move on. Just like life.
While the protagonist of De Sica’s two movies are realistic, edgy individuals, Roy’s Shambhu(Sahni) is just too good to be true. So, when the landlady threatens to throw out Umberto of the house, he doesn’t cry or fall at her feet evoking sympathy from us. Instead, he retorts. His pathetic condition doesn’t rob him of any manipulation a perfectly flawed human being is capable of. Making him ordinary makes the story real, and his struggle all the more important and relevant. The character’s constant see-sawing between the two sides of morality in De Sica’s two movies makes them more interesting as compared to Do Bigha Zameen’s linear characters. There is no battle in Do Bigha Zameen, in fact a uni-dimensional, rigid, too idealistic approach by the characters that raises a huge wail whenever the line of morality is crossed.(Although the kid’s moral does sway a wee bit towards the end but his redemption comes gift wrapped in such a pathetic fashion that you wished it never happened in the first place!). There is no wrong in portraying idealist people in a world where they are misfits. It would have elevated the movie to a new level had it been achieved without being preachy, or without highlighting the halo of every character.
The penultimate shot where Shambhu clutches a piece of land, but isn’t allowed even that is touching. Here not much words are exchanged, but even then the director so effectively captures the essence of the scene. I wished the movie had more of that, but it sadly falls in the categories of many merely good movies which could have been great.
Tags: Bad Acting, Balraj Sahni, bimal roy, Child Actors, Classics, De Sica, Do Bigha Zameen, Neo Realism, Nirupa Roy, The Bicycle Thieves, Umberto. D
Anurag Kashyap
Abhay Deol
Dibakar Banerjee
Hansal Mehta
Khalid Mohamed
Kundan Shah
Anish Kuruvilla
Jaideep Verma
Manish Gupta
Navdeep Singh
Bhavani Iyer
D. Santosh
Onir
Ashvin Kumar
Ramu Ramanathan
Sudhir Mishra
Pankaj Advani
Revathy
Saurabh Shukla
Shilpa Shukla
Sujoy Ghosh
Suparn Verma
Santosh Sivan
Shashank Ghosh
Shivajee
Pavan Kaul
Partho Sen-Gupta
Prroshant Naryannan
Sam Langoria
Satish Kasetty
Excellent write-up. While watching DBZ, I felt the same.
Good job carry on writing.
interesting thought.
Recently saw another saga of a poor man’s family in ‘Where God left his shoes’. I remembered Do Bheega zameen while watching that heartwrenching movie.Tanul – please do yourself a favour by watching that one too. It is in a genre where lesser the technique better the narration gets, for the underlying story is the ultimate irony about the ’social divide’.
Nice work Tanul..loved your post.Having seen the movies in question here..I am in a better position to comment here.I believe in the 1950s,landlords in India would make life miserable (not in the black and white sense).The petty land owners in India were a persecuted lot in those days which led to the “Naxalbari” movement in Bengal.The peasants in India or the poor in India in 1950s were worse as compared to working class in Italian Neorealism.(Not trying to undermine the pains of the Italian working class). So my point(socio economic) is that we Indians may be more emotional and OTT as portrayed by Bimal Roy compared to the gesticualtive Italians.(Generic viewpoint).On a funnier note,I believe Neorealistic cinema did not have regular actors,so probably they failed to melodramatic.Even if they did,they did not succeed.
Unimpressive ! Conformist approaches can be easily identified in the post. Well films are influenced by cultural-behavioral environment and thus the characters behave differently in both the films. This approach doesn’t works that his character is sympathetic and his characters are rebellious. Characters are minds and so you cant expect them to behave same that too in completely different environment.
De Sica is a Genius but Roy is a master too……
@Shashank: Film are influenced by the enviorment, but what makes you believe that farmers way back in those times or even today do mouth such overtly sentimental dialogues? Infact, that is nothing but a gross simplification of things. If you really think Bollywood movies mirror the way people behave and react, then I am highly surprised.
-Also, the main motive of comapring the characters, that how our italian counterparts painted a truer picture of realism by atleast keeping the character close to ground. That is the first point amongst many others.
@Sourav: Thanks a lot. Well that is a very pertinent point that you raised. But, my main grouse is not even against the submission or the lack of oppostion against the landlords. But, the way in which father and son interact in many scenes. They are laced with such high duty melodrama that it immediately throws the word realism out of the window. I’m trying to critque the movie on that platform, and not in complete isolation. Btw, that was a nice dig on the actors of neorealistic cinema!
@VPJ: Thanks for the recco, will try to check it out.
@Kusum, Om prakash: Thanks a lot!
I have seen Bicycle thieves and Do Bigha Zameen, both are equally good, in there own right,but to simply run down DBZ would be bad,your points expressing why BT scores over DBZ, i did not find convicing enough.
For linear characters in DBZ,i think it may due to socio-political factors in our nation during that period.
I always admired the very old movies, for the ease of acting or scenes, where the actors werent over the top at all. Absolutely as much required and they made it look very easy.
However, it was the melodrama which was introduced (Dunno who did) which was lapped by idiotic directors as a must to evoke audience reaction, that has not left the movies yet. In fact see the later half of DBZ to realize the melodrama. That apart, the scenes arent structured to subtly render a message, it is actually said, unlike the phoren movies.
Tanul, you opening point is critical.
We rave and rant and pat ourselves on the back when a film is better than other Indian films. The film is deemed “brilliant”. Is it brilliant when compared to Indian cinema or is it brilliant when compared to world cinema?
Comparing yourself against the best in the world is how you improve. Don’t we want to be the best in the world? Or is being best in India good enough?
And then we say “Why should we care about the Oscars?” Ok, fine. But what about Cannes? What about Sundance? What about Toronto? What about Berlin? Are they all irrelevant? Should we dismiss them all?
Our students go to the best universities in the world and hold their own against the best students in the world. Why don’t we hold our filmmakers to the same standard?
I like how you’ve held Do Bigha Zameen to a world standard and show how it falters. It’s the only way we can improve and have movies that hold their own even against global masterpieces.
@tanul: Your comparision of a neo realistic movie(BT) with a 1961 bollywood movie(DBZ) has some interesting insight , however,I believe premise of neo realism movement is quite different then that of 1961 bollywood.As I understand and as saurav pointed out, people like fracaise trauffuat put forward this theory(neo realism) to minimize cost in film making so as to offset world war 2 effect while in bombay film making was slowly gaining momentum after the british raj. I believe our Independent struggle led by gandhi(who himself preached moral values like speaking truth all the time) had lot to do with fimmakers of those times treated characters to mouth those preachy and moralistic dialogues which were quite loud, i must admit, but at the same time it used to drive home the point to masses which in this case exploitation of farmers by the landlords.
Baba,
Do Bigha Zameen was released in 1953, not in 1961, while the BT and Umberto. D were released in 1948, 1952 respectively. Also, Bollywood had( and still has to certain extent) its problem with white-black characters for such a long time that it becomes critical to know and analyse, how as where it started!(I am not pin pointing this movie as a germination of the problem, could well be one among many).
@tanul
I never said that Indian cinema (referred to as bollywood films) by you tried to show reality. Umberto D and The Bicycle Thief, both actually belonged to a revolutionary phase of Italian cinema – Italian neo-realism. Now the environment in Italy at that time evolved characters with different sensibility whereas character here in India had different sensibility and ideology. now as far as dramatic dialogue delivery is concerned, it has nothing to do with character rather its a style that our cinema adhered to and still follow – The MELODRAMA.
Also i feel the comparison of the films in itself is flawed as the form, genre and sensibilities of both kinds of cinema is absolutely different, no matter if they intend to have a similar style.
Tanul
This comparison, is in its conception, flawed. Do Bigha Zameen is not a neo-realistic film by any stretch of imagination. It does not use any of the tenets of neo-realism, which I am certain, you are well aware of. It is at its most, in terms of film type, an exceedingly well-written drama about a family, set in the social context of the end of feudalism and beginning of industrialisation. Thus, in order to truly gauge its ability as a film, it should be compared to other films of the same type – about poor people, yet studio dramas. Such a comparison should subjugate your complain of unrealistic acting and writing in this film – because it is not meant to be a ‘realistic’ film.
However, if you still want to compare De Sica’s films with an Indian filmmaker – Ray’s there for you. The early Ray.
I think one of the point raised by some commenters is indeed correct because DBZ is not a truly neo-realistic. If one wants to compare TBF, it should be pather panchali, ajantrik. But in today’s gross simplification in media, DBZ has already been touted along with other greats of indian cinema. I believe it was Tanul’s intention to separate the chafe.
What next
Kambakht Ishq compared to Citizen Kane
Also i feel the comparison of the films in itself is flawed as the form, genre and sensibilities of both kinds of cinema is absolutely different.
WELL SAID SHASHANK
The point is not whether Do Bugha is a neorealistic film or not. The question is whether Do Bigha Zameen stands tall and deserves all the praises it has been garnering for many years. I don’t think it does. Hence, my points and its consequent comparisons with two movies made around the same time that just happened to qualify as neorealistic movies. Also, I believe movies came first and then the brackets they fit into.
Also, if a movie deals with real people, and touches the problem that was still prevalent in those times, but if it was not even meant to be a ‘reaistic’ movie in the first place, then it fails itself. That point is not even debatable.
@Shashank: I said Bollywood because there was a reason behind it. Read the first paragraph, the basic point behind the comparison. What does it suit the best? The Bollywood or the Indian Cinema? Come on! We have had too many silly discussions over the Indian Cinema and the Bollywood. The fact is Do Bigha Zameen is touted as one of the greats in the history of Bollywood, the article challenges that. Let’s not go into the Rays, and the Ghataks because this article is not about them.
Infact, many problems that have ailed and spoiled many a good ‘Bollywood’(Yes!) movie over the years was present in this movie too. This was a point amongst many others.
@Om Prakash: Thanks for getting what the article was about.
Tanul
“I don’t think it does. Hence, my points and its consequent comparisons with two movies made around the same time that just happened to qualify as neorealistic movies”
Quite a strange co-incidence that. That you could have picked any movie available to you, and you ended up picking two which are considered to be the two epitomal examples of the neo-realistic movement (alongwith Rossellini ofcourse). Also, by the virtue of the fact that they ‘just happened to’ be neo-realistic films, your comparison, I repeat, becomes invalid. Because you just cannot compare two films of two different types, especially also, when your major grudge against one is its lack of realism, which ironically, was the central achievement of the movement to which the films being used as reference points belong to. That is like complaining why a bulb doesn’t light up the earth like the sun. Both have their own intrinsic qualities and should be praised/or not for such.
“The question is whether Do Bigha Zameen stands tall and deserves all the praises it has been garnering for many years”
If that is indeed the question you seek to answer, you should, in my humble opinion, use only one reference point – cinema, and fault the film where it fails its own goals, and not compare it to film of different types, made with a different set of objectives, and then reach a conclusion as to why it is not good. That is unfair to the film. And ofcourse, just a plot point – poverty, in this case, is hardly enough to warrant comparison – that would mean Aan should be compared with Ardh Satya, New York with United 93, so on and so forth. This is where the bracketing of films is important – for films grouped in a particular bracket are not grouped together for the commonality of a mileu, nationality, language, or plot point – but for the aesthetical properties. Just my two cents.
“Also, if a movie deals with real people, and touches the problem that was still prevalent in those times, but if it was not even meant to be a ‘reaistic’ movie in the first place, then it fails itself.”
No, definitely not. A film about real people(what does that even mean – people are always real. It takes all kinds to make a world), or a prevalent problem does not necessarily have to be represented cinematically in a ‘realistic’ manner, or is not obliged to even be close to ‘reality’. It can take its own luxury, bake its cake and eat it too. The only factor that will determine whether it is a good film or not, will then be decided by the honesty of the representation, and the sincerity of the perspective on the prevalent issue. Syriana, Battleship Potemkin, The Great Dictator, How Green Was My Valley, The Godfather, Baazi, Mother India, Ghatak’s Partition trilogy, Charulata, Elephant, Taxi Driver, Jaagte Raho, Kannathil Muthamittal, Bombay, Playtime, Dev D. – not good films all of them, but are all constructed, manipulated, cinematic representations of real issues. Neo-realism in Italy(or subsequently in many nations), or neo-neo-realism in Bahrain now, are just approaches to a film. Not de juro bottomlines as to how ANY film should be made.
Let’s look at the basis of your discussion.It is flawed if I look at DBZ and Bicycle Thief at a macroscopic level.Suppose I din’t know of film classification/history-Surrealism,film noir,expressionism,neorealism et al..what happens then?I still find do Bigha Zameen over the top..or full of pathos(unrealistic).See, film history will only happen and be classified only after the films is made.History is mere documentation of film events but cannot be used as basis of debate.Films characteristics should not be limited..may be de sica never knew that his films are neo-realistic.
Interesting comparison there but I agree with Anuj. Neorealism was an approach, and you have to take into account the milieu and traditions the filmmaker is coming from. That also has an impact. Unlike Ray, Bimal Da was making films in a commercial set up.
But Anuj, I won’t put Baazi (Gowarikar’s or Dev’s?), Bombay and Dev D. in the same place as Taxi Driver and Charulata and Godfather and Jaagte Raho, etc. They have to stand the test of time.
I will have to concede this round to Anuj!!
Well put!
I personally would group Do Bheega Zameen and Naya Daur as two major films criticizing industrialization as a single ticket policy to economic development. While Naya daur packed a lot of masala and star power to deliver its message, Do Bheega zameen was a more sombre movie prompting serious thinking from the viewer’s part. Its central message was reinstated by various film makers later on and the honesty and the subtlety with which it went about delivering the message is what I would call the craft of cinema is all about. The rest about comparisons are very odious. DBZ has inspired many film makers and has reached much more numerous populace which is also the most diverse in the small blue planet and that is an achievment no other neo realistic movie can claim. Sometimes some movies cannot be viewed from the prism of cinematic stand point alone and DBZ is a classic case in point.
I don’t think a topic of this nature warrants a sneering ocular inspection of any sort. To me, these whole set of problems that we typically associate with our cinema (now it could be caricaturization or de-sensitivizing of audience to violence or our tendency to veer towards melodrama)… To me all these discrepancies find its source in our overt dependence on “The Story”… We are just too dependent on “The Story” to construct our films. The problem with hinging too much on the story is that we then try to fit in aspects of the story with a view to take our films to a certain logical conclusion and in that process end up sacrificing truth
A De Sica or a Bergman or a Fellini were people who had a POV about life, about human nature… Their art was an outlet for them to express that POV. Now sometimes their films bring out their POV by offering things to the audience on a platter like in the case of say an “Umberto.D.” and sometimes it instigates the audience to be a part of the interpretation process like in the case of an “81/2″ or a “Persona”… Whatever be the case, these film-makers essentially thought of “The Story” as a very, very small ritual. The conversation they wished to have with the audience with every passing film was what drove them.
For us on the other hand, the story is probably the most important component of a film. When story drives a film, truth (truth and not realism) more often than not ends up taking a back-seat.
Story as a small ritual – Very interesting thought. I couldn’t agree more with you on this. Just now finished reading some short stories in thamizh by Pudhumai Piththan. The stories are just excuse to delve into a character or a underlying truth about people in his stories. I log back into PFC and find your comment on story being a small ritual in a classic movie..
All cultures have their own ways of communicating with people ,in the sub-continent melodrama is a popular tool, and it is evident from Yakshagana ,Kuchipudi ,Jatra ,Ram Leela and many others, Roy himself was influenced by many of these theatrical traditions so analyzing them from the European neo-realistic lens wouldn’t be appropriate.
Can you compare the Mahabharat and the Illiad and tell which one is better, or for that matter Shakespeare and Kalidasa ,comparing masterpieces from separate cultures is a task fraught with uncertainties.
Tanul… I would have loved if you had compared De Sica’s movies with Ray’s, Ghatak ’s or John Abraham’s to come out with the difference in sensibilities while handling similiar themes…. I donno if it correct to put it this way… but Bimal Roy is not a Satyajit Ray and his movies are not of the lyrical quality of even the Indian visual masters…
He sees the medium more as a narrative tool…Does not mean they do not have their moments of brilliant imagery, only that he, like many good film makers in the mainstream, do not over-emphasize on image… Hence the emphasis on writing explicit scenes and dialogues…
Bimal Roy might be profoundly intellegent and clear cut on his views on life and its implications…but he chooses to deliver it as a story, a narrative…Something like a RK Narayan and James Joyce….we dont compare them, or their work, do we??
When one thinks visually, automatically we start for looking images which represent words, concepts or meaning and the whole stuff gets the so called ‘neo-realistic’ or ’surrealistic’ or whatever feel depending on the imagery chose…
Adoor got the stick of critics for moving on to predominantly narrative path in ‘Vidheyan’…He has seldom got back on track after that…The imagery in ‘Anantaram’ is what one would refer to for a lesson on surrealism…
When a film historian declares ‘Its a directors medium’ its not for nothing….
The idea of DBZ being overly dramatic and thus unreal is an argument often heard with other Indian movies. Sometimes the argument hold merits when the acting just seems cheesy. Now in terms of DBZ and other such movies, I feel the critic often do not account for the history of culture when making the argument. Nautankis(stage dramas) have long been history of India, and thats how people were entertained, educated etc about drama. Nautankis still have that impact on Indian cinema regardless of the region, so there is always been and will be some over dramatics in movies. While the Indian society has been always a bit repressive, loud dramas gave it the outlet it cannot in real life. Cultures and its influence when it comes to cinema has to be taken into account.
This is BS.. Having seen both BT and DBZ, I actually loved Do bigha zamin much better.. Praising foreign movies over classic indian movies seems trend here.. I actaully relates to DBZ much more than Bycle thieves.. Having said that – BT is still better film and in a way, most probably Bimal Roy was influenced by BT..
I saw Do Beegha Zameen last year, having bought it on recommendation from a producer, with no expectations. I don’t think I have watched another black and white movie before (except for Charlie Chaplin and Laurel Hardies).
I found it a delightful and touching piece of cinema which kept me smiling in spite of all the tragedy, something that ‘Life Is Beautiful’ had done.
I think it’s a flawless movie from an audience point of view, but filmmakers do tend to overdissect to the point of losing perspective, finding flaws where they need not. After all, what’s wrong with melodrama if the audience laps it up?
I have not seen the other two movies, but a movie should not have to stand up to comparisions to be called great on its own.
any film reviewer must also take into account the istory of the film before branding it as good bad or mediocre. you cannot reviw a film based solely on how you view it today! do bigha zameen is a masterpiece of indin cinema for its time. as for your problems with meodrama you have to tke into account indian cinema of tht era… probably bicycle thieves (made arnd the same time)if shown in india would not have worked becoz indians understood and picked up only overdramatized emotions….