Sponsor PFCOne
Loading ...
Shatranj ke khiladi
Satyajit Ray’s “Shatranj ke khiladi” has won the best film – critics filmfare award in 1978 but the fact that it has not been received well by the Indian audience raises an unending debate over adaptation of literature. Though this was not the first film of Ray which was based on literature, in fact “pather Panchali” “apur sansar” and “aparajito” were also based on Bibhutibhushan bandopadhyay’s novels. Bibhuti Bhushan’s novel had already become classic much before the film was made. Though there is a debate here too that the original novel was superior to the film (Pather Panchali)and the essence is lost in the translation in other languages but the response ‘pather panchali (film)” received from all over the world discards this debate and the film is considered as a classic. This is an ideal relationship between a book and the film based on it where both become complementary of each other. sadly “Shatranj ke khiladi” could not touch that height and questions has been raised regarding the adaptation. Some Hindi scholars called it as a waste of a story; some has many problems with the film. This was the first attempt by Ray to adapt a non Bengali story, a hindi story written by the famous writer Premchand and Ray was criticized for this. This factor could be an argument often given to justify the failure of the film but Ray has proved everybody wrong with his next hindi literature adaptation. This time again he choose Premchand and borrows the story “ Sadgati”. “Sadgati” the film is a masterpiece and speaks more than the story. This film is directed superbly and the performances were terrific. Ompuri and Mohan Agashe both leave a remark with their performances. The film has got some amazing visual moments. The saying “A picture speaks much more than 1000 words” perfectly applies here. So what went wrong with “shatranj ke khiladi” ?
These four films could be a good case study for how to adapt a literature. One important fact was common among these films is that these films never deviates from their origin whereas SKK leave its track often from the original path. For example in the original story the whole story has been told from the POV of both players – Mirza and Mir but the film half of the film shows the lengthy unnecessary concerns of British rulers. This starts with the scene where Victor Banerjee (Prime Minister) and his aide Tom Alter (Captain) discusses the socio political situation of the Awadh Regime. This scene is of about more than 6 minutes. The conversation starts with some of the unnecessary concerns like weather captain has seen pigeons which has black and white wings?…and that does he know that the king pray (offer namaaz) five times a day. How to fly a kite ? etc…When the PM asks the captain that does he know anything about mushayara ? Does he know any sher (couplet) ? and the captain must have to tell a couplet. He not only delivers the couplet but also explains the meaning of it (though it was a very common couplet). Then the officer asks him about the songs and dance and about temporary wives. Then at last we came to know that this all conversation was nothing but it refers to an irresponsible king (Nawab of awadh) and declares him as a bad ruler. Now these two characters have been introduced in the film and they were not in the original story. These two often comes in the film and takes their own time. Again the filmmaker introduces Nawab Wajid Ali Shah who has got only a reference in the original story but in the film the character of Nawab Vajid Ali Shah was created and played by Amzad Khan. The introduction scene of Nawab waajid ali shaw is of 6 minutes follows by another scene where there is a long monologue of Nawab is of 9 minutes long… …This all for establishment of a character of a ruler who was an admirer of dance and himself a poet…or to show the then affinity towards the Indian art. of course there is no mention in the story. The original story is about the people of Awadh who has become careless and spend their maximum time in playing, betting and entertaining themselves and in this surrounding there exists two people who plays chess oblivious of what is happening in the political front. It’s quite surprising that the year mentioned in the film is 1856 just a year before the famous revolt took place in Merrut. Merrut used to be in the same province of awadh. The story tells that the whole Lucknow was in the grip of masti. The faqirs too do not buy bread from the money the get. Instead they buy afeem and and wine. There was a common belief that playing chess or consuming afim helps the brain to work fast. So Mir and Mirza used to sharpen their brains by playing chess. Since this is the backbone of the story so whenever the film enters into this arena it suddenly becomes interesting. That’s why I don’t find it strange that the most interesting scenes of the films are of two players Sanjiv kumar (Mirza) and Saeed Jaafery (Mir). The film holds whenever the director follows these two players. The best scenes of the films comes through these and it becomes a worth watch that how the dedication of the two players affects their personal lives. Though the character of Mirza’s wife Begum Sahiba is very exasperate in the original story and she often scolds Mirza whereas in the film, the character of Begum is molded in such a way that she is very nice at heart and misses her husband’s presence in the bedroom. In fact the character (played by Shabana Aazmi) is written as a romantic woman. In the story Begum Sahiba is depicted as very irritating who is jealous of the chessboard which could be understood by a dialogue of Begum in the story “khaane ki bhi fursat nahi hai ? le jaakar khaana sir par patak do..khaaye chahe kutte ko khilaayen”It’s also a topic of a debate wheather the original too could work or not but yes it at least increase the difficulties of Mirza which could further make it more interesting. But this whole sequence of the helplessness of Shabana Azmi(wife of Mirza) and the discomfort of Farida Jalaal (wife of Mir) which could hold the film were covered in single scenes. Consequently the personal story of the two players overtook by all these political activities and audience somehow deviates from the real thread line. The other thing is that Mirza is slightly concern about the British Army entering into lucknow whereas Mir was oblivious this interesting chemistry was also missing The two characters sounds not much difference Though Saeed Zaafri and Sanjiv Kumar makes the difference in their performance.
The film has some great moments when a kid of Awadh concerns his wishes of seeing the british army in their uniform but when they conquers the regime the same kid questions Mirza that ab humaara baadshah gore honge ? (Shall we now be ruled by british ?) Mirza thinks for a while and this makes him uncomfortable. Now this is not in the original story but Ray introduced it beautifully. After all film is all about moments and Ray was master of this. Another moment was when Mir changes the mohra in the absence of Mirza. The shot is just amazing and the lighting was brilliant as if it was taken behind the curtains.
Moreover Ray wanted to finish it in a more realistic manner, so he kept the two players alive in the end. In the story both kills each other at the end. The scene of surrender of the Nawab becomes almost flat in the film but in the story it strikes our conscience. See how Premchand has written about the surrender.
“ navaab waajid ali shah pakad liye gaye the..aur sena unhe kisi agyaat sthaan par le jaa rahi thi..shaher me na koi halchal thi na koi maarkaat..ek boond khoon bhi nahi gira tha..aaj tak kisi swadheen raja ki parajay itni shanti se bina khoon bahe na hui hogi..yeh ahinsa na thi jis par devta khush hote the..ye kaayarpan tha..awadh ke vishal desh ka nawaab bandit ha aur lucknow aish ki nind me tha…”
The climax has been changed but the conversation in the story before the climax is just phenomenal which I missed in the film.
Mirza : kisi ne khandaan me shantranj kheli ho tab na..ghaas chheelne waale shatranj kya khelenge..
Mir : ghaas aapke abbajan chheelte honge..yahan to peedhiyon se shatranj khelte hain
Mirza : are jaaiye..gaziuddin haider ke yahan bawarchi ka kaam karte jindagi gujar gayi
Mir : bawarchi ka kaam aapke bujurg karte honge..yahan to hamesha baadshah ke saath khaate chale aaye hain
Mirza : are chal charkate bahut baatein na kar..
Mir : Mirza jabaan sambhaal ke warna..
and this leads to a fight and they kill each other. Premchand writes -
dono vilaasi the par kaayar nahi …unme veerta ki kami nahi thi par baadshah ke liye kyon mare ? apne baadshah ke liye unki aankho se ek boond aansoo na nikla par shatranj ke vajeer ke liye inhone apni jaan de di
10 Responses to “Shatranj ke khiladi”
Leave a Reply
Our Comments Policy : The following kinds of comments are troll capped, blocked and/or commenter's identity reported publicly: Verbal abuse, personal attacks, hate statements, spam, trolls, advertising. Please assist us in keeping the comments clean. Use the contact form to let us know if you find unwarranted comments on PFC. Thank you.
- Raah Pe Rahte Hain - Gulzar turns a truck driver’s ditty into a song of life
- Rangeele Babu : Premchandian revolutionary character dares to challenge the God
- Manorama Six Feet Under (2007)
- Rock On is My Story and Yours
- Rock On… reviews begin
- Rock On Re
- Rock On is My Story and
- Rock On R
- Manorama Six Feet Under (
- Himesh Bhai ka
Recent Posts:
Hottest Today:
I saw this movie on a home video… even i was bored of the sequences which you told were unnecessary.. but overall i liked the film.
SKK had a matured humor in it which i found very surprising of the kind of movie it was. I def wasnt aware about premchand orginal book.
I loved the scene when mir and mirzaa come to borrow a chessboard from someone who was very ill and was about to die. He eventually dies as they are waiting for his approval for the chessboard.Hilarious! Excellent performance by sanjeev kumar and saeed jaffrey.
Will def have to catch with premchand’s book.
@ bhavesh..ya this is not just another movie..it’s unique in it’s narrative..the scene u r talking about is funny specially when they are told to wait for the man and noticing a chessboard lying on the table they again starts playing till the attendant comes. The attendant replaces the chessboard with a tray of drinks they offered as a tehzeeb of awadh..man it’s really hillarious..the surprise part is that this scene was not in the story and guess it was included in the screenplay to show the desparation of the two players. anyway loved the moment when they slinks away slowly
i really don’t understand why you find that part boring, probably you do not understand the context of the story. Those scenes were anything but boring. I guess we agree that commercial failure or successes does not necessarily decide the quality of movie so let me suspend this POV for a while.
I think wajid ali shah and lord Cornwallis part was one of the most striking feature of the film and a great work of cinema making. I find those scenes very interesting and I enjoy watching them!!! I agree that these scenes are not present in the original story if you want to say that no such dialogues were there. Nevertheless the original story was never (at least in the eyes of popular critic of the story) actually the story of two arrogant self indulgent nawabs only. Like kafan (by premchand only) was not a story about the failure of administrative agency to provide support to poor people to perform meaningful cremation of poor’s dead body or to show the cruel structure of Indian village, though you can read these things in the story but primarily kafan was a story of extremely lazy son and father and those lazy people can exist anywhere in any political set up. Whereas SKK was more specific and a bit more direct. Those Shatranj ke Khilaadi existed in particular set up and showing that set up was important. Those dialogues in the movies show that set up.
In fact the very first paragraph (of the story) talks about the socio-polical culture that was giving birth to those crazy chess players. Have you read William Darlympire’s (D) great classic, The Last Moughal??? In a chapter (I will paste the page number later). William Darlympire talks about different lifestyle of British officers and chandni chowk and laal quilla based Moughals elites. The period is of near 1850 decades only. In the morning when British officers used to go to their respective office for work, these elites used to return from their overnight party. Just picture this. On one side of the road regular British officer going to work and on the other sides fully drunk mirza and nawabs returning from some great banquet, mushayra or randikhana or all. . Now this different lifestyle was very well presented in those scenes that you are talking about. Additionally see the concept of baadsahat; remember the dialogue by wajid ali shah, “ek badshash agar baadshat na kare toh kya karen..” so whatever he was doing was Baadsahat in his eyes.. Cornwallis looks at the whole idea of baadsahat from a very (then) European understanding of public administration and legal authority.
Essentially (I think) it was showing the complete lack of (modern republic) public spirit in Awadh. Everybody had his own private world and indulgence. There was no idea of life beyond that personal space. The idea of nation was lacking. They do not kill each other for extremely selfish reason. Text of the story reads that they kill each other for honour. The honour is a public thing, but the idea of public was very privately constructed in that feudal society. See the Prime Minister is a bit westernized man so he does understand Cornwallis’s mind so while defending wajid ali shah rules he also uses western technology of public opinion. But Cornwallis is not convinced because according to him people (of Awadh) cannot judge what is good or bad. Probably in the same way as we do not necessarily agree with the (Indian) box office collection, people’s opinion on movie. Not that Cornwallis had that public spirit, he was as vulgarly indulged with his life and ambitions as any other person in the theater and obviously with with his own set of prejudices and perception and others. In fact those scenes also show the tyranny of western understanding of rationality in an interesting way but I will write about it later…
additionally i don’t think the scene that you guys are celebrating here was part of the original story…
@Dipankar,
Canvas of SKK is bigger than the story of Premchand. S ray was making the film around 50 years after the time when Premchand had written the story. Premchand’s story had motives like his many other stories and books. and when a filmmaker has to make a film then he can leave these motives and can pick up only the solid story material residing inside all the content that story provide. Ray did exactly that. SKK is a remarkable effort from many angles.
Critics will always be critic unless they see film as audiences also and say same things on the record what they say off the record also. Ray internationalized the simple story of PremChand and thats an achievement of a filmmaker.
In adaptation from literature, if film can look more convincing by making changes in the original story and plot then it should be done and a director and that too an expreineced one certainly knows this factor.
Its not necessary to be strictly devotee of the book or story as this can kill the visual aspect of the film. Film’s story is based on the short story but film does not have to follow the same path. Devoted readers may enjoy the story and devoted audiences may enjoy the film and those who enjoy both the mediums can enjoy book and film equally.
in 50 years society’s concern may be changed.
Today, I dont think one can make exactly devoted film on Premchand’s Karbala with keeping alive Premchand’s own commentary as this may not be fruitful for the todays societal structure and social harmony may be in danger.
With changing time we have to leave many things given in old literature.
Though this is true that almost all the times books remain better than the films made on those books. and its interesting to observe that this has happened when original writer of the books have written the screen play themselves.
But SKK does not fall in this category. It remains independently a good film. This is a fact that it borrows the main plot from Premchand’s story but for the sake of making a better film, S ray successfully deviates from the original story.
@ nimesh..thanx for explaining the context of the film which I failed to understand may be m not as intelligent as u are…it’s not a question of how a particular scene is boring or interesting it’s a question that if it holds or not..I have given the example of Ray’s another movie “sadgati” in which there is nothing like interesting but it holds ur nerves..if it is cinema then a 9 minute long scene is not justified unless and untill it underlines something..u liked those scenes as much as i liked “khoya khoya chaand” but it doesn’t matter as far as it doesn’t appeal to audience…Nawaab Wajid Ali shah was an important ruler and there were various ways to show it as he was also a very colourful an art lover ruler..i don’t have any problems with the evolution of the character of wajid Ali Shah but the way the character has been created and the scenes were made i m sorry to say that it doesn’t work..that’s why this film is not called as a classic as other works of Ray.
I don’t think SKK (the film) was more specific and direct..In fact it was an indirect way to comment on the the socio political era of the history..It is not direct also because it is relevant even today…The story is also told in a very indirect way..and so SKK exists in any political set up of today.
no i didn’t read the “last moghul”
The dialogue ” ek baadshaah baadshaht na kare to kya kare” again contradicts the Nawab’s personality..The Nawab enjoys all comforts of life and never thought of his people…The Nawab surrenders without any struggle then it what sense this dialogue is placed in the film..?
I agree with ur point that it showed complete lack of public spirit of awadh otherwise they could not have given up so easily..quite in contrast of Rani of Jhansi who gave the slogan “main apni jhansi nahi dungi”
@ RK ..have some questions regarding ur pts…catch u later.
One of my favorite films. Outstanding is the word.
i found it an excellent film .. humour is very subtle and mature ..
loved tht scene where amjad khan (wajid ali shah) goes on a soliloqy and tells his sycophant courtiers how his subjects(prajaa) loves him .
another scene where he is informed by his minister that british govt is planning to take over the reigns of the kingdom .. the camera slowly zooms into his face .. the audience is waiting for his reaction .. and then the he breaks into a song (something like “chhod chale awadh nagariyaaa ..” ) .. lol !
and ofcourse tht scene where they reach an ailing old man’s house to play chess .. funny as hell !
and the chemistry betwn the two chess players sayeed jaffrey and sanjeev kumar is hilarious .. gr8 acting .. subtle and nuanced ..
BigB’s narration has the pefect tone of sarcasm .. !
Dipankar, I think you misunderstood the concept of film adaptation. I dont know if you have read Pather Pachali. ray’s adaptation was quite different in a number of places but most importantly, it was able to maintain the theme and spirit of Bibhutibhushan’s vision which is most important. Charulata, arguably one of his best work, was also criticized by the conservatives in kolkata for a similar reason.