User Reviews

Plot: In 1890s India, a wife's relationship with her cousin-in-law disrupts the stability of the whole household.

Review: The first ten minutes of this movie are simply of bored housewife, Charulata (Madhabi Mucherjee), wandering about her apartment. It is mesmerising. Other characters appear one by one, all members of her extended family. A male cousin-in-law is something of a soul mate, and they mutually encourage each other to start writing as a pastime, but when he decided to publish his work relationships subtly change.

Actually, I wasn't always exactly sure what was going on. I think there were some cultural subtexts at play that I am not at privy to. I was afraid that I might have picked up something tedious, but it was nothing of the sort. It is a beautiful movie. There is a humour and lightness of touch that is very refreshing. I particularly liked the contrast between the newspaper editor husband who clearly takes his work very seriously, and the lack of fulfilment or focus in other people's lives around him. Acting, cinematography, lighting, sound, locations, shot composition, all are done so well, and the story is accessible enough to make it enjoyable to any audience. It's the kind of movie that leaves a pleasurable feeling afterwards, knowing that one has watched something of quality, even if one is not exactly sure why.

I remember reading through Satyajit Ray's list of things that people from outside India would fail to get in "Charulata" – of all his films (up to 1980, anyway) the one he thought was most "superficially" accessible to Westerners – and thinking to myself: "But I DID get all this... at least, more or less."

In Bengal society (Ray writes) a woman's brother-in-law holds a privileged position; the two are EXPECTED to form a special friendship, and she is allowed to be more intimate with him than with anyone else to whom she's not related by blood (apart, of course, from her husband). Ray is right. Most Westerners don't know this. I certainly didn't. But we're able to infer as much of it as matters from the film itself: we can tell that Amal and Charulata expect, before they fall properly in love, a fair degree of freedom in negotiating their friendship; that this is okay by Bhupati; that this isn't considered odd by any of the participants; that it (probably) WOULD be considered odd were Amal an outsider... and we can tell a good deal more besides; this is, as everyone acknowledges, a film of exceedingly rich characterisations. What we CAN'T tell from the film alone is the extent to which the expectations and roles of the three central characters are duplicated in other marriages across India. But this doesn't matter. This is a chamber drama, not an allegory.

Ray also lists some literary allusions which Westerners are almost certain to be blind to, but again, I think he's underestimated the extent to which he gets across, in the film alone, all he needs to get across. We can tell, from the way the characters react, what the allusions mean; just as an allusion to Achilles' heel, if properly used, will make sense to (and add depth for) an audience entirely unfamiliar with Greek legend. Even the film's makes sense to outsiders in a way Ray thinks it won't. It's a Scottish tune (I know this because I recognised it, but you can tell it's Scottish even if you don't) with Bengali lyrics; we can tell it's a Western song, from (more or less) the land which currently rules over India, which at least some Indians have adopted as their own, which is popular enough for Amal to expect others to be familiar with it, etc. (I have to admit, though, that something was being conveyed by the lyrics that wasn't being adequately conveyed by the subtitles.)

It's a tribute to Ray's skill that even he doesn't realise just how much context he's managed to import into "Charulata". Of course, he's right in that nobody will get everything; Ray himself admits to not understanding the meaning of his own (hopeful? cautious? distancing?) final freeze frame ("I only knew that it was the right way to end the film"), and, I need hardly add, I don't either.

Ray was wrong to think that the allusions fall flat on Western ears or that some of the necessary social context is impenetrable, but the film would still have something to offer even if he weren't: the characters would still be as alive and real, the respect with which they're treated would be just as apparent; the film would still, in short, be a beautiful one.

As cinema appears to become ever more loud and brash, a work as delicate, subtle and understated as this may easily pass unnoticed, or mistaken as insipid. That is a great shame, since this is obviously a great masterpiece. Set in India in the last century, Charulata is trapped in a dull, stifling marriage. What starts off as innocent flirting with her brother-in-law soon sets off emotions that none of them, decent though they all are, can really control. There is no adultery as such - the betrayal is all in the mind - but the trust implicit in marriage is broken, and the future can only be faced with uncertainty.

This is a film of great grace and elegance, and also of considerable wit. But underneath the surface charm is a great seriousness. As always, Ray depicts the development of the characters with great insight and sensitivity, and coaxes fine performances from his cast. Western critics, in discussing this film, often draw parallels with the works of Chekhov or of Henry James, but Ray's inspiration was actually the great Bengali writer Rabindranath Tagore, on whose short novel this film was based. As a piece of film-making, it is absolute perfection - a real gem.

**POSSIBLE SPOILERS**

Lacking the formidable cultural legacy of his earlier Apu trilogy, CHARULATA (Ray's 11th film) lacks nothing else – if Ray's overall style was derived from neo-realism; CHARULATA proved that – in his own uncluttered way – he was also a master of style and subtle elegance.

CHARULATA was perhaps Ray's most technically stunning work, featuring an elegant - if moody - story shot in a manner that finds Ray experimenting a bit. The story is set in an upper-class, intellectual household in 1890s India, and the period setting is rendered in great detail – giving the film a lush, living beauty that (thanks to the stunning cinematography of Subrata Mitra) never crosses over into stuffiness. In a handful of scenes, a French new wave influence can also be seen – primarily at the very end, and also in an earlier scene featuring the title character's recollections (in a quick-moving montage) of childhood memories.

Based on a story by Rabindranath Tagore, the film explores marital complacency, as Bhupati (a wealthy publisher and political idealist, devotes the majority of his time to his publishing business, and to political interests, and grows increasingly isolated from his wife, Charulata. Charulata – as an attractive upper-class wife, is essentially expected to manage the household, and not much else, and is increasingly both lonesome (Bhupati is a generally pleasant enough husband, though also a severe workaholic who is rarely around, and - in his sexual politics - he is a product of his time) and intellectually restless.

In the midst of this, Bhupati's younger brother Amal arrives – Amal, a romantically inclined bohemian and recent college graduate who is searching for work while also pursuing literary ambitions, and has temporarily moved into the household. Amal and Charulata are instantly drawn to each other – first as intellectual companions, before an awareness of attraction is recognized. The two are plainly aware of the impossibility of the unrequited relationship, as Bhupati – after discovering than an employee has been embezzling form him – is then devastated to discover that his wife is turning away from him.

To highlight the increasing distance between each of the three characters, CHARULATA is formalistic in it's look (with the handful of well-placed new-wave-inflected scenes adding textural complexity and emotionalism), with the classical touches of the cinematography underscoring the characters' ever-increasing distance from each other. Exploring sexual and class politics - with great depth and complexity - in a historical setting (while – in its' exploration of idealistic, nationalistic politics – making subtle connections to the present-day handling of the same issues in Bengali society), with flawless performances from all, CHARULATA is a beautiful and haunting masterpiece.

Satyajit Ray's Charulata (1964) is considered to be a masterpiece and monument of timeless art and is also accepted as one of the best ever adaptations of a literary piece. The film is an adaptation of a short story named Nashtaneer by Rabindranath Tagore. This review contains Ray's subtle use of metaphors while handling the plot which deserves appreciation along with its other technical perfections.

The metaphors used in this film are countable but very much catchy and pleasant if related properly with each other. Ray successfully employed the metaphors within the constraint of film techniques. The mentionable metaphors are Charu's opera-glass, caged birds, carpet-shoe and Sentinel newspaper etc. In the very poetic opening sequence of the film is not bereft of any intention by the director. The use of opera-glass vision or binocular-vision (which is masked-shot to be precise) is very grabbing. Charu sees the world through opera-glass. Even she sees her husband Bhupati with it once. The immediate and swift zoom-out after the gaze is praiseworthy. In the film, Charu sees the world through it but whoever she sees goes out of her limited vision. She cannot but forced to let them go out of her vision. By the end of the film, she once again takes refuge to her glasses. The focus of her glasses (a boat) moves on. The only person static in her opera-glass is Amal as seen in the garden sequence. But Amal sneaks off at last rendering Charu's opera-glass a constant metaphor of both escapism and a means of escape. Two times in the film, caged birds are seen within the frame of a shot's composition. That is a perfect metaphor for representing Charu and Amal to some extent as if they can fly but within a limited confinement where flying does not even mean anything fruitful. The carpet-shoe metaphor is a perfect example of Charu's growing weakness for Amal. Charu knitted the pair of shoe with meticulous attention for Bhupati. This was a sign of her loyalty to her husband. But she presents it to Amal and it was clear that she was presenting her affinity for Amal by doing this. When Amal leaves, she angrily collects the pair of shoe from Amal's room but there is no indication that she will give it to Bhupati either. The metaphoric indication is clear _ Charu can never present her love to anyone anymore. The Sentinel newspaper is last but not the least metaphor here. It shifts its representational position which makes it an interesting metaphor. At first it was a symbol of Bhupati's workaholic mind and was appreciable. Then it turns itself as an image of political consciousness of Bhupati and thus assumes a negative connotation to the viewer. It is because Bhupati's obsession with politics fruits a chasm in a social relationship between him and his wife Charu. Then the newspaper becomes a symbol of Bhupati's failure. At the last freeze shot, a copy of the newspaper is seen which connotes itself to be nothing more than a scrap and thus a metonymy of a broken house. Among other metaphors, betel and Bishwabondhu magazine are prominent ones.

It is literally very tough to find flaws with editing of such a meticulously knitted film. In fact, there is none to be mentioned. The transition between scenes is smoothed by very charming fade-ins and fade-outs. There are cuts but torrent of the plot remains uninterrupted. It must be mentioned that superimposition used in order to ensure the transition between scenes were very successful. The most interesting was the last three freezes. It is at once appreciable and bears evidence of cinematic craftsmanship of Satyajit Ray. He was accused by a critic that Charulata has been a bad adaptation. But within the technical sophistication of a film; the necessity of deducing, adding and altering is technically and literally undeniable. Thus the subtlety of editing makes Charulata one of the most entertaining and pioneering films in Bengali of all times. The editing aids to condense the story within an accepted time frame. In a nutshell, the crafty editing makes Charulata even critics' favourite as well.

Charulata is Satyajit Ray's masterpiece. No other movie is so brilliantly subtle, so timeless in quality. Indeed, Ray himself described Charulata as the only flawless movie he had directed.

Like the Apu trilogy, and many other Ray movies, Charulata deals with universal themes. Unlike the Apu trilogy, Charulata is set in an urbane, intellectual setting. This might be a turn off for some foreign viewers. When it was released in India in 1964, it was deemed controversial because of its depiction of an extramarital relationship. Yet no movie Ray made, not even the celebrated Apu trilogy, treats the themes of love, growth and loyalty with as much insight and sensitivity as Charulata.

Every scene in this movie is a gem, there are nuances in every movement, poetry in each look. Richly deserving multiple viewing, Charulata is the most perfect Ray movie.

The lonely wife (Madhabi Mukherjee) of a newspaper editor (Sailen Mukherjee) falls in love with her visiting cousin-in-law (Soumitra Chatterjee), who shares her love for crafting literature.

I make no secret of the fact that I simply do not care for Indian films. I can't really express why, but they do not appeal to me. With regard to Ray, I was not moved by the Apu trilogy. However, after seeing "The Music Room" (1958) I found there was at least one Indian film I liked.

And now "Charulata". Much has been written about how this film has more of a Western sense to it, even invoking the name of Mozart. That may be so. But I also appreciate that at this point Ray had access to better equipment, apparently. Cinematography-wise, this is his best-looking film, and he experiments a little bit in a dreamlike way that I find very effective. We have the right balance -- not that low grade film India had in the past, and not the overly polished junk of Bollywood. This and "Music Room" may be the pinnacle of Indian film.

Much as I love this film, I wish that any new viewer might first encounter it on a big screen, with its lovely, rhapsodic recreation of its late 19th Century setting is most apparent. The Chekhov parallels are overwhelming-- same period, same bittersweet attention to over-privileged lives, more than anything else the same rare affinity for female characters.

This may be Ray's favorite of his films but it's not mine. For the first time I find myself in partial agreement with this great director's critics who find his films too damn slow and feel there are simply too many extended scenes, like the one between Charulata and Amal in the garden and the party thrown by the Indian liberal intellectuals, without tension or verve or, indeed, much happening at all. Another problem I had with this film is similar to the bone I had to pick with "The Big City", namely that Ray tries to tackle too much and in the process waters down or leaves unexplored key elements. I'm referring, of course, to the sub plot about the treacherous brother who absconds with the newspaper's funds. Not only is this sibling conflict another movie but it occurs out of nowhere, with no motivation given for the brother's nefarious actions, and it takes the focus away from what should be the vital center of the film, the adulterous passions of Charulata for her cousin. Similarly, the rather artsy fartsy, triple freeze frame ending features, as its third leg so to speak, a horrified servant who we have seen for maybe two minutes, max, of the film. If his reaction is so vitally important as to be prominently featured in the denouement then why in the name of all that is cinematically holy was he not given more screen time? So count me distinctly underwhelmed by "Charulata" although there is no denying the excellence of the performances from the three leads, especially Madhabi Mukherjee who was so affecting as the liberated wife in "The Big City" and is almost as charmingly effective here, in the title role Give it a C plus.

The film is the masterpiece from Satyajit ray. Even he confessed that it was his best work. The film is obviously the slowest that I have ever seen but its beauty lies in the fact that it gradually develops the relationships and emotions which is very difficult to be filmed. The story revolves around a woman named Charulata who has an inherent talent of writing but is not able to make use of this. She finds it very difficult to pass her time. Brother of her husband comes to live with them and then she started to find solace in his company. How relationships gradually changed as the time passed is portrayed beautifully in this wonderful film from a master filmmaker.

PROS:

The best thing I found in the film was the acting by Charu. Her eyes said more than was required. Cinematography too was nice and noticeable. The development of affection between two people is the key strength here. The film is definitely slow paced but it certainly kept me interested every minute. The thing that I liked in the cinematography most was the very slow movement of the camera around the two people when they were talking. The story is good and normal but the way it was perceived by Ray and his power to display it is fantastic.

MESSAGE: "Some things just happen. You cannot have control over them."

VERDICT: "Most recommended Indian Film."

(1964) Charulata/ The Lonely Wife (In Bengali with English subtitles) PSYCHOLOGICAL DRAMA

Music, written and directed by Satyajit Ray adapting a novel by Rabindranath Tagore starring fMadhabi Mukherjee as Charu building a rapport with her aspiring writer/ journalist cousin, Amal (Soumitra Chatterjee) despite her married to newspaper editor, Bhupati (Shailen Mukherjee).

The simple subtle examination when a husband ignores or neglects his wife who yearns for a little attention she is not getting from her husband. This is the fifth of fourteen movies writer/ director Satyajit Ray collaborated with actor Soumitra Chatterjee.

I wanted to like this movie. The storyline seemed interested and the non-song and dance Indian movies I had seen so far had been of quite a good standard. This however did not do it for me. The movie moved along very slowly, enough that I started to find myself drifting off to sleep at different moments in time.

Don't get me wrong though, the story was still good and I would love to see it again in a redo, but as it stands as is, I have to pass on it.

Satyajit Ray is one of my very favorite film makers, and I especially love his "Apu" Trilogy and "Home and the World", all four of which I would probably rate 10/10 or possibly 9/10. I saw "Charulata" ("The Lonely Wife") on videotape in the closing days of 1999.

"Charulata" clearly espouses S.Ray's distinctive style with very strong and realistic characters subtly developed, rich immersion into the period of the film (in this case around the time of the Indian Mutiny in the 1860s or 1870s, as I recall from history), having of a very few settings that are each portrayed in detail, and compelling and introspective camera shots. I am not surprised that some people are reminded, in viewing S. Ray's films, of Russian author Chekhov; I think of the paralysis of the characters in "The Cherry Orchard" and their juxtaposition against a lovely estate that they are in the process of losing.

In this film there isn't the same faded glory, but the lovely home decor and liberating gardens do contrast starkly with the paralysis of the wife. Bright and with clear literary talent, she is stuck as but a home fixture for her well-intentioned but unseeing husband. The husband has laudable passion for his newspaper and the truth, but is sadly ignorant of the companionship and time that any relationship, particularly a marital one, demands.

I would probably rate this film 8.5-9 out of 10. For me, it didn't have the strong emotion of any of the other films I mentioned above or the intricate story of "Agantuk" ("The Stranger", in color and which I believe was his last film). But overall, "Charulata" is another masterpiece film by Satyajit Ray with a quiet and humble, yet powerful, presentation, rather uncommon in contemporary film.

The best Satyajit Ray movie. Ray, at his peak, gave us his most convincing insight into love and loyalty, two of his universal themes. Unfortunately, the brilliant Apu trilogy has more of an visceral draw to Western audiences and Charulata is overlooked. The Apu trilogy invokes the idea of the Western view of India right or wrong while Charulata almost represents an anomaly of upperclass Indians in the late Victorian era.

Charulata actually is a better film than any of those in the Apu trilogy (as hard as that is to believe) not to mention the most visually striking. However, the one thing Apu trilogy has over Charulata is its freshness. But this almost the same situation as Martin Scorsese and Mean Streets and Taxi Driver. This is not to say that he didn't make any good movies after that. Goodfellas is perhaps his best.

In the end, Ray had style as well as substance in many of his films and Charulata represents that pinnacle while the Apu trilogy establishes what was to come.

The best Satyajit Ray movie. Ray, at his peak, gave us his most convincing insight into love and loyalty, two of his universal themes. Unfortunately, the brilliant Apu trilogy has more of an visceral draw to Western audiences and Charulata is overlooked. The Apu trilogy invokes the idea of the Western view of India right or wrong while Charulata almost represents an anomaly of upperclass Indians in the late Victorian era.

Charulata actually is a better film that any of those in the Apu trilogy (as hard as that is to believe) not to mention the most visually striking. However, the one thing Apu trilogy has over Charulata is its freshness. But this almost the same situation as Martin Scorsese and Mean Streets and Taxi Driver. This is not to say that he didn't make any good movies after that. Goodfellas is perhaps his best.

In the end, Ray had style as well as substance in many of his films and Charulata represents that pinnacle while the Apu trilogy establishes what was to come.

Ray tagged Charulata as "one of his favourite films" and as an observer and a Ray-addict, I would call it his most perfect creation out of his 29 films-old filmography. Not a frame is out of place, all the subtle nuances are mesmerisingly captured and detailed almost like a Mughal portrait.The film follows the suppressed sexual emotions of Charulata, whose loneliness is seen through the carelessness of her husband for her and through brilliant metaphors like a bird's cage or the iron grills of a window. Emotional repressions lead to a tumultuous upheaval when Amal, her husband's cousin storms into her life. Ray sets his work in the late 19th century when patriarchal society did not allow a woman to vent out her feelings and adds a distinguished and unique dimension to Rabindranath's novella, "Nashtanirh". The film unfolds in a majestic pace, never too slow and never too fast, through intelligent dialogues and a masterstroke of a screenplay - scenes like the one where Charu uses her binocular to gaze at Amal and then at the mother carrying her child, almost throw the viewers off their feet. Ray's direction is aptly supported by a a viciously sublime performance by the protagonist. Madhabi Mukherjee makes Charulata her own, her spiralling gazes and the movement of those eyes give it the aura of a silent film. She makes Charu an embodiment of most women in that age and even in the future - the angst, the intensity and the pangs culminate in one of the best performances by an actress that the world has ever seen and without doubt, the best in the country. Soumitra Chatterjee amply supports her and brings a beautiful mix of innocence and masculinity to the role ; so does Sailen Mukherjee and the other actors. Tagore's songs set the mood for every emotion in this movie.All in all, its a movie for every hardcore enthusiast who loves cinema and a masterpiece from the master himself. Never again can this magic be recreated!

Right at the beginning, we are shown the actual certificate of approval from the India Board of Censors. Some adult themes discussed, even if never shown. Charulata ( Madhabi Mukherjee ) is the wife of Bhupati (Shailen Mukherjee ), the editor of a newspaper. When he doesn't have the time or the will to spend time with her, Amal and Umapada spend time with her to keep her amused. But there could be unintended consequences to letting her spend time with others... written by Rabindranath Tagore, who had many of his plays, stories, and novels made into film.. good solid story. At almost two hours, its long... didn't really need to be. So many long stares off into the distance, longing looks, and the characters sing a couple songs. The picture quality is remarkably good. Its good, overall. Just long. Very long. And a bit slow. Directed by Satyajit Ray, who had won TONS of film fest awards, including a couple for this film!

"Charulata" (1964) was my first Ray, I think, some ten years ago. I haven't seen it since, but thanks to the Criterion Collection, it can now be viewed in beautiful high definition. They have, at this writing, released "Jalsaghar" (1958) and "Mahanagar" (1963) in addition to this (speaking of Blu-ray), and have thrown in "Kapurush" (1965) as an extra on the latter, and a DVD of later Ray. Not only this, but Artificial Eye, the European rights-holders, have already released some more not available on Criterion yet, "Nayak" (1966) and "Mahapurush" (1965).

All I can remember from that magical first viewing is I fell in love. Not sure why, or how, but that the feeling was strong, and as if mutual. And true enough, Ray's cinema makes us learn about ourselves and others: music and song, writing and reading, seeing and not seeing. As if I had seen myself, not as I truly see myself but as I wish to have been seen, or even further than that, how I could have been seen.

Ray frames many introductory shots through doorways. To lead us into her life? To observe the observer? To confine the confined? To hint at the escape? Ray has the one of a kind ability to make one feel present, like one's really there; nothing has to happen, and it's spellbinding. By the way, has the hypnotic first shot been taken by Jane Campion to her "Bright Star" (2009)?

Books are introduced in the very beginning, as are the binoculars used by Charulata. Both motifs used in the sense of seeing afar, yet not seeing close. And when they finally do, they will discover themselves. The genius that he is, Ray is able to show inner turmoil in nature's violence (the wind), just as he did in "Jalsaghar". That moment of discovery is laden with great anxiety to bursts through so strongly one can feel it deep in the fibre one's being: the longing, the disappointment, the reconciliation.

This man, this mastermind somehow made a movie about the beauty of being bored. It´s shocking really how Satyajit Ray did this, I didn´t think you could pull this off but he did.

Charulata displays a subtle story about the contradictions facing a cultivated and intelligent - yet idle - woman in a male-dominated society. Charulata's husband is a very rich man, a liberal intellectual and the editor of a journal "The Sentinel", dedicated to the "propagation of the truth". Unfortunately, the husband, though an honest man and an idealist, fails to give enough attention to his wife Charulata. The latter is interested in romantic Bengali literature, not politics. Her intellectual perspective thus clashes with that of her husband, who looks down on literature, and in particular on that literature which relates to love.

Through a unique understated sentimental experience, which forms the core of the movie, Charulata reveals to herself and her husband a power to act on the world. After a series of difficulties that affect her husband's newspaper and her own sentimental self, Charulata finally takes a step forward and proposes to collaborate with her husband. However, the director makes us doubt that love and work can be reconciled by referring to the title of the Tagore literary work the movie is adapted from, the "broken nest".

Contrary to what my comments above may suggest, this is NOT a movie with a heavy and obvious political message. The cinematographic style is thus often reminiscent of Jean Renoir's "Une Partie de Campagne", with, in particular, the use of a swing. The movie has little dialogue and uses the subtlety of symbols and the actors' facial expressions to convey what the characters go through. The characters are the center of the story as individuals, not archetypes, but it is because they are so credible and complex as individuals that they can make us think about universal questions.

Satyajit Ray is so good at staging his scenes from inside the minds of his characters, and I think it is why he was so successful at crossing over to foreign audiences - his empathy for the people behind his characters. He always reached to get beyond the simple exchange of dialog - watching a Ray film is watching him carefully invade the mind of his creations. Their flaws, their desires, their loves all seem so universal coming from his camera.

The photography is one of the greatest joys of Charulata, as in most of his films - the camera feels so free, so unbound to any set formula or rule of how to operate it, the joy of the operator (Ray himself) so apparent. It glides throughout all of his films, playing the eyes of some omniscient presence the characters are sometimes semi aware of. We are jolted when they look into the camera and sing, but because we have been already lulled into his world it feels completely natural that they would sing to us.

Charulata is slower, more obtuse than some of Ray's earlier films, and it feels longer. I was underwhelmed by the story, which I felt took too many left turns. But Charulata is a persistently fascinating film, particularly the almost out-of-body performance by Soumitra Chatterjee.