One of Satyajit Ray’s finest works, in my opinion, remains to be ‘Charulata’. Not because of the visual storytelling or clever picturisation, or even the deft hands that put together the masterpiece. What gravitates me towards the film the most is the portrayal of Indian women in a particular light that many directors fail to do even to this day.
Set in the backdrop of the Bengali Renaissance, the movie deals with the protagonist Charu, an artistic, intellectual woman who has been married to Bhupati, an upper-class, affluent businessman who is greatly influenced by the ideals of the Renaissance. But unfortunately, he does not have time for his wife even though he loves her dearly.
Charu has a sharp intellect and a thirst for knowledge. However, she is not satisfied in filling the role of the idle wife taking care of the household chores. That is when Amal walks into their lives. He is an aspiring poet and a cousin of Bhupati.
Charu was able to find a side of herself that she very seldom encountered herself with him. This movie was based on Rabindranath Thakur’s novella ‘Nashtanirh’ (The Broken Nest).
Like any other Satyajit Ray movie, the movie progresses comparatively slower. It is filled with metaphorical cinematic sequences that stem from a series of messages in the viewers’ minds that come back to haunt them often. It deals with love and desire, freedom, betrayal and hypocrisy.
But what impacted me was the depiction of the plight of women in a seemingly renaissance-influenced society. It very systematically deals with the patriarchal system and shows how women’s freedom and equality surrounded themselves how men perceived it for the longest time.
Two scenes caught my attention from the beginning of the movie. One is where Charu moves around the big rooms of her bungalow decorated with numerous expensive pieces. She strays through the maze of artefacts and furniture, reading a book and gives off the idea that all there is to provide companionship to a brilliant Charu are lifeless materials.
She supervises household chores and conforms to the role of an ‘ideal wife’ even though it gives her little to no satisfaction. Another scene that had my rapt attention was when Charu takes a pair of theatre glasses and peers down at passers-by on the road along with her house. She uses the same to peer at her husband, who is busy reading a book and does not have much time to give her one glance.
She looks through her glasses at Bhupati reading a book, powerfully depicting that even though they are so close, they aren’t close enough for many reasons. She has a similar thirst for knowledge as him. Yet she has to conform to social norms that always stood as a hindrance to her intellectual flourishing. But, on the other hand, her husband is not bound to the interiors of his house.
Bhupati has been seen multiple times throughout the movie trying to encourage Charu into pursuing her creative pursuits, a noticeable mark of his strong renaissance ideals. But isn’t it ironic how despite such a modern outlook, he did little to nothing in supporting Charu in a more outgoing career?
On the one hand, he believes in freedom and equality, and on the other hand, Bhupati fails to realise the plight of his wife, who had the same two things lacking from her life. Moreover, he failed to acknowledge the intense frustration in herself.
An obvious contrast to Bhupati’s character is Amal, his cousin. He walks into their lives, affecting them like a kalbaisakhi (nor’westers). He has a brief but catastrophic influence on their lives and leaves just as suddenly as a kalbaisakhi ends.
He is an artistic man who is creative and strives to be a poet. He gradually starts interacting with Charu, and they discuss all literature and culture, giving Charu a companion with whom she can communicate on a similar psychological wavelength.
An eye-catching component of the movie is Charu’s relationship with Amal. They share the same intellectual interest and love poetry immensely. However, the relationship feels teasing, swiftly going on to become competitive when Charu publishes a story on her own. There is a hint of a bruised male ego! He counters this by publishing one of his writings that she mainly told him not to publish.
Another significant development in the film is when Charu comes to terms with her apparent fascination towards Amal, someone she should not feel that way about. There is guilt and frustration when Amal leaves one night suddenly.
This directly reflects our society where women harbour immense frustrations and depression and still have to go on about their day with complete disregard for their mental health. And to think that this has been perpetuated for the longest time!
Charu’s latent desires surface by spending time with a man she knows she cannot be with. So, naturally, she does what an ‘ideal wife’ is expected to – disregards them, buries them and moves on.
Even when Amal leaves, there remains the obvious question – did he leave only due to his guilt of betraying his cousin? Or was he also intimidated by a Charu who has a higher creative intellect that he played a part in developing too?
I also realised that in our society till date, the extent of a woman excelling is highly respective of how far the men in her life are going to accept. So a woman can excel but only till she doesn’t intimidate a man!
And while the movie ends on a note where she is left with a “nastanirh.” I still can’t help but ponder over the fact about how she is punished for giving an outlet to her desires and trying to express her mind in a society where women have never been welcome to do that!