Friday, May 31, 2013

A confession


"Jodi binodeenir opomanta bujhte na paro, tahole tumi or loRaita bujhte parbe na."

The Facebook, the television and radio are flooded since yesterday with how shocked and saddened people are at the untimely demise of a genius of this era. Some people are speechless, even.
A lot of them may be genuine, too. But after the first shock of the news passed me, the first feeling I had, was that of guilt. Such a world famous filmmaker, an international personality, a person with so many fans over the world was so lonely in his departure. And yet, he was at the prime of his career. It was not a case of the retreat of limelight. All day his house used to bustle with stars, intellectuals and whatnots. The filmmaker Rituparno Ghosh was a blue eyed boy of the society....you may say.

But what about the person? After coming back from the film festival, after shedding his gorgeous attire, after brushing his teeth before turning in, who did he turn to? Who COULD he turn to? He would have had a lot of people to call, of course. But what about the human warmth. After his parents died, was there really someone he could be himself with?
And why all this?
For a society of huge hypocrisy?
A crowd of hushed mediocracy?
Or just a show?
It is very easy for us to say, "Oh, I love his films, but watching him talk is a bit....." or "Chitrangada is a very deeply sensitive film.....hey you know, he is finally going for a sex change operation?"

But we never thought for a moment, how insulting it is for a creator to see his creation be treated like that.
I hate his period films. I feel he is too stylized and obsessed about grandeur while creating periods. But that's about his work.
I hated his arrogance. I felt he could be a pompous ass at times. But that's about his attitude.
I joked about once seeing him in the mens' room. And I hate myself for that.

I admit, its nothing new. We are much more intrigued by the fact that ritwik ghatak could hold a camera steady while completely drunk rather than how he used shutter speed to capture a drunken vision in Subarnarekha. We would much readily sit down to discuss Shakti Chattopadhyay's 'rule' of the city at midnight, rather than discuss the role of women in his poems.
But still, it hurts.
We enjoyed his creations, his sensitivity, his visual poetry to the fullest and simply gave back giggles, winks and caricature.
Its true, that caricature is the greatest tribute mediocrity can pay a genius. But then, the mediocrity should not claim they were saddened by the demise of the genius.
Rituparno Ghosh was a visionary who paved his own road and as often happened, he walked on it alone.
If you miss his films, watch the DVDs and prosper emotionally.
If you miss his mannersims, watch Meer on You tube and giggle.
But do not claim to miss the person.
Bengal, you have long ago lost the right to mourn the loss of a very, very lonely person.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

For myself, I found Rituporno to be extremely attractive with his entire get-up, lock-stock- and barrel. I regret that i never got a chance to tell him that. i think his great contribution to society was his sexual identity, which was a gift to him from the creator. He represents the sex which would be the fittest to rule a world which would be free of all gender-discrimination and conflict between sexes. He is a perfect embodiment of the concept of ardhanarishwar ( I prefer the term ardhanarinar) A complete human being has a lot of both sexes in him. And one thing, women are more clear-sighted than men in this matter.

Sutanuka Bhattacharya

Anonymous said...

Lucky I don't stay in Bengal and fortunate that I had the glimpse of the humanist that he was. I will always remember him for his humility first and cinema second.

sriraka said...

This person was far ahead of his times, and being different has its cost. And fame often makes the 'personal' 'public'...jokes in bad taste are nothing new. Right from Marilyn Monroe to Bob Dylan, art has claimed private lives. I think they are mutual. But yes, the mourning of his death is majorly because one identified with his films. If it is art for art's sake, one cannot expect the people/fans to befriend him or make him 'less lonely'...many many people suffer from the similar kind of loneliness. Sadly, anything apart from heterosexuality has not yet garnered the support it should have had a long time ago...and it is a wait as much for a celebrity as someone next door. Hence the expectation of him having the support just because he was a celebrity seems unnatural to me, as well. But your write-up did make me think.

Abysmal said...

Sexuality, hetero/ homo is not the question here methinks; and the dominating issue over sexuality too is petty, if I may say so. The pathos was implicit in the loneliness in spite of the limelight; none seldom bothered the turmoil one suffered from the natural duality within ones self... the loneliness in a crowd...I am sorry, I find my own inadequacies to explain myself.