1st watched 12/27/2009 – 8 out of 10(Dir-Mrinal Sen) Fascinating portrayal of a film crew coming into an area to film a movie about a famine 40 years earlier in the same area and disrupting the villages around them. This movie is an obvious documentary but there is so much drama behind the scenes that this becomes a story all to it's own. The crew enters the area with good intentions of portraying the suffering that occurred as a reminder and a historical recreation of the time. At first the villagers welcome this mostly, but they obviously expect more from these new folk around them as they become a separate community in the area with big city needs. They hire locals to work with them to hopefully make up for their disruptions but this eventually backfires. The movie being made loses a main star in the production and they start trying to get local talent to play the part of a prostitute but this creates a lot of controversy in the villages and they start turning against them. This is a one of a kind movie that makes you think about our insistence on being entertained despite the circumstances. The movie community actually starts creating it's own famine in the surrounding areas by absorbing their goods – which is exactly opposite of their intention. The movie portrays the film crew as understanding and willing to make changes based on the locals reactions(unlike what American filmmakers might be like), so they definitely are not the enemy just absorbed in the situation. The movie should be a requirement for film schools but because it's made in a third world country and mostly unknown it probably wont. Watch it, you'll see what I mean!!
12 Reviews
My take on what the movie's message
srinin-7360610 January 2019
Just adding what I inferred as the message of the movie
(Caveat: I am not an avid film buff and see very few movies in a year. So my interest and exposure to films is limited. This may be considered before the reader takes any of my ratings/comments/reviews seriously.
Given this rider, I am open to correction anytime by anyone.)
The film tries to convey the message that there is often thin and blurred line between fiction and reality.
In the movie, the villagers fear that playing the role of a 'fallen woman' would make a woman a 'fallen woman' in the eyes of society (the villagers).
Similarly the film crew is insensitive to the villagers need and does not think it is creating a 'famine' by taking away the village produce for its own extravagant consumption.
The film tries to convey the message that there is often thin and blurred line between fiction and reality.
In the movie, the villagers fear that playing the role of a 'fallen woman' would make a woman a 'fallen woman' in the eyes of society (the villagers).
Similarly the film crew is insensitive to the villagers need and does not think it is creating a 'famine' by taking away the village produce for its own extravagant consumption.
What does Storytelling Do?
santasilmallik22 February 2021
Warning: Spoilers
In Akaler Sandhane, Mrinal Sen employs a meta-fictional structure to probe the political complexities of representative practices. The narrative begins with a production team camping in a village in Bengal to shoot a film based on the 1943 famine. In the ensuing process, the social conflicts that haunted the village during the actual famine get reinvoked in the course of several encounters between the villagers and film crew. It leads to unrest among the villagers and the eventual disbandment of the shoot. Sen's critical acuity in articulating the dynamics of such encounters needs no further acclamation. The differences in their worldview, disruption of the local economy, and the incitement of past trauma are distinctly stated in the film. The village headmaster's didactic speech in the end further rounds up the troubled situation between the film crew and the village authorities from a dual perspective. But what lurks beneath Sen's critique of filmmaking structure is an acute recognition of the force of narrative devices and formal tropes in fiction.
The crew's director, played by Dhritiman Chatterjee, goes through a process of unlearning as he faces unforeseen circumstances during the shoot and negotiates with the village's reality. As the scenes of his film unfold in the village, the locals associate themselves with the enacted sequences. Durga, a resident of the village, finds her predicament reflected in the character of Smita Patil, the female protagonist of the concerned film. The orthodox Brahmin elites of the village, on the other hand, find themselves on the evil-side of the story as it highlights the exploitative practices of upper-castes. Haren Aon, who used to perform in jatras, rekindles his lost passion for playacting by witnessing the shoot. Despite the contextual differences between the villagers' past and Chatterjee's story, these associations develop over narrative tropes that touch upon the universal conditions during a humanitarian crisis. The moral dilemma of a married woman who trades sexual service for survival necessities is one among such tropes. Instead of the plot/story as a whole, narrative fragments and their particular affects become a site of identification and reflection. Even on a formal plane, the word "cut", accompanying the clapperboard, is joyously reiterated in onomatopoeic association by the village children.
What does storytelling achieve after all? In the film's end, the Brahmins remain stubborn, Durga's predicament is unchanged, Haren's involvement with the crew terminates, and the production company fails in its endeavour. But, the act of storytelling in that space generated an opening for the villagers, as well as the crew, to reflect on their cultural practices and current state of existence. The potency of fiction precisely lies in this bare affective capacity to situate ourselves better and rethink our relationship with others. In the light of this reading, one cannot help recalling Sen's remark in an interview for the Cineaste: "you cannot topple a government or a system by making one Potemkin... All you can do is create an environment in which you can discuss a society that is growing undemocratic, fascistic."
The crew's director, played by Dhritiman Chatterjee, goes through a process of unlearning as he faces unforeseen circumstances during the shoot and negotiates with the village's reality. As the scenes of his film unfold in the village, the locals associate themselves with the enacted sequences. Durga, a resident of the village, finds her predicament reflected in the character of Smita Patil, the female protagonist of the concerned film. The orthodox Brahmin elites of the village, on the other hand, find themselves on the evil-side of the story as it highlights the exploitative practices of upper-castes. Haren Aon, who used to perform in jatras, rekindles his lost passion for playacting by witnessing the shoot. Despite the contextual differences between the villagers' past and Chatterjee's story, these associations develop over narrative tropes that touch upon the universal conditions during a humanitarian crisis. The moral dilemma of a married woman who trades sexual service for survival necessities is one among such tropes. Instead of the plot/story as a whole, narrative fragments and their particular affects become a site of identification and reflection. Even on a formal plane, the word "cut", accompanying the clapperboard, is joyously reiterated in onomatopoeic association by the village children.
What does storytelling achieve after all? In the film's end, the Brahmins remain stubborn, Durga's predicament is unchanged, Haren's involvement with the crew terminates, and the production company fails in its endeavour. But, the act of storytelling in that space generated an opening for the villagers, as well as the crew, to reflect on their cultural practices and current state of existence. The potency of fiction precisely lies in this bare affective capacity to situate ourselves better and rethink our relationship with others. In the light of this reading, one cannot help recalling Sen's remark in an interview for the Cineaste: "you cannot topple a government or a system by making one Potemkin... All you can do is create an environment in which you can discuss a society that is growing undemocratic, fascistic."
An Underwhelming Experience
RIMasud6516 June 2020
I watched this film with a lot of expectations. Maybe that is why now i feel kind of dissapointed. Don't get me wrong. It is an excellent film by its own merit. There is no doubt about it. It has a a unique 'film within a film' premise. It tries to focus on one of the the darkest corners of bengal history. There is also a ' art vs reality' vibe undercurrent here. Moreover it has a political element. The director tried to shed light on the class struggle between the proletariats and the elite and how it may have a role in engendering famine. This film deals with so many serious issues that it cannot help but be preachy at times. Especially the local school headmaster character and his sermons feel kind of forced. Look, i get the points the director wanted to make but in doing so, he sacrificed a good deal of spontaneity. That is my nitpick about the whole film. If it were less preachy and more spontaneous, then it would definitely make a more pround impression on me
A film about making a film on famine.
debpk7729 January 2007
'Aakaler Sandhane' (In Search of Famine) to my mind is one of the best films Mrinal Sen ever made. His superb touch, some puckish humour and sense of drama is backed up by some wonderful acting. No wonder this film simply ran away with every award in India and the Silver Bear in Berlin.
The story is about a film company which sets out to make a film on the Great Bengal Famine of 1943. They select a village in rural Bengal for outdoor shooting and start work. The story weaves around the trials of the troupe in the village.
To me, the best part of the film is the way Mrinal Sen interlaces three distinct themes. The first is the superficial story of the film company and the difficulties they face. The second is the class distinctions conservatism and prejudices that permeates village society and the third is a scathing criticism that 50 years after independence, stark poverty still exists and famine still stalks the land.
The story is about a film company which sets out to make a film on the Great Bengal Famine of 1943. They select a village in rural Bengal for outdoor shooting and start work. The story weaves around the trials of the troupe in the village.
To me, the best part of the film is the way Mrinal Sen interlaces three distinct themes. The first is the superficial story of the film company and the difficulties they face. The second is the class distinctions conservatism and prejudices that permeates village society and the third is a scathing criticism that 50 years after independence, stark poverty still exists and famine still stalks the land.
In case you missed the subtle references
santayans-963-54414616 August 2023
Akaler Sandhane (AS2) was released nearly a decade after Satyajit Ray's Ashani Sanket (AS1) . There are a number of clues to help the viewer connect the two films, and read its message hidden between the lines; but for that, it is necessary to re-watch AS1 after AS2.
Early in AS2, a character says that the bamboo groves remind him of Pather Panchali. For any cinephile, it's fleeting invitation to recall Ray's work, specifically AS1, the only other significant film on the Bengal Famine of '43. Later, Dhritiman's character is annoyed that an actor has shaped her eyebrows, and admonishes her for being insincere. In another scene, a young woman, fan-girling over the "real" Soumitra Chatterjee, asks the "director" why the the great actor wasn't part of his project.
It is worth noting that by the time Soumitra Chatterjee took part in AS1, he was already a mega star, having taken part in over 40 popular films. Mrinal Sen must have watched Soumitra Chatterjee's stellar presence, and Babita's immaculately shaped eyebrows in a closeup of the harrowing climax in AS1, and mused how easily the veneer of the "real" breaks and exposes the "make-believe" underneath.
In fact Sen constantly plays with this idea of "real" and "make believe" with wit and satire. Smita Patil's character breaks down convincingly in front of the camera, but the audience is aware it is make-believe, because they see the camera and hear the director's running instructions on how to feel. In contrast, Durga's the emotions are real and present. Smita Patil snaps out of her character in the very next scene, but Durga can't. The viewer also becomes aware of the Sen casting choice for Durga, who genuinely looks rural and of low-caste, relative to Ray's casting of Chhutki, who glaringly does neither.
It may be a stretch to see Dhritiman's character, the high-intellect, charming, urbane, privileged "director" to be modelled after Ray. He is an outsider in a real village, with his imported classicist and humanist morality, searching for something that is staring right in the face.
I love Ray's work; his art, literature, music, and of course films, and until now, never got into Mrinal Sen's films. But with AS2, i'm beginning to appreciate Mrinal Sen's iconoclastic, provocative rebellious art. How fascinating!
Early in AS2, a character says that the bamboo groves remind him of Pather Panchali. For any cinephile, it's fleeting invitation to recall Ray's work, specifically AS1, the only other significant film on the Bengal Famine of '43. Later, Dhritiman's character is annoyed that an actor has shaped her eyebrows, and admonishes her for being insincere. In another scene, a young woman, fan-girling over the "real" Soumitra Chatterjee, asks the "director" why the the great actor wasn't part of his project.
It is worth noting that by the time Soumitra Chatterjee took part in AS1, he was already a mega star, having taken part in over 40 popular films. Mrinal Sen must have watched Soumitra Chatterjee's stellar presence, and Babita's immaculately shaped eyebrows in a closeup of the harrowing climax in AS1, and mused how easily the veneer of the "real" breaks and exposes the "make-believe" underneath.
In fact Sen constantly plays with this idea of "real" and "make believe" with wit and satire. Smita Patil's character breaks down convincingly in front of the camera, but the audience is aware it is make-believe, because they see the camera and hear the director's running instructions on how to feel. In contrast, Durga's the emotions are real and present. Smita Patil snaps out of her character in the very next scene, but Durga can't. The viewer also becomes aware of the Sen casting choice for Durga, who genuinely looks rural and of low-caste, relative to Ray's casting of Chhutki, who glaringly does neither.
It may be a stretch to see Dhritiman's character, the high-intellect, charming, urbane, privileged "director" to be modelled after Ray. He is an outsider in a real village, with his imported classicist and humanist morality, searching for something that is staring right in the face.
I love Ray's work; his art, literature, music, and of course films, and until now, never got into Mrinal Sen's films. But with AS2, i'm beginning to appreciate Mrinal Sen's iconoclastic, provocative rebellious art. How fascinating!
Acute Protein Deficiency
sourish-chanda5 December 2010
"Cut!, Cut!, Cut!, Cut!" One of the remarkable scenes of the movie is a group of village boys running after the film crew bus shouting and mocking the way the director officially ends a shot. It is apparently, not much and only a 5 sec shot. However, 5 sec is long enough for people like Mrinal Sen to turn an innocent childish errant into much more purposeful. The word symbolically sharply demarcates between what is it in the movie and what is in the reality. The film crew was shooting famine which should have ended with the utterance of "cut" yet it leaks into the other side of the camera even though half century has passed since then and India supposedly progressed a lot. It is a slap and a mockery on the failure of the system done in the most subtle way. If a 5 sec shot can communicate all these, then think of what the full movie can do?
Famine is not about lack of food but it also about lack of morality rather the breakdown of values. Famine unleashes the dormant opportunist in the most corrupt and bigot way. Yet amongst such devastation there could be island, there could be people who despite of the hardship can still be empathetic, can still be humane. The movie is reap with many such examples. That's the reason it is a humanistic movie as Mrinal Sen himself is humanistic intellectual.
Unlike his contemporaries, his movies often end without a definite answer and leave the audience guessing. It is a bold experimentation to deliver a scratching message. The striking characteristic of "Akaler Sandhaney" is also that the making of the movie itself and the process of story telling is done in the most informal way. To the audience it it is more a like documentary capturing a set of unrelated events that happened to a film crew than a a feature film itself. His movies is mainly a feast for the mind, appealing and engrossing to your intellect and less so to your senses.
It has an additional value that it is only handful of movies that reminds us of the 1943 Bengal famine where 5 million people just perished due to lack of food (as mentioned in this movie itself)
Dhirtiman, Smita Patil and Rajen Torofdar (Himself a great director) all deserve special mention without which this review will be incomplete.
A must for the film school
Famine is not about lack of food but it also about lack of morality rather the breakdown of values. Famine unleashes the dormant opportunist in the most corrupt and bigot way. Yet amongst such devastation there could be island, there could be people who despite of the hardship can still be empathetic, can still be humane. The movie is reap with many such examples. That's the reason it is a humanistic movie as Mrinal Sen himself is humanistic intellectual.
Unlike his contemporaries, his movies often end without a definite answer and leave the audience guessing. It is a bold experimentation to deliver a scratching message. The striking characteristic of "Akaler Sandhaney" is also that the making of the movie itself and the process of story telling is done in the most informal way. To the audience it it is more a like documentary capturing a set of unrelated events that happened to a film crew than a a feature film itself. His movies is mainly a feast for the mind, appealing and engrossing to your intellect and less so to your senses.
It has an additional value that it is only handful of movies that reminds us of the 1943 Bengal famine where 5 million people just perished due to lack of food (as mentioned in this movie itself)
Dhirtiman, Smita Patil and Rajen Torofdar (Himself a great director) all deserve special mention without which this review will be incomplete.
A must for the film school
"How pure must a person be to depict"
smkbsws16 September 2020
Sen's best. People would say socialist, or may be communist, but this is one of the best humanitarian treatment any director can use to his own film. This is almost like 'Fight Club' by David Finch or any work by Nabarun Bhattacharya. First of all, this movie is a great, great movie - both technically and plot wise. I am little bit afraid as the next thing might be spoilery. This film is about a director, his cast and crew going to a remote village to shoot an enactment of the famine of Bengal from '43. This film has been an inspiration for other filmmakers for making the films of this style. With the awesome star cast, for real, this even can be called a movie. Along with that, this film criticises hard about all the different perspective of a man for an film. Even for liberal ones, specially for them. This is one of the best 5 films made in bengali and we can just quote from the film itself as ".. How pure must a person be to depict.."
Oscar material flim
mukherjeem-5262430 June 2019
Why search for famine?
akg-7922216 February 2022
Famine is a story of terrible suffering of millions of people going though extreme poverty and one such example is the 1943 famine of Bengal. Instead of searching for it why not the Director focused on why it had happened in the first place as shown in an implicit yet powerful way by Shri Satayjit Roy in Asanai Sanket. This is a very sensitive topic specially 1943 famine and when you lead a comfortable life and having two square meals a day and specially when you are a Bengali , you do not make fun of it by searching for it, rather do something so that it can be avoided in future. It seems to me the director with his usual desire to be awarded by West he has to bring something novel from the East and terribly he chose famine for this and definitely he was successful by winning the Silver Bear award from Berlin.
Very Good Movie of Mrinal Sen
sujoncristi-8231714 February 2023
"In Search of Famine" is the award winning story of a film crew shooting a feature in a Bengali Village on a devastating famine which killed five million people in 1943. The crew appear impervious to the poverty surrounding it.
This Movie one of the best movie by Mrinal Sen. We are really Miss Our Pride Mrinal Sen. He is such a good Director. His every movie have life, nature, country, love and Actual Life. He is a soil man. As a Bangladeshi I want to say one Line. Without Mrinal Sen our Bengal Culture Nothing. He is part of our Culture. Really he is a great person. He is asuch a good person.
This Movie one of the best movie by Mrinal Sen. We are really Miss Our Pride Mrinal Sen. He is such a good Director. His every movie have life, nature, country, love and Actual Life. He is a soil man. As a Bangladeshi I want to say one Line. Without Mrinal Sen our Bengal Culture Nothing. He is part of our Culture. Really he is a great person. He is asuch a good person.
Deliberately hard to read in its desired equilibrium of sorrow and anger
philosopherjack4 March 2022
Warning: Spoilers
Mrinal Sen's In Search of Famine initially immerses us in the exuberance of movie-making, with a crew arriving from the city to film a drama about a 1943 famine, settling into the dilapidated mansion they're to use as a base; early on, the fascinated locals crowd around to observe the filming of every scene, marveling at the magic being created (a nice throwaway scene has a someone riding through town advertising a screening of The Guns of Navarone, described as a unique masterpiece starring the world's greatest actress, "Anthony Queen"). But the filmmakers' moral compass is rapidly shown to be confused, the plot seeming to be tangled in melodramatics, and with inadequate thinking about the representation of such suffering (in one scene, they use historical photos of famine victims as a guessing game to while away the time); when they hit on the idea of casting a local as a woman forced into prostitution to feed her family, it triggers an outrage, exacerbated by the film crew's destabilization of the shaky local economy, and the crew quietly packs up and leaves, probably headed for the greater comfort of the studio. The final moments focus on the sad subsequent fate of one of the women with whom they cross paths, her face receding into darkness, a piercing cinematic moment emphasizing all that the film within the film fails to grasp or engage with. Sen's treatment of the crew, a strenuously urbane, quote-spewing bunch, often verges on satire, but of a kind tinged with melancholy; more broadly, the film is deliberately hard to read in its desired equilibrium of sorrow and anger, in the degree of culpability we should assign for various events depicted. If it doesn't ultimately feel completely satisfying, that may be as it should be; developments of subsequent decades (such as the proliferation of the reality genre) increase the film's ambiguous richness.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
