Chokher Bali was shown at the (Washington) DC Filmfest April 15, 2005. The director, Rituparno Ghosh, was there to give a short introduction and answer questions afterwards.
As always, I think Aishwarya did a fantastic job. I can understand those who think she should be been more aggressive or more bitchy, but would that really be realistic in 1904? Possible, maybe; realistic, I'm not so sure. I think her interpretation was valid, although there could certainly be other ways to do it.
I hate to use the word, but this was the most "inaccessible" of the Indian movies I have seen so far. I know a fair amount of Indian history, Hindu religion, etc., but the level of detail here was far beyond me. Clearly you would have a much better understanding of the movie if you were intimately familiar with Hinduism and its customs, esp. as they were c. 1904. I missed a lot of things--one of them being the fact that the mother-in-law would want Binodini in the house as sort of a counter-weight to her daughter-in-law Ashalata.
*spoilers* Ghosh had several things to say that explained the movie much better for me. First, the original Bengali version was 20+ minutes longer. So what was left out? Apparently three main things: a beginning segment where Binodini (Aishwarya) leaves E. Bengal for Calcutta. According to the director, different characters are speaking W. Bengali vs. E. Bengali--setting up some of the political comments later. Of course all of this is lost in the Hindi version, and certainly to a non-Indian like me, it wouldn't have mattered anyway--but a set-up of the Bengali situation sure would have. Next, there was a segment where Binodini was writing a poem--a sign of her independence, etc. Finally, some more business about the jewellery. So, although some people think it was too long, I think the original, longer version would have been clearer.
The women's hair was apparently another sign (Ghosh again)--the mother-in-law had short hair (short hair for Hindu widows), her sister--also a widow--had longer hair (more modern!), and of course Binodini/Aishwarya had extremely long waist-length hair (rejection of status of widowhood).
The ending really threw me--all of a sudden Binodini, who had never had a political thought, is writing a political manifesto? Whoa! Ghosh explained that he was in Locarno, at a film festival, when the subtitles were done. The subtitles use the word "country" throughout Binodini's letter. Gosh said a more appropriate word would have been (I forget his exact word) something like "self" or "independence"--she was talking about her own liberation and "finding herself"--not about Bengal, India, and the British. So why does Binodini just disappear the day after finding Behari again? Apparently because during her stay on the Ganges she realizes that she doesn't need a man--any man--to define/complete her. She can just be herself. So she rejects Behari, who she threw herself at a few months (?) before, and just goes off. Of course I'm not sure how she buys her next meal, but that's another question.
The red shawl (Ghosh again)she buys represents "revolution" as well as "passion." I'm not 100% sure why she puts the shawl on the dying woman, but perhaps she is rejecting passion/revolution? The binoculars, which Binodini uses throughout the movie (to watch Mahendra and Ashalata, the boat on the Ganges, etc.). She is being a voyeur to see a life she yearns for but can't have. At the end (I missed this!) she leaves the binoculars on the table with the letter, showing that she doesn't need them any more--she's going off to lead her own life.
Finally, the Tagore quote at the beginning saying how he apologized for the ending... Apparently Tagore wrote this as a serial, hooking his readers with the sexy widow bits. But at the end he sold out to conservatism and had Binodini kneel down at the feet of Mahendra and Behari, begging their forgiveness. One of his students (?) wrote to Tagore taking him to task for his sell-out ending...and Tagore replied with his apology for the ending. In the movie, of course, Ghosh goes in the other direction.
As always, I think Aishwarya did a fantastic job. I can understand those who think she should be been more aggressive or more bitchy, but would that really be realistic in 1904? Possible, maybe; realistic, I'm not so sure. I think her interpretation was valid, although there could certainly be other ways to do it.
I hate to use the word, but this was the most "inaccessible" of the Indian movies I have seen so far. I know a fair amount of Indian history, Hindu religion, etc., but the level of detail here was far beyond me. Clearly you would have a much better understanding of the movie if you were intimately familiar with Hinduism and its customs, esp. as they were c. 1904. I missed a lot of things--one of them being the fact that the mother-in-law would want Binodini in the house as sort of a counter-weight to her daughter-in-law Ashalata.
*spoilers* Ghosh had several things to say that explained the movie much better for me. First, the original Bengali version was 20+ minutes longer. So what was left out? Apparently three main things: a beginning segment where Binodini (Aishwarya) leaves E. Bengal for Calcutta. According to the director, different characters are speaking W. Bengali vs. E. Bengali--setting up some of the political comments later. Of course all of this is lost in the Hindi version, and certainly to a non-Indian like me, it wouldn't have mattered anyway--but a set-up of the Bengali situation sure would have. Next, there was a segment where Binodini was writing a poem--a sign of her independence, etc. Finally, some more business about the jewellery. So, although some people think it was too long, I think the original, longer version would have been clearer.
The women's hair was apparently another sign (Ghosh again)--the mother-in-law had short hair (short hair for Hindu widows), her sister--also a widow--had longer hair (more modern!), and of course Binodini/Aishwarya had extremely long waist-length hair (rejection of status of widowhood).
The ending really threw me--all of a sudden Binodini, who had never had a political thought, is writing a political manifesto? Whoa! Ghosh explained that he was in Locarno, at a film festival, when the subtitles were done. The subtitles use the word "country" throughout Binodini's letter. Gosh said a more appropriate word would have been (I forget his exact word) something like "self" or "independence"--she was talking about her own liberation and "finding herself"--not about Bengal, India, and the British. So why does Binodini just disappear the day after finding Behari again? Apparently because during her stay on the Ganges she realizes that she doesn't need a man--any man--to define/complete her. She can just be herself. So she rejects Behari, who she threw herself at a few months (?) before, and just goes off. Of course I'm not sure how she buys her next meal, but that's another question.
The red shawl (Ghosh again)she buys represents "revolution" as well as "passion." I'm not 100% sure why she puts the shawl on the dying woman, but perhaps she is rejecting passion/revolution? The binoculars, which Binodini uses throughout the movie (to watch Mahendra and Ashalata, the boat on the Ganges, etc.). She is being a voyeur to see a life she yearns for but can't have. At the end (I missed this!) she leaves the binoculars on the table with the letter, showing that she doesn't need them any more--she's going off to lead her own life.
Finally, the Tagore quote at the beginning saying how he apologized for the ending... Apparently Tagore wrote this as a serial, hooking his readers with the sexy widow bits. But at the end he sold out to conservatism and had Binodini kneel down at the feet of Mahendra and Behari, begging their forgiveness. One of his students (?) wrote to Tagore taking him to task for his sell-out ending...and Tagore replied with his apology for the ending. In the movie, of course, Ghosh goes in the other direction.