tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post5037332852952213729..comments2024-03-27T14:57:37.031+05:30Comments on Jabberwock: A tribute to Guide in its 50th yearJabberwockhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10210195396120573794noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-90007033168805274112015-06-11T01:09:35.683+05:302015-06-11T01:09:35.683+05:30I saw the film before I read the book, and reading...I saw the film before I read the book, and reading R.K Narayan's novel hasn't at all diminished my admiration for the film. The ending and the culmination of the fast was certainly treated better in the novel. As one writer (Krishna Sen) puts it ''Narayan's interest lies in the complexity of human psychology as projected through Raju, and not in any simple moral fable about the reward of goodness". <br /><br />One weakness in the film is the willingness of Rosie to attribute base motives to Raju when she finds out about the forged signature. In the book Raju is an interesting and not unlikable person. However, for much of the novel he is basically an opportunist. The 'Raju Guide' of Anand's film may be smart-talking and street savvy, however he is through and through an idealist. While the downward slope of the relationship between Raju and Rosie makes perfect sense in the novel, when the film initially takes this turn, it strikes a discordant note. Too much has gone through, and Raju has demonstrated his integrity and commitment to Rosie in the face of very substantial personal hardship (loss of livelihood, displeasure of his family and friends etc). For Rosie to assume without a second thought that Raju forged her signature because he was covetous of her jewellery box is almost absurd. I think there's been quite a bit of discussion about how this film was groundbreaking in it's depiction of flawed characters and particularly it's portrayal of a flawed hero. It's axiomatic to say that we all have flaws, shades of grey etc. But the flaws of the characters are not their salient features for me...I came through with a very strong sense of their goodness. <br /><br />Many of Narayan's misgivings about the film are perfectly understandable; our losing out on significance nuances because of the change in Milieu, the transformation of Marco, the Rosie & Raju of the novel being in some respects almost different people from the characters played by Waheeda and Dev, with different motivations etc. Most authors certainly would be peeved with such liberties being taken with their text. The film sticks pretty closely to many of the events informing the narrative of the novel, such that it's not that easy to class as a 'loose adaptation'. Even so Vijay Anand basically went out and did his own thing....to great effect. <br />The novel is definitely good, but some of the best scenes in the film, such as the confrontation in the caves, Raju's (Dev's) early encounters with Rosie, her exuberantly strolling down the market place in her ghungroo and the lines that are exchanged between them, do not feature in the novel. The brilliance of these scenes can be attributed to Vijay Anand's own literary flair, rather than R.K Narayan's pen. As you mention the songs have an important role in facilitating the progression of the story.<br /><br />I have seen far too few of Satyajit Ray's films to be able to say this with confidence (I may well be wrong), but my impression is that if he had gone ahead with his own version of "The Guide" it would have been very cerebral and compelling in its own right, but lacking in the vitality and youthfulness of Vijay Anand's vision. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8204542.post-50577649517475070492015-06-06T22:30:58.827+05:302015-06-06T22:30:58.827+05:30Guide is one of my favorite films. I think it is o...Guide is one of my favorite films. I think it is one of the most grown up representation of relationships in cinema. I've liked all your pieces on the film.<br />SandeepAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com