Nayak (Past, Present and Future)
I don't claim to understand cinema, but drawing SneakyArt has given me an eye for composition. My path to self-education runs through great films and TV shows. There is great beauty in the works of great filmmakers and cinematographers. I learn from them much the same way I would learn from looking at a great painting. Not only is Satyajit Ray one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, Uttam Kumar is a demigod in my part of the world holding the title of mahanayak (‘great actor’).
In the film Nayak (1966) he plays the role of superstar Arindam Mukherjee, on the verge of delivering his first flop film. Besides the news about the film, he is jostled by chaos in his personal life. Over the course of the film, he examines his past, his journey to become a superstar, and the people he has loved and lost along the way.
I break down a scene from the first 10 minutes of the movie. By all measures, this scene is not important. Still, it lingered in my mind throughout the course of watching this film, and even afterward. In this article, by re-drawing the key scenes of the conversation, I find out why.
When I thought about deconstructing the movie, my mind immediately leapt to this scene. So, while this is not an analysis of the film in its entirety, it is the first scene I am considering.
The setting
We see Arindam Mukherjee packing his bags. He is going to Delhi by train to receive an award. In the newspaper, there is a report of a drunken brawl he got involved in the last weekend. He believes his upcoming film is going to flop. His films have never flopped before. He is on edge.
While speaking with his assistant about these things, he looks for a bottle of Black Dog whiskey to take with him to Delhi. Unable to find it in the bedroom, he goes to the bar-counter in the dining room, passing through the living room. Here he comes across his non-Bengali accountant, who has some contracts for him to sign.
1
The camera slides from left to right. It keeps pace with Arindam as he walks from the left (the bedroom) through the center (living room) towards the right (dining room). I am struck by a sense of the past, the present and the future. Consider this - on the left third of the screen is a glamorous portrait of the superstar. In the center of the screen is the present moment - his accountant who has been waiting patiently. But Arindam's focus is on the future, and the camera follows him there - the dining room.
Here is a trick of good composition I have picked up from various sources. Divide a scene into thirds along the vertical. Then establish a horizon line (i.e. the line of sight). We tend to look at the middle third, along the line of sight. Good composition in a scene keeps your focus here. Extra elements on the left and right complement this focus either by being visually insignificant or by guiding your eyes back to the center.
You can "guide back to the center" by having elements in the side look towards the center, or be connected to action in the center in some way.
Disclaimer - These are just my ideas, not the ideas of the director himself. I don't mean to attribute it as the truth or whatever else.
2
In the next scene of this exchange, Arindam makes small talk and refers to the piece in the newspaper. While this happens, I notice there is a shift in past, present and future. The center of the screen is now occupied by the living room we just passed through (the past). Lines of perspective from the living room trace the conversation dynamic between Arindam and the accountant. The camera's line of sight now intersects with the eye level of the people, and the perspective lines in the living room (the windows and door and light fixtures).
The present is occupied by the accountant, who wants Arindam to sign certain documents. But Arindam is not engaging with this present. His conversation and his thoughts are in the future - the train to Delhi - which will help him escape unfavorable media attention.
I love how the same decor that framed Arindam and the accountant in the previous scene now frame them again. This time it is Arindam on the left, and the accountant on the right.
This is reinforced in the next scene, until it flips again at the end.
3
I love this scene because suddenly we are seeing things from the point of view of the accountant. By making him impose over Arindam, it casts Arindam in sympathetic light, as an underdog. There is again a shift of the tenses. The accountant constitutes the past, with his focus on Arindam's contractual obligations. But Arindam is speaking about going away to Delhi (future), and not wanting to sign anything. He does not attend to the past (the accountant) but the present - his breakfast.
4
At the conclusion of this scene, Arindam has finished breakfast, and fished out the bottle of whiskey from the bar-counter. He does not let the accountant engage with him any further, but leaves the dining room (past) behind him. While the accountant asks him when he will return (in the present), he is already speeding away towards the future (the bedroom). All lines of perspective in this scene - walls, light fixtures - also point towards the future, naturally drawing the viewer's eye to the bedroom door.
My conclusions
In these 4 shots, the camera either slides gently or rests completely. There are no sudden switches. So as the action plays out to a more-or-less stationery camera, the viewer subconsciously gathers more information about different things. It places a responsibility on the cinematographer to populate the scene with relevant things that give useful information to the viewer. Then, when we circle back to those things for the conclusion, the viewer has built a relationship with those elements - i.e. we are able to recognize them and place them in context.
Some of the important elements here are - the couch in the living room, various windows and doors, utensils and silverware on the dining table, and the frame of the doorway between the living room and dining room. These are highlighted or used in different contexts by the director by controlling what we see and when. This is a function of cinematography.
Essentially, filmmaking in this respect is a controlled dissemination of information to create a narrative. Some things change, some are seen only once, some are constant, and some are recurring.
From Arindam's point of view, this scene was about packing his whiskey bottle for the trip. This bottle will play the crucial role of revealing his character on the train, both to himself, to the journalist played by Sharmila Tagore, his star-struck co-passengers, and the old man on the train who is not star-struck and in fact detests all cinema. Most of all, the bottle of whiskey will also push Arindam to confront himself. This bottle is the great catalyst of the film, because its effect on Arindam transforms his relationship with everyone that he meets on the train.
I'm not sure if this constitutes film analysis. I am not educated or experienced at that sort of thing. But it was a worthy exercise, because I learned a lot in drawing the scenes, and writing this bit.
If there's anything I'm wrong about, or something more I should be noticing, I would be glad for you to point it out!