ORTHODOXY: NO FIX FOR HUMAN FLAWS AND FOIBLES

Religion, the opium of the masses, has played a pivotal role throughout the history of mankind. Rites and rituals, the heart and soul of religion, has always polarized human opinion. While some say ritual is a spiritual psychodrama, others think it nurtures our sacred relationships.

ಸಂಸ್ಕಾರ ('Samskara', which means “Ritual”), a 1970 Kannada movie, is often considered to be a trailblazer in the history of parallel cinema. Film buffs and critics waxed lyrical on this offbeat flick that hogged the limelight and won awards like blue blazes, including the “Swarna Kamal” for Best Feature Film.

Based on a novel of Jnanapith awardee, Dr. UR Ananthamurthy, the film revolves around events that unravel within the Brahmin community of a remote village. The protagonist, Praneshacharya (Girish Karnad), is devout, orthodox and celibate; he is held in high esteem. The antagonist, Narayanappa (P. Lankesh), also a Brahmin by birth, harbors iconoclastic views and indulges in immoral deeds, which embitter the community. A perplexing predicament arises when Narayanappa dies; none of his kith volunteer to cremate him because of his sacrilegious conduct.

Praneshacharya prays for divine portent on the ritualistically valid last rites for the dead man; but, he falls prey to the bewitching beauty of the local prostitute, Chandri (Snehalata Reddy— a talented actress and political activist, who died in 1977 due to regular torture in prison during the emergency for speaking against the tyrannical regime of Mrs. Indira Gandhi). Later, filled with remorse and compunction, Praneshacharya leaves the village. He finds getting rid of his guilt a lot more arduous though.

The shoe-string budget and wide recognition aside, the flick is a dampener of sorts, because it fails to recognize that religious piety and conservatism is a personal choice; and, that the exercise of the right to freedom of faith cannot be viewed condescendingly in a free, inclusive and syncretic society. The film dramatizes an individual's capitulation to carnal desires, if only to derisively imply, rather weakly and tenuously, that it is a widespread malaise within the Brahmin community.

The executive direction of Singeetam Srinivasa Rao is disappointing; it lacks sophistication and is somewhat crass and abrasive. On the whole, the screenplay is gripping; yet, it is belaboring and painfully slow, at times. Girish Karnad has excelled in his portrayal of a righteous Brahmin overwhelmed by guilt. P Lankesh's performance is below par; so too are the background score and cinematography.

The story-telling leaves you confounded about the message. If it is about latent or dormant passion camouflaged within those professing purity and chastity, then it is an abysmal failure. Prurient, promiscuous human behavior has existed since times immemorial and prudishness is not betrothed to Brahmins alone.

The real reason for the mopes on the “social drama” in this movie is the pedestrian plot, which would surely have lent itself better to a short film!

That is my honest to God opinion. So what, if it was selected as the “Best Feature Film” in the 1970 edition of the “National Film Awards”.

I rate the movie: 7.0 on 10!