Swayamvaram

<p>A newly wed couple, Vishwam and Sita, have married against the preference of their families, and left their hometown. Both want to start a new life at a new place. Initially, they stay in a decent hotel but soon due to financial reasons they move to another, ordinary hotel. Vishwam, an educated, unemployed youth, is an aspiring writer and had some of his short stories published in the newspapers earlier. He dreams of having his novel, titled ( ), published in the newspaper. He meets one of the newspaper editors, who agrees to read his novel but declines to publish it, stating the novel is too sentimental. Sita is offered a job as a sales girl but cannot accept it because she is unable to pay the required security deposit of 1,000. With several unsuccessful attempts to get a job, the increasing financial pressure forces them to shift to a slum. With an old lady named Janaki and a prostitute named Kalyani as their neighbours, things do not work as desired for the couple and they end up selling Sita’s jewellery. Vishwam takes a job as a zoology teacher in college but soon loses it. He then accepts a job as a clerk in a timber shop with a meager salary, replacing one of the dismissed employees. Vishwam and Sita try to set up a happy home with their newborn baby, but soon their dreams fade as they struggle on precariously. When Vishwam falls ill, Sita tries for his betterment with all her capabilities but is unable to afford the medicines. She finally decides to call a doctor. However, Vishwam dies, leaving her alone with their infant baby. When Sita is advised to return to her parents after Vishwam’s death, she declines. The film ends with Sita feeding her baby and gazing at a painting on the from an Indian , , depicting and determinedly at the closed door of their house. The title refers to the ancient Indian practice of a girl of marriageable age choosing a husband from among a list of suitors. It was also an affirmation to one of ‘s beliefs about an individual’s right to make own choices. The film’s English title for international release was mainly , however it was shown at the under the title, . Other translations of the Malayalam title have also been used, such as , , , , , and . While studying in the , , Gopalakrishnan was influenced by the movement of global cinema and formed a film society in , named “Chitralekha Film Cooperative”, with his classmates in 1965. Gopalakrishnan had initially submitted a romantic script to the Film Finance Corporation (now or NFDC) which they declined to finance. Later, he submitted the script for , which Film Finance Corporation accepted and approved the loan of a (US$1,800). However, it took seven years for him to get the film rolling, after he passed out of the Film and Television Institute of India. Gopalakrishnan co-scripted the film with writer-director . The film was produced by Chitralekha Film Co-operative, Kerala’s first film co-operative society for film production, with being their first feature film production. The film’s total budget was (US$3,000) and Gopalakrishnan used the money he had collected from his documentary productions. Initially, Chitralekha Film Co-operative, the producer of the film had trouble distributing the film, so they decided to do it by themselves. Ritwik Ghatak’s 1965 film was an influence to Gopalakrishnan. The Bengali film dealt with post Partition and tells the story of a Hindu Brahmin refugee Ishwar who raises his sister Sita and Abhiram, the son of a low-caste woman from a refugee camp. When the two fall in love, he rejects the relation. Abhiram and Sita elope to Calcutta. Years later. Ishwar on a binge drinking spree in Calcutta, visits a brothel; where Sita recognizes him and kills herself. Gopalakrishnan wondered what would have happened to the couple that eloped to the city and developed his story. Gopalakrishan wanted fresh faces for both the lead roles and he had written letters to various heads of colleges and universities for the auditions. However, he did not receive any response from anywhere. For the female lead, Gopalakrishnan approached , one of the most successful actresses of her time. She was acting in commercial films when Gopalakrishnan asked her to star in . Sharada was initially reluctant to commit herself to an , but agreed when Gopalakrishnan narrated the complete story to her at , in . The male lead for the film, , was an old friend of Gopalakrishnan and had expressed a desire to act in one of his films. By the time Gopalakrishnan finished his studies and returned from , Madhu was already a star in Malayalam cinema. Gopalakrishnan then decided to cast him opposite Sharada. Mentioning about his experience working with Gopalakrishnan and , Madhu recollected in an interview that “[…] when Gopalakrishnan narrated the story of , I knew it was going to be different.” Years later he also mentioned that he “sometimes wished had acted in Adoor’s . He might have won a Bharath award. But he was very busy those days.” Malayalam actor-director was cast as a college principal. , who later became a major actor in the Malayalam film industry, made his film debut in , doing a minor role as the dismissed factory employee who gets replaced by Madhu. Gopi was a noted stage actor before and would later play the lead role in Gopalakrishnan’s second feature film, , which earned him a reputation as one of the finest actors in Indian cinema and also inspired his screen name as “Bharath Gopi” or “Kodiyettam Gopi”. He won a award, then known as “Bharat Award”, for the role at the in 1977. , who would later play notable characters in many of Gopalakrishnan’s films, played a small role as a prostitute in . Noted Malayalam writer and journalist played a newspaper editor in the film. Gopalakrishnan praised him for his performance, expressing the difficulties of performing as oneself onscreen. Due to financial crises, it took more than one and a half years for Gopalakrishnan to finish the film. was one of the first Malayalam films to use synchronised sound and to be filmed in outdoor locales, for which Gopalakrishnan used his audio recorder. The film was shot in two schedules. It was delayed due to scheduling conflicts of the lead actress, Sharada. She was working in several films at that time, so Gopalakrishnan had to arrange the schedule to suit her convenience. The lead actor, Madhu, mentioned in an interview that Gopalakrishnan was clear about his characters and their behaviour. Gopalakrishnan also used to discuss the shoot with his crew before the shooting. The film marked the beginning of a collaboration between Gopalakrishnan and cinematographer . Gopalakrishnan had seen Varma’s work in his second film as a cinematographer, (1970), and when he decided to work on , Gopalakrishnan approached Varma with the script. Initially reluctant, Varma agreed to do the film due to its “extensive” and “very well written” script. Incidentally, Varma won his only , with a career spanned over thirty years, for . The film featured no songs and has only an by . The editing of the film was done by Ramesan, whereas S. S. Nair and Devadathan worked together on the production design. Sound mixing was done by P. Devadas. The total budget of the film was (US$3,000), where the Film Finance Corporation provided 150,000 as a loan. in the book, wrote, “Adoor, coming as he does from a small-town middle class milieu in – made his first film, on the moral crisis of the middle class. It is about an unmarried young couple, intensely in love, escaping to a small town to live together, defying the conventional norms and coming to grips with the harsh realities of life and living, which turns their dream into a . The struggle between the and the , and the fear of losing the object of love, the crisis of conscience caused by the pressure of mundane needs, bring to the fore the human predicament, the spiritual degeneration of man – a theme which recurs in his later films too. means choice, but the choice in this case is between the devil and the deep sea- a devastating commentary on the socio-economic situation of the .” In an interview Gopalakrishnan said, ” is a trip from illusion to . It is a typical case of the moral crisis of the middle class.” Some critics have pointed out its resemblance to ‘s (1965). Gopalakrishnan agreed on influences of Ghatak and but pointed that s treatment is different from Ghatak’s as is more about the trip. In an interview Gopalakrishnan said, ” is a trip from illusion to . It is a typical case of the moral crisis of the middle class.” A reviewer from wrote, “The film directed by Adoor Gopalakrishnan shows in all its starkness, the plight of the educated unemployed in India. It dwells on the trials and tribulations of a young couple and their persistent efforts to find a place of their own in the society.The Hero is an idealist and an upright character.In the end, the hardships of life claim his life itself. This competition film that comes from India is a true reflection of the life of the common man in India.” Suranjan Ganguly, in his book, , wrote, “It was a call to arms against the crude, melodramatic, formulaic films of the south, especially Kerala. It bristled with innovative visual and auditory effects and boasted a complex narrative form—a mix of documentary, fiction, and fantasy—that sought to interrogate film as film. It also subscribed to an evocative poetic realism drawing on metaphor and symbol, which was unprecedented in the history of southern cinema. , like (1981) and (1994), focuses on the politics of dislocation and survival (both physical and moral) in which the search for home, self and identity becomes a key issue.” The previews of the film were held at various places, where it was well received by critics and audiences. Noted writer wrote a cover story in his magazine , and organized a seminar on the film in , then known as Madras. Various intellectuals and writers took part in it, including noted film experts like and director . A reviewer from wrote, “Gopalakrishnan has laid bare the realities of a village society, a reality which has hitherto lain buried under the tinsel of commercial cinema.” Dilys Powel from wrote, “The theme is human and social. Adoor Gopalakrishnan’s “Swayamvaram” has a touching performance by an actress called Sharada as the radiant girl who elopes, only to see her fight against convention end in poverty and despair. One detects a kind of sober passion.” George Melly from wrote, ” directed by Adoor Gopalakrishnan is the story about a young couple who decide to live together and run into disaster. Beautifully photographed.” Verina Glaessner from wrote, “The film concentrates on describing the life together of the man and the woman who are unmarried and without the usual supportive network of family relationships. The Director constantly works to extend the film’s area of concern outward to the situation they find themselves in, through their attempts to get work – she as a sales lady, he first as a teacher and then as a clerk in a saw mill. But he does this without any heavy handed over-emphasis.” A reviewer from wrote, “The film Swayamvaram made in Kerala by Adoor Gopalakrishnan deserves special attention for the reason that it is a film far removed from the conventional song and dance extravaganza of Bombay Studios.The film’s main concern is with the everyday life of the common man.The heart-beats of a complex and problem-ridden society are heard and felt in the tragic story of Sita and Viswam.” A reviewer from wrote, “Adoor Gopalakrishnan’s is a brilliant study of a run-away couple’s trials and tribulations in making both ends meet. And quite naturally, one finds the stamp of the documentary in the film. The black and white photography is excellent, so is the music.” wrote, “In Swayamvaram, Adoor Gopalakrishnan manages that rare feat investing the visuals with such eloquence that language of the spoken word hardly remains a barrier.” A critic from the termed it a “Chekovian film” and wrote, ” Life’s minor details are carefully studied, discretely and meaningfully portrayed.” A critic of wrote, “The Kerala that Adoor Gopalakrishnan (who has both written the story and directed the film) shows is quite ruthlessly shorn of all the picturesque cliches that one is accustomed to associate with it. Another quality of the film which in the Indian context is remarkable is the handling of humor. In , the humor is entirely natural.” wrote, “The accent is solely on visuals. And these visuals are rarely interfered with, by verbosity.The extreme economy of words dramatises the picturisation of commonplace events.” Although most of the reviews were positive, some film experts were critical about the film. Amaresh Datta, in his book , criticised the film for “following the neo-realistic style” and showcasing “same old love story without any freshness added”. Poet and journalist called the film “disturbing” in one of his articles, criticising Gopalakrishnan and his films. , a film director and a well-known admirer of Gopalakrishnan’s films, also mentioned that he was not particularly pleased with . Despite the overwhelming critical acclaim the film received, the film was largely ignored in , which Gopalakrishnan referred to as “more of a question of insensitivity rather than personal enmity.” However, some noted critics like and T. M. P. Nedungadi praised the movie, with Nedungadi writing a response titled ” over, what next in Malayalam cinema?” The film had a lukewarm initial theatrical response. Gopalakrishnan was told that “If only he had some songs in it, it would have done well”. After the announcement of the , the film was re-released in theatres and gathered better response this time, which also helped Gopalakrishnan repay the loan to FFC, the main producer of the film. The film participated in the competition section of the 8th in 1973. pioneered the new wave cinema movement in . The film did not feature any dance numbers, comedy or melodramatic scenes, which were “usual ingredients” of films at that time, but it introduced viewers to then unknown techniques of film presentation, in which it was not merely used for “story-telling”. It was an inevitable development for Malayalam cinema, as the film focused mainly on cinema rather than its story. The film also introduced film-goers to a new cinematic art through the impulses generated by the film, which in turn were more important than the film itself. The film is also said to have divided Malayalam films into three different categories, “uncompromising art films”, “compromising films” which aimed at commercial success but tried maintaining a good deal of the artistic qualities, and the “commercial films” which purely aimed at box office success. Film critic included on his list of the 10 best Malayalam movies of all time. Through , Gopalakrishnan became the first Indian director to use sound as a (a recurring musical theme). The film provided a new experience to Indian cinema-goers, as it used ample amounts of natural sounds with a minimalistic background score. Noted critic and film director mentioned that Devadas’s sound mixing work was one of the major attractions of the film. Considerable use of natural sound, apart from background music, was new for . Cast performances were also praised by critics. received considerable attention even for his minimal screen appearance. Though Madhu had acted previously in several films, including Ramu Kariat’s film, (1965), marked a turning point in his career. The has digitally restored the film, and the restored version with improved subtitles in English was screened at the in November 2012. Also, the has acquired all of Gopalakrishnan’s features, including , to restore and preserve. Interview with Adoor Swayamvaram 50</p>