Response to Bombay Talkies

            Released in 2013, Bombay Talkies is a collection of four separate short films, and it celebrates 100 years of Indian cinema. The collection pays homage to the prolific industry and acknowledges its impact. Though each film highlights a different aspect of Indian cinema (from songs to dances to the actors themselves), the films all portray the influence of the industry in uniting normal people within the context of families and their communities. As a result, these disparate pieces still have a strong cohesion. In order to maintain this cohesion and better fit with the overall message of the anthology, the plot of the second film Star changed slightly from the short story it was adapted from.

Star was adapted from “Patol Babu, Film Star,” written by Satyajit Ray, the filmmaker who brought us The Chess Players. Seeing as the story chronicles the day of a man whose acting career never took off, it seems fitting to adapt for Bombay Talkies. Both the short story and its film adaptation follow the same story arc; in both, a man down on his luck is offered a small acting job in a movie, and he realizes though it is small, there is much he can do with it. Many smaller details of his character too can be found in both: being excited to practice lines he doesn’t have, requesting a newspaper as a prop, leaving behind the payment he’s given. However, the story deviates from there for adaptation on the big screen.

In the translation of the short story, Patol-babu was described as being quite famous locally in his day, as simply his name on a playbill would sometimes draw in audiences. However, in the film, he is described as having served primarily as an understudy, only taking the stage when the main actor was unwell. By making this switch in his former fame, he is more strongly positioned as an underdog, which audiences love to root for. Also, as a result, his obtaining the job is seen as more serendipitous in the film than it would seem otherwise, given his former acting career. Additionally, in the text, he is shown to have gotten the gig through the family connection of a neighbor. In the film, he is chosen as an onlooker of the street right after he misses an interview for a guard job. Again, in this revised version, it shows that anyone has a chance at their dreams (a theme in other films in the anthology) and deemphasizes the need for connections. The idea that “everyone has a role here” is therefore emphasized in the adaptation, and this idea of inclusivity is found across Bombay Talkies.

The most notable difference however is the prominence of his family in the new storyline. In the original, his wife is briefly mentioned, but she is just a flash in the story. However, in the new storyline, his brief professional acting stint was bookended by scenes of him interacting with his family. We see his eagerness to please his daughter, the disappointment in his eyes when he lets her down. It frames him as a fuller character whom we have greater sympathy for and whose motivations we better understand. In the last scene, we see him animatedly acting out his wild day to his daughter to the delight of the whole family, foregoing his movie salary and chance at film industry contacts. In the text, we just read about him walking away from the money due to a sense of self-contentment for a job well-done. Here, however, we see acting stripped down to its core: entertainment that brings people together. It sends the message that movies and acting aren’t necessarily all about the glitz or the glamour, but the people behind those stories and the normal people touched by them. This is a message found throughout Bombay Talkies, and Star is able to capture that very well, while still paying homage to the original text.