What do you think?
Rate this book
The Cinema of Satyajit Ray
This is a comprehensive study on Satyajit Ray, a filmmaker of intrnational repute and his his films, this book besides providing a critical commentry on each of his films also discusses the many influences on Ray, eastern and western, the literary sources as well as Ray s departures from them.
178 pages, Paperback
First published June 1, 1980
2 people are currently reading
93 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
August 20, 2025
Chidananda Das Gupta’s Cinema of Satyajit Ray was not simply a book I consulted for my special paper on Film Studies, it became the kind of reference that shapes the very vocabulary with which one learns to think about cinema.
At a time when Ray was already enshrined as an auteur in global film discourse, Das Gupta approached his work with the dual commitment of a critic and a cultural interpreter. He was, after all, one of the founders of the Calcutta Film Society alongside Ray himself, so his closeness to the filmmaker was not just intellectual but also historical. What the book manages to achieve is a balance between scholarly analysis and lived intimacy, a rare blend where the critic does not reduce the films to cold theory but allows them to breathe within the cultural and aesthetic traditions from which they emerged.
Reading it as a student, what struck me most was the way Das Gupta never isolates Ray’s films from their Indian ethos. He situates Ray’s work firmly within Bengali cultural history, drawing upon literature, painting, music, and theatre to illuminate the layered textures of the films. For example, in his discussion of the Apu Trilogy, he moves beyond plot summaries to reveal how Ray’s lens reshapes the realism of Bibhutibhushan’s novels into a cinematic language that is at once universal and deeply rooted in local landscapes.
He points out how Ray’s visual lyricism—his treatment of nature, the rhythms of rural life, the silences between words—owes as much to the tradition of Bengali humanism as to European neorealism. This comparative method was invaluable when I was trying to place Ray not as an “exotic” auteur for the West but as an artist who consciously straddled multiple traditions.
What makes the book powerful is its refusal to canonise Ray blindly. Das Gupta is attentive to weaknesses, especially in Ray’s later films, where he felt a certain repetitiveness or a loss of the earlier spontaneity. Yet even here, he contextualises the shifts—Ray’s health problems, the changing political climate of Bengal, the pressures of expectation.
This balance of admiration and critique gave me, as a young reader, the courage to look at great cinema critically, not worshipfully. Das Gupta treats Ray as a living, evolving artist, not a fossilised genius.
Equally valuable is the way the book maps out Ray’s stylistic signatures. Das Gupta dissects Ray’s use of framing, camera movement, and editing with a clarity that is accessible to students but never simplistic. His analysis of how Ray uses musical motifs, how silence itself becomes a dramatic device, or how the mise-en-scène quietly encodes class hierarchies is the kind of close reading that sharpens one’s own critical tools. I remember underlining entire passages because they offered not just insights into Ray but into the grammar of cinema itself.
The book also makes an important intervention by showing Ray as a political filmmaker, though not in the overtly didactic mode of some of his contemporaries. Das Gupta demonstrates how films like Pratidwandi, Seemabaddha, or Jana Aranya are deeply engaged with the crises of modernity, unemployment, corruption, and the alienation of the middle class.
This was particularly relevant during my paper writing, when I needed to argue against the easy cliché that Ray was merely a humanist storyteller uninterested in politics. Das Gupta’s readings provided that nuanced evidence, linking Ray’s aesthetic choices with the social conditions of Bengal.
Beyond analysis, there is also something deeply personal in the book’s tone. You can sense the author’s affection not only for Ray but for the larger project of serious cinema in India. His prose avoids jargon, instead carrying the rhythm of someone speaking passionately across a seminar table or after a film society screening. That accessibility is what made it such a valuable reference work: you could quote it in an academic essay, but you could also carry it like a guidebook to rewatch Ray’s films with new eyes.
Looking back, I realise Cinema of Satyajit Ray did more than serve as a secondary source. It trained me in the art of critical appreciation, teaching me to hold together aesthetics, culture, and history without losing sight of the film as an experience.
In many ways, the book echoes Ray’s own cinema—lucid, humane, deeply rooted in the local yet resonant on a global scale. As a companion during my special paper, it was indispensable, but as a reader of cinema, it remains an enduring touchstone.
At a time when Ray was already enshrined as an auteur in global film discourse, Das Gupta approached his work with the dual commitment of a critic and a cultural interpreter. He was, after all, one of the founders of the Calcutta Film Society alongside Ray himself, so his closeness to the filmmaker was not just intellectual but also historical. What the book manages to achieve is a balance between scholarly analysis and lived intimacy, a rare blend where the critic does not reduce the films to cold theory but allows them to breathe within the cultural and aesthetic traditions from which they emerged.
Reading it as a student, what struck me most was the way Das Gupta never isolates Ray’s films from their Indian ethos. He situates Ray’s work firmly within Bengali cultural history, drawing upon literature, painting, music, and theatre to illuminate the layered textures of the films. For example, in his discussion of the Apu Trilogy, he moves beyond plot summaries to reveal how Ray’s lens reshapes the realism of Bibhutibhushan’s novels into a cinematic language that is at once universal and deeply rooted in local landscapes.
He points out how Ray’s visual lyricism—his treatment of nature, the rhythms of rural life, the silences between words—owes as much to the tradition of Bengali humanism as to European neorealism. This comparative method was invaluable when I was trying to place Ray not as an “exotic” auteur for the West but as an artist who consciously straddled multiple traditions.
What makes the book powerful is its refusal to canonise Ray blindly. Das Gupta is attentive to weaknesses, especially in Ray’s later films, where he felt a certain repetitiveness or a loss of the earlier spontaneity. Yet even here, he contextualises the shifts—Ray’s health problems, the changing political climate of Bengal, the pressures of expectation.
This balance of admiration and critique gave me, as a young reader, the courage to look at great cinema critically, not worshipfully. Das Gupta treats Ray as a living, evolving artist, not a fossilised genius.
Equally valuable is the way the book maps out Ray’s stylistic signatures. Das Gupta dissects Ray’s use of framing, camera movement, and editing with a clarity that is accessible to students but never simplistic. His analysis of how Ray uses musical motifs, how silence itself becomes a dramatic device, or how the mise-en-scène quietly encodes class hierarchies is the kind of close reading that sharpens one’s own critical tools. I remember underlining entire passages because they offered not just insights into Ray but into the grammar of cinema itself.
The book also makes an important intervention by showing Ray as a political filmmaker, though not in the overtly didactic mode of some of his contemporaries. Das Gupta demonstrates how films like Pratidwandi, Seemabaddha, or Jana Aranya are deeply engaged with the crises of modernity, unemployment, corruption, and the alienation of the middle class.
This was particularly relevant during my paper writing, when I needed to argue against the easy cliché that Ray was merely a humanist storyteller uninterested in politics. Das Gupta’s readings provided that nuanced evidence, linking Ray’s aesthetic choices with the social conditions of Bengal.
Beyond analysis, there is also something deeply personal in the book’s tone. You can sense the author’s affection not only for Ray but for the larger project of serious cinema in India. His prose avoids jargon, instead carrying the rhythm of someone speaking passionately across a seminar table or after a film society screening. That accessibility is what made it such a valuable reference work: you could quote it in an academic essay, but you could also carry it like a guidebook to rewatch Ray’s films with new eyes.
Looking back, I realise Cinema of Satyajit Ray did more than serve as a secondary source. It trained me in the art of critical appreciation, teaching me to hold together aesthetics, culture, and history without losing sight of the film as an experience.
In many ways, the book echoes Ray’s own cinema—lucid, humane, deeply rooted in the local yet resonant on a global scale. As a companion during my special paper, it was indispensable, but as a reader of cinema, it remains an enduring touchstone.
June 23, 2022
A very detailed analysis of the movies of Satyajit Ray. First the author gives a chronological analysis of the movies, the stories, the characters, the continuity of the characters in special, the influence of Western cinema and Western music, influence of Rabindranath Tagore and Shantiniketan, the influence of period in almost all of the movies. Subsequently, the author narrates the similarities and differences of the period of Ray's movies with the contemporary environment and social changes of Calcutta (Kolkata). The phases of the films - the trilogy and the theme movies, the post-independence period movies and the modern day period movies. How the pattern of Ray changed or on many occasions continued from the earlier phase. The choice of actors most appropriate for the characters was unique to Ray. Mostly of Ray's depiction of women characters in his screenplay was in a very conservative manner and men mostly void of any villainism. The children films of Ray is well appreciated across all ages. The book is worth reading along with the various writings of Ray himself on the domain of film and film making.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews