MAHANAGAR (1963) : Gendered experience of the lead role

Mahanagar (1963), is unarguably one of the finest creations of Ray. This film is based on
‘Abataranika’, a short story by Narendranath Mitra. The narrative primarily illustrates how social
relationships between the private and the public spheres are maintained by ‘ideal’ housewives of
the Bengali middle-class families. In this film, Satyajit Ray has presented a very strong female
protagonist playing a critical factor in social change.

The narrative very interestingly begins by portraying how in a Bengali middle-class family, the
son, Subrata (played by Anil Chatterjee) who works in New Bharat Bank, is the only earning
member. On one hand, while he has the responsibility of looking after the economic standards of
the family, his wife Arati (played by Madhabi Mukherjee), the protagonist of Mahanagar (1963),
attends the public sphere.

The father or patriarch of the family, Priyogopal (played by Haren Chatterjee), a retired
schoolteacher, is a conservative. Mahanagar (1963) succinctly represents the conflicting
ideologies between the two generations yet having common underlying patriarchal values of
Bengali middle-class families.

While the head of the family unquestionably considers it to be unjust for his daughter-in-law to
go ‘outside’ and work, Subrata is found to be in dilemma in navigating his way through the
values of being a ‘modern’ man or follow the path of his father. He expresses his concern for his
sister (played by Jaya Bhaduri), “What’s the use of studying? You will end up with kitchen duty
like your sister-in-law here.” necessarily expresses his disgust towards such values held by the
stereotypical families.

He also mocks the conservative understanding of how a daughter-in-law in the family working
outside or wearing ‘red lipstick’ are looked down upon by the middle-class morality in one of his
conversations with Arati. Although as the narrative progresses, we sense a ‘change’ in him which
was because of his insecurity that he felt when Arati started her professional life.
As a result of their difficult economic condition, Arati decides to take up a job so that the
economic burden of the family gets shared. While the job may appear as a ‘need’ of the hour, it
is also important to highlight the vision of Satyajit Ray, who beautifully portrayed in many
instances, how in our everyday commitments, desires intersect with our needs.

However, none of the family members were happy with her commitment to work. It is important
in this regard to underline how her son, Pintu (played by Prasenjit Sarker), seven or eight years
old, reacts to her decision. Such an instance of absence of his mother comes as a shock to him
and he expresses his anger. The depth of the scene where Arati expresses her melancholy of how
things would have been easier for her if there would be no sense of objection, clearly speculates
the structural barriers faced by women after marriage with their work interests. The later in the
narrative also, when Pintu falls ill, he blames his mother for going to work, saying “mother is
bad.” From gender perspective while Pintu’s father went to office he never creates objection and
when his father lost his job and started staying at home for few days his child started expressing
fathers job place is good as he gets more vacation rather than mother. As a female is more
attached to the upbringing activity of a child rather than a father. that is the reason of Pintu’s
negative reactive towards his mother’s profession which works as a mental challenge to Arati
during her worklife.

This illustration in Mahanagar (1963) how conservative values are internalized and normalized
among children from a very young age through socialization. On the other hand, he is
immediately surprised to see his father not going to work for a few days. The entire confusion
Arati faces, even while she goes to work on the first day, on the back of her mind, indicates the
understanding of how in many instances the capitalist patriarchal society expects women to
prioritize ‘household’ (private) rather than ‘outside’ (public). The entire patriarchal construction
of ‘motherhood’ and ‘child-rearing’ invisibilizes the importance of the responsibility of shared
‘parenthood’ in the private sphere.

In the narrative, Satyajit Ray has beautifully presented various analogies. It is important to
highlight the scene, where Arati compares the intensity of her cold hand between her marriage
day and her first day of going for work, representing both as important days in her life as it
would mark the beginning of her new ‘identity’. In this narrative, it is important to highlight how
Ray, has adhered to symbolism to convey his message to the audience. On the first day of her
work, her interaction with her co-worker, Edith (played by Vicky Redhood), Arati showing her
vermillion to communicate she is married and Edith showing her ring to indicate that she is
engaged can be viewed in two ways.

On one hand, it indicates the understanding of ‘bio-power’ and ‘bio-politics’ (Foucault 1982),
how women’s bodies are marked to denote their relationship status following a sense of policing
and exploitation. On the other hand, it would also symbolize how their identities are located in
terms of their private social relationships. The scene where Arati looks at the mirror after
receiving her first wage symbolizes her accomplishment and her glory in public sphere. Her
action of wearing lipstick every day only in work, gifted by Edith can also be identified as a
symbolic expression of her freedom from the private to the public sphere.

As argued above, Priyogopal’s dialogue of, ‘I am too old to change my views’, addresses how
typical middle-class values feel threatened by the sense of change. But later in his conversation
with Arati where he confronts his prejudice of holding on to conservative ideologies rather than
accepting change, while he himself goes against those by speaking ill about his son to his
students to achieve ‘guru-dakshina’ underlines the deception of existing values.

But it is also important to address how Subrata felt a sense of threat by Arati working outside,
leading him to ask her to leave work but how he molded the excuse around ‘family’ burden. But,
there we see very visibly how her desire of working outside ‘ghor’ (household) getting subsumed
as a result of the patriarchal middle- class family values. But the irony of the narrative reflects
the brilliance of Ray, how he managed to capture the hypocrisy of these values. While Subrata
loses his job as a result of the shutting down of banks, he asked her to not leave the job, but by
using a local phrase -“Stree’r poush maash, shami’r shorbonaash”- he reflects his uneasiness of
her working, overlooking that the raise she demanded is because of extreme condition of the
family.

Another interesting scene in the coffee shop where Arati describes Subrata’s occupation to her
friend’s husband, in spite of the fact that he lost his job reflects her urge of protecting the honour
of her husband and how if her income viewed as supplementary would still be accepted while her
being the sole earner would be regarded problematic. It is also important to address here how
patriarchal family values tend to put a major burden on ‘son’ of the families by putting them on a
pedestal of the efficient and ‘first-class’ earner of the family.

The most significant part of the movie, in Arati’s confrontation with Mr. Mukherjee, necessarily
questions the injustice that happened against her co-worker, Edith. Her boss continuously says
that Arti is very impulsive and doesn’t actually know what kind of a person Edith is.

The strength that Arti showed while confronting her boss for injustice was not appreciated. From
the starting of her job, verbally or through action it was communicated that the company expects
their women employees to behave in a certain way. Here the theory of ‘Respectable Femininity’
can be seen in practice.

Despite her worse economic condition, she chooses to give her resignation letter when Mr.
Mukherjee refused to apologize to Edith. This reflects how she chooses to prioritize her values
and stands by right while in many instances we fail to do so. It is Arti’s experience in constant
fighting against existing moralities that helped her break through the shackles.

She had to fight against poverty all the while fighting for her right to work and well-deserved
respect as a working individual. Being financially independent, Arti gained the confidence and
courage to stand against injustice and ask for the things she deserves.

The last scene with the dialogue by Subrata, ‘Let us try, I believe we both can’ ends with
uncertainty where we as audiences are unaware of what is waiting in fate for Arati and Subrata.
But the sense of hope resides in our minds. In this complex big city, they both find courage and
hope in the form of each other. The film ended with uncertainties and yet was filled with
expectation for the future.

The End