After Watching Merchant-Ivory’s “In Custody”

I was presented with a copy of Anita’s Desai’s In Custody in 1997 as a farewell gift by friends at my previous job at Vizag. I started reading the book on the train to Hyderabad, & could never put it down. I finished it on the train. It was an amazing tour de force, and images I picked up from the book were to remain with me ever since.

The story goes somewhat like this. Deven, an ill-paid Hindi lecturer at a nameless mofussil college and an Urdu lover, is commissioned by his friend Murad (who edits an Urdu journal), to interview the great Nur Shahjahanabadi, arguably the greatest Urdu poet who ever lived, now living in obscurity in his old age. As Deven begins his labour of love, nothing is as it seems; he is quickly sucked into Nur Sahib’s domestic politics & sundry other misfortunes. The narration is masterly; the prose is absolutely luminous & scintillating.

I heard of the movie when it was released but never made any attempt to watch it in a theatre, even though I had seen the posters, & liked them. I love Merchant-Ivory films (Guru, Shakespeare-wallah, The Householder, and now Remains of the Day).  I somehow could not imagine the simple & handsome lecturer of Abhinetri aging into the fat old Nur Shahjahanabadi of In Custody.

However, I grabbed the chance to watch the movie with both hands when a new acquaintance offered to lend his precious DVD.

I put on the DVD last Sunday evening and watched enthralled the trials & tribulations of Deven, as he struggles to record Nur Sahib for the posterity.

What was different between the book & the film? Plenty, it seemed. Nur speaks & lives poetry in the movie; I don’t remember the book having so much poetry. Anita Desai is a great novelist, but I don’t think she is a great poet. However I can’t be very  sure; I had never read the book again – something unusual for me. In fact, I haven’t even seen it lately.

The junior begum’s mushaira becomes a ghazal recital in the movie. This is a little jarring, even though the ghazals are lovely. In the book she just reads Nur’s poetry, claiming it as her own. I don’t think there was a trip to a dargah in the book. Also not sure if Nur Sahib actually died in the book.

Another detail that is quite jarring is the confusing period image. There are oil lamps & punkahs in Nur Sahib’s house, and yet we also have electricity everywhere in the movie. The electronics merchant sells what seems to be an ancient, second-hand (east European?) spool tape recorder to Deven, while one can see modern 2-in-1’s in the background in his shop.

The junior begum is not well sketched out in the movie. Somehow the character lacks detail & conviction, in spite of the fine effort by Shabana. On the other hand, the senior begum appears solid, in spite of appearing in far fewer scenes.

But then these are minor details. Overall, the movie is just as great as the book. One enduring image from the book is that of Nur drinking whiskey with his chamchas. With each sip he doubles up in pain as the alcohol hits his ulcer-ridden stomach, but continues drinking. The enduring image from the movie is the forlorn figure of Nur supported by Deven & the young chamchas as he moves around in a world that is increasingly incomprehensible & callous. Both images are apt & great.

The shooting locations are superbly evocative. I heard that the movie has been entirely shot on location in Bhopal. I wonder if the buildings & locales still exist – the movie was made in 1994.

Saaf, Shafaaf, Sheenkaf aur Durust!

One last word.

I have always loved the three Kapoor brothers. For me, Raj has always been the Joker and Shammi the Junglee. Somehow I never had a similarly strong image for Shashi. But now Shashi will always be Nur, God bless him.

God bless Anita also. I am going to search for that book in real earnest and read it again. And I am never going to return the DVD.