Views of the Inner Chamber (2005) User Reviews

Good artistic work. You will need a different view to watch and understand this movie

[amitfromuk · 6/10 · 25 August 2006]

I appreciate this movie from artistic point of view. This movie needs a very different view to understand it. From feminine point of view, it depicts the problems and feelings of a woman and need of a child in olden days. You will also find feelings of BritishRaj that how the title of Rai Bhadur became important during Queen Victoria's time.

Anyone who see this movie please see it completely. Listen the song which runs in the end of the movie.

You will find the oppression women suffered at the hands of their so called 'Masters' husbands and priests. A lively portrait of nineteenth century Bengal. Abhishek Bachchan's role is just limited as a potter but he leaves the message and ends the movie.

Not a movie for the weak hearted. May leave you feeling a little queasy... Strictly for Mature Audience.

[tunali_m · 7/10 · 12 November 2005]

We often mistake regional language movies as "cultural" and in that sense 'Antar Mahal' was a great... shock! Probably that is why I went for this movie with my parents (which made me very uncomfortable later on!, even tho it was rated A. Antar Mahal is a rude awakening to the sexual secrets a traditional zameendar Bengali shares. From the cinema pov, the movie is very good. It has a good story that is supported by a good, crisp screenplay. The cinematography is good and the characters have been played really well by the actors. the entire movie is shot within a bungalow, most of it in a bedroom, but it captures your attention and doesn't let it wander at all. The pace is fast, especially for a Bengali movie. All in all, it is good cinema.

Spoilers contained from here on:

I felt very queasy after the movie. It is a little hard to swallow a movie as graphic as this. when i say graphic, i dnt mean the body parts in a sex scene, cos there is none shown, but in the way it has been subtly portrayed. I personally found the goddess sculpting scene very offending(you will know what I mean when you watch the movie), but that is my view. What led to the queasiness of the movie was not the sex scenes, but the circumstances faced by the protagonists. whether it was a woman forced to sleep with 5 priests or have sex with her husband in front of one, I found it a little too much to take in one movie itself. So if serious movies which revolve on such topics are not your type, you get easily offended by sex scenes or you are in mood for something funny and light, this movie isn't for you. But you must watch it once at least...

8/10---but for a limited audience.

[vick22 · 8/10 · 22 September 2006]

As far as only film-making values go, AntarMahal is one of the top three films (with unishe April & bariwali) from one of contemporary India's most exciting directors. However, in trying to remain true to their artistic goals, the makers of this film have had to eschew a lot of compromises that usually make such works palatable to larger audiences. Kudos to them for that, and I just hope that the existing market is mature enough to encourage such a film by providing enough viewers for it.

Now the qualifications that one needs to be satisfy to be able to enjoy this film are a bit narrow: these include a good knowledge of idiomatic Bengali and slang, as well as enough idea of the society of feudal Bengal to understand the cultural and class stereotypes and unspoken attitudes. Apart from this, the viewer would need to be able to sit through potentially offensive incidents and dialog instead of running away crying 'help, p0rn'! To give an idea, a parallel may drawn --- only regarding the use of sexual situations and dialog --- with Clerks II ...it will offend a lot of people who can not see past the profanity into the profound that it shapes. This means that the film watching experience of such a viewer would have to be a bit wider than most people who satisfy the first criterion.

The acting performance of Roopa Ganguly is worth mentioning, for making great use of a very fulfilling role. Among the other leads, Jackie Shroff did a pretty good (though it is a long way from understated), and the castings of Abhishek and Soha work great, not least because of their looks. It's a bit funny how they both manage to evoke memories of their illustrious parents in many of the scenes...one is unlikely to forget that AB-Jr has his father's eyes after this film. And you'll want to go watch Devi again just to check if there's something in Sharmila's gestures that has not been reused by Soha here. The rest of cast does pretty well, too. The editing is taut, as with all Rituparno's works. The cinematography is good, and even though in some scenes the underlining gets a bit too vivid, the music is mostly unobtrusive, leaving the dialog room to breathe. And the dialog is what makes this film work. As mentioned before, it is very much rooted in Bengali colloquialisms and cultural references. And this is also what makes the film weak for non-Bengali-speaking viewers...generously helped by the dismal subtitling. The nuances are hard to translate to begging with, but it's even harder to worse job than is done here (see below).

**Minor spoilers through quotes**

One major gripe remains the quality of subtitles, though (which is surprising a big problem with so many Indian films). Even if you leave aside inane translations that rip out every nuance from the dialog (e.g. 'dhoNra saap dhoNra saap-i thakbe' -- 'a poison-less snake will always remain so'-- is subtitled as 'our husband is a poison-less snake...') they even manage to screw up the subtitling of the __English__ dialogs!!! Those are more jarring since often the English narration happens with little action on the screen, which makes it hard to ignore the subtitles. And the sad part is that so little of it comes from typos! Which means that this is meticulously created nonsense, not a result of carelessness. Here are a few gems: onerous --> 'honorous'??? excess --> access intent --> intend saw --> so 'i thought to see great things' --> 'i thought the secret things'

Also, who knows why they have to translate 'barbaric ritual' to a 'power-packed ritual'? Audience sensitivity? I suppose that the Bengali audiences watching without subtitles are unlikely to understand the spoken English , while you are asking for trouble once you write it out in the subtitle?

Perhaps it all comes from an underpaid frustrated subtitle-writer trying to extract revenge, or maybe to covet glory by adding an extra comical layer to what is, left to itself, just a nuanced, multi-layered, intelligent, provocative, powerful and yes, funny, film.

The dark secrets in a zameendar's mansion

[Chrysanthepop · 20 October 2007]

Ghosh's 'Antarmahal' takes us to the inner chambers of a Zameendar's mansion, that is filled with dark and bizarre sexual secrets. Most of the stunning screenplay takes place in the house. Through colourful images and words we are hinted with hidden messages left for us to discover. The background score is haunting. The subtle portrayal of the events (especially the rituals) is disturbing indeed. The film does have its light moments which are conveyed through dark humour. The women are mere sex objects and their use is to produce an heir. Due to the fact that the zameendar is unable to conceive with his first wife, he brings a second wife (and has a mistress) but remains unable to conceive with either women. Then, taking the advice of priests the zameendar engages in bizarre sexual rituals with his women. In term of performances, Roopali Ganguli (the first wife) steals the show. Roopali brings the first wife's mischievous pranks and her wisdom with a certain class and frivolity while Soha does it by bringing out the naivety and innocence of the second wife. However, the dubbed voice hinders her performance. Jackie Shroff is adequately frightening as the evil Zameendar. Yet he also brings a human quality in the scenes where he questions his actions. Abhishek Bachchan is hardly impressive. 'Antarmahal' is indeed a very disturbing film and it demands that the viewer be able to absorb the subject but it is worth watching.

An interesting, suggestive film

[umuhajir · 7/10 · 1 September 2006]

On the evidence of three prior films of his that I had seen, Rituparno Ghosh is a master at making films that are conceptually suggestive, but leave the viewer disappointed. Utsab, the tale of a dysfunctional family gathered in the parental home was perhaps the best, but was nevertheless marred by a flatness, and an often uncinematic sensibility on Ghosh's part; Chokher Bali could have been the best, except Ghosh in his wisdom decided to mutilate the film by about 40 minutes in its Western and Hindi release (the three hour version released in West Bengal is unavailable on DVD), with the result that the film promises much but feels truncated, and is light on the political -- unforgivable when one considers the explicit concerns of the Tagore novel on which it was based -- with the result that the film seems to be "about" the widow at its core (played with assurance, but not the requisite passion, by Aishwariya Rai), not the subjugated but awakening India Tagore likened her to; Raincoat was an embarrassment, and although Ghosh's adaptation of O. Henry's short story The Gift contained some affecting moments, including some (odd as this sounds) compelling sentimentality, it conveyed the distinctly uncinematic sense of a stage play that had been filmed. Not even a soulful soundtrack and one of Aishwariya Rai's most memorable performances (hard though it is to imagine her as a woman who is "past it", Ghosh turns her Bollywood persona inside out in portraying her as a malfunctioning flesh-and-blood marionette) could save this film, and the less said about Ghosh-the-director here, the better. (Confession: I, um, own the DVD, though don't ask me why).

I thus approached his latest offering with a fair bit of trepidation. I needn't have: Antarmahal: Views of the Inner Chamber is a strange, and strangely compelling film, unforgettable because of its evocation of the sordid impact of colonialism on even the "inner chamber" of the sacred.

continued at: http://qalandari.blogspot.com/2006/07/antarmahal-bengali-2005.html

Something different for me...

[anonymili · 10/10 · 7 January 2007]

Some amazing acting portrayed by all of the leads, especially from the older and younger wives. An intricate story set within the confines of one residence but you do not feel claustrophobic at all due to the clever cinematography and engaging storyline.

A rich landowner in 19th century Bengal has married for the 2nd time after his 1st wife hasn't been able to give him a child (more specifically a son) after 12 years of marriage. His 2nd wife is unable to produce a child either. Not even thinking that he might be the one lacking in fertility he tries taking advice from priests on how to get an heir. Also, he's trying to get a title from the viceroy so his plan is to replace the goddess Durga's face with Queen Victoria so he's bought in a young virile sculptor to do this task.

I found a lot of black humour in this film, I'm not sure, though, that it was intentional. I wasn't sure what to expect at the start of the film as I haven't watched a Bengali film for maybe 20 years. This pretty much changed my views of Bengali film-making but the ending of the film left me feeling angry and depressed and also somewhat happy if that's possible!

"can be watched as a double feature with 'Devi'"

[smkbsws · 7/10 · 16 September 2020]

Ghosh adapted this story from a short story 'Pratima' by Tarashankar Bandopadhyay. Set in a British ruled Indian village during Durga Pooja, this movie tells the story of the position of a woman and an outsider in superstition-infested bengal. To to bring this again and again, but not telling about the awesome dubbing would not be justified for this movie especially, where the majority of the cast was from the hindi film industry. Two things can be suggested here. This movie has some shocking scenes which rocked the namby pamby facade of the then bengali film critics and their self made taboos. Secondly, this can be watched as a double feature with 'Devi' by Satyajit Ray because of the thematic connections.

Watch it if you must, but avoid it if you can.

[shariqq · 1/10 · 12 May 2006]

I guess this etches in stone that I **WILL NOT EVER** watch a Rituparno Ghosh movie ever again.

Antarmahal is not as bad as Raincoat, but it does nothing, absolutely nothing to prove that Raincoat was a misstep by a *gifted* director. This man is a HACK. A fraud marauding under the guise of an artist. Either that, or it is some form of modern/classical-art that I can't seem to understand.

The movie is put together well, the performances are decent but after a very predictable ending, I am left only with a feeling I have been made a fool.

The movie tries to enter unconventional territory (for Indian cinema) by touching on subjects of Voyeurism, bestiality & Menstrual sex - but all in an exploitive way that makes one think "Why is this a part of the movie?".

And we've all seen Jackie Shroff perform a lot better than this. Just pick Gardish.

Disgraceful - avoid at any cost

[ani218122 · 1/10 · 7 May 2023]

This is by far the worst film of the filmmaker. Probably a pivotal point in his career when he became obsessed with sex mania and the need to gratify the same on the screen. It is difficult to sit through the film. One just cannot connect with the characters, even though a lot of things happen in the film. Voyeurism, sex mania, focusing on anything that could cause titillation, you have it all. The worst part is imparting a completely different angle and shade to a nice story by Tarashankar Banerjee. He must have turned in his grave had he been buried.

You would run out of negative adjectives in defining the film. To summarize - Disgraceful. Distasteful.