Ek doctor ki maut (1991)

एक डाक्टर की मौत

Some people dismiss Indian art films as ponderous and boring.  I'm usually an enthusiastic cheerleader for art cinema - the more variety of films available the better.  If I wanted to convince a mainstream film-lover that art films weren't ponderous, though, Ek doctor ki maut ("Death of a doctor") would not be the place to start.  This tale of a maverick scientist going up against the establishment just falls flat. 

Dipankar Roy (Pankaj Kapur) is a physician who practices in a government hospital.  He's not that interested in clinical medicine, though - his passion is his research on a vaccine for leprosy.  He works into the wee hours - to the chagrin of his long-suffering wife Seema (Shabana Azmi) - in a tiny makeshift lab in his home.  Huddled amongst the caged lab animals, dusty reference volumes, and burbling beakers, Roy toils away night after night, his work punctuated by verbal sparring matches with Seema.  One day he has a breakthrough - he has discovered that females inoculated with his compound give birth to offspring immune to leprosy, and what's more, the compound has a secondary effect of reversing certain kinds of sterility in females.   His results are published by an eager science reporter (Irrfan Khan), but the reception in the scientific community is chillier than Roy anticipated.  Specialists in leprosy are skeptical of his findings, and gynecologists are incensed by his speculation that the compound may treat sterility.  Instead of getting a fair hearing for his work, Roy is shut down by his superiors in the health ministry, cut off from his work, forbidden to share it with the international medical community, and transferred to a remote village. 

That sounds like a pretty good story, and having summarized it just now I am struggling to understand why the film in execution is so gratingly dull.  Part of the problem lies in script and direction.  The film is shot in a hyper-realistic, hyper-literal style; there is no artistic camera work, no symbolism, nothing to layer the dialogue or add depth or allegory to the events unfolding on the screen.  It is more like reading a newspaper article than watching a piece of cinematic art.  And, like a newspaper article, Ek doctor ki maut presents its events in words - Roy explains his results to his friends; Seema orates her frustrations with her marriage, puts her threat to leave Roy in a letter, and then expounds, in words, on why she decides to stay.  All the verbiage smothers the lovely, subtle performances of both Pankaj Kapur and Shabana Azmi, the latter especially; she seems to want to show Seema's conflict in body language in the kind of performance that she can give better than anyone, but the script won't let her stop talking long enough to do it. 

Stylistic matters aside, as a former scientist, I was nonplussed by the film's treatment of the process of scientific discovery and review.  In the U.S., when scientists choose to present their work via the press rather than in a peer-reviewed publication,  they frequently meet with a skeptical response - not without reason, as illustrated by Fleischmann and Pons's now infamous announcement of cold fusion.  So I don't perceive any great injustice in the response in the medical community's circumspect reaction to Roy's self-published results.  This leaves me somewhat at a loss to interpret the message of Ek doctor ki maut.  Perhaps the practice of scientific research is different in India from my own experience, so that in the film's context it's clearer just what is being criticized.  To my eye, though, other researchers are justified in viewing Roy with some suspicion; he appears to be more eccentric than not, puttering in a makeshift homemade laboratory, forgoing  peer review, and lashing out in anger at any who dare challenge him. 

Ek doctor ki maut is not all bad; I've mentioned the delicacy of the actors' performances, and there were a few excellent moments shining in the film's bland substrate.  In one excellent sequence, Roy steals Seema's sterno cooker out from under her when he runs out of propane for his Bunsen burner; later, he predictably scolds her for failing to cook his dinner, and the skirmish is a poignant microcosm of their entire relationship.  And in the closest thing to a character arc there is in the film, Roy later demonstrates a growing awareness of his reliance on Seema and her need for some reciprocation.   This is best shown in several tender interactions between  them, one during her visit after his exile to village practice, and another in the film's final scene.  If the rest of the film had been handled as delicately, Ek doctor ki maut might have felt less like two hours of squandered potential. 

(Ek doctor ki maut is available for download at Jaman.  Also please see this post at Sounds Like Power for a more Shabana-centric look at the film.)

Comments

[Akshay Shah]

Fabulous review as always! I haven't actually seen this one, though I'm inclined to check it out soon as this is one of the few Pankuj Kapur movies I haven't seen.

Great choice of films to review Filmigeek, looking forward to your next:-)

Have posted this on NG too

A.Shah

[a PPCC representative]

Ooh, while the flick doesn't seem wonderful, the fact that I learned about Jaman from this post does! Excellent blog; I can't believe there's this whole big world of Bollywood review blogs out there that I didn't know about until you and Beth commented on some of my reviews! Thanks!

[carla]

PPCC, I'm glad we discovered you too. Rock on with your fantastic blog.

[Maajhi]

Very evocative lines. You have a great way with words. I actually read through the end of your review of this dumb movie haha.

"He works into the wee hours - to the chagrin of his long-suffering wife Seema (Shabana Azmi) - in a tiny makeshift lab in his home. Huddled amongst the caged lab animals, dusty reference volumes, and burbling beakers, Roy toils away night after night, his work punctuated by verbal sparring matches with Seema."

Very well written review as usual.

[carla]

Thanks Maajhi - I remarked to my husband as I wrote this one that I rather prefer reviewing movies I dislike to reviewing movies I like - it's sometimes easier for me to come up with turns of phrase when I'm criticizing something. I wonder what that says about me ...

[Vikrant]

I recently stumbled upon this site. I'm impressed by your amazing film list and reviews. However, I think for EDKM your criticism is slightly misplaced. Allow me to put my point forward. I hope you don't mind.

"..I don't perceive any great injustice in the response in the medical community's circumspect reaction to Roy's self-published results. This leaves me somewhat at a loss to interpret the message of Ek doctor ki maut. Perhaps the practice of scientific research is different in India from my own experience, so that in the film's context it's clearer just what is being criticized."

>. No, the practice of scientific research is not different in India.

IMHO, I think this movie need to be evaluated in the correct context. Tapan Sinha was largely inspired by a rather tragic true event in Indian scientific community. Death of Dr. Subhas Mukhopadhyay. Let me just quote the Wiki for the real event:
"Both Dr Mukhopadhyay and British scientists Robert G Edwards and Patrick Steptoe - creators of the world's first test-tube baby - started work at the same time. The Indian baby was born on October 3, 1978, just 67 days after Marie Louise Brown was born.
The ICMR recently acknowledged that Dr Mukhopadhyay was the creator of India's first test-tube baby. But he was prevented from carrying out further work on in vitro fertilisation and transferred away from Kolkata. He was also prevented from going to Tokyo to present a paper. Frustrated and in failing health, Mukhopadhyay killed himself on June 19, 1981."

EDKM was Tapan Sinha's rant against the system. Granted, the pace of the film was a bit slow but I think I like it all the more for Tapan Sinha's uncompromising and almost honest treatment of the subject. It had its share of symbolism and beautiful scenes. One of my favorite scene is when Pankaj Kapoor expresses his regret for the sufferings of the animals in his lab to Shabana. If you watch Shabana's face closely it conveys gamut of emotions...its like she is crying and screaming and telling him that you feel that for these animals but what about me? All these without a single dialog. The film has several such nuanced scenes and of course brilliant performances by Shabana Azmi and Pankaj Kapoor.
However I do have a few complains about the film mostly structural.
Personally I found Irfan Khan's character a bit annoying. I can see that he was used as a narrative device to convey the state of science in India...but I think his character could have been better etched out.

I had a problem with the ending. I understand that Sinha had to change the research field from test tube baby to Leprosy for several reasons (i.e. to avoid controversy, budget, easier to shoot etc) but I think he shouldn't have changed the ending.

IMO, the message of EKDM was to remind the Indian society of that tragic event and ...it was against the corrupt and at times incompetent system and other people's mentality of pulling down those who are making genuine advance in research field. Dr. Roy only complained about not being given the chance to prove his work. He didn't ask for the community to readily accept his claim but just an opportunity to work further to prove it and he was denied that and hence his frustration.

[carla]

Vikrant, thank you so much for that thoughtful, informative, and thorough comment. I hope to see your comments on some of the other films I've talked about too, and I look forward to dialoguing with you about them.

I think we are in basic agreements about some points of the film. I too thought the performances were quite excellent - I only said they were squandered in some of the script's weaker moments. I also agree that the film contained some poignant symbolism; I just wish Sinha would have let those moments speak for themselves without all the talky and unnecessary exposition.

I do appreciate your recounting of the tragic story upon which EDKM was based. But it doesn't address my basic confusion about the way science was presented in the film. The fact is that when scientists work outside the peer structure of their profession, it's no great surprise when they aren't taken seriously. That, above all else, is what ruined the film for me.

[Vikrant]

Thank you for your response.

"The fact is that when scientists work outside the peer structure of their profession, it's no great surprise when they aren't taken seriously."

I think I understand your point correctly now. I agree with you (Tesla comes to my mind).
From my limited reading on scientific research and scientist of that time (1970s and 80s), I think, there were very few research labs and there was no proper and accepted peer structure(especially for research in medicine). So, scientists like Dr. Roy were maverick not out of choice but out of situation.

Coming back to EDKM, Dr. Roy only speculated about his research out of excitement. Unfortunately it got published with sensationalized interpretation by a journalist (Irfan). I think that was a classic case of miscommunication.
Besides, it was not that expert researchers disputed his work, it was disputed by some practicing gynecs etc. Dr. Roy made these point couple of times in the later half the film.

Now, that you made me think of it a bit more objectively, I agree some of the scenes were a bit crude and overly dramatized. I am a bit biased I think. For someone in India to make a reasonably realistic film on a scientist is just a rare event and I am just in awe of the effort, however flawed.

Bottom line is: you are looking at it from more objective view point (I think thats how it should be for a reviewer) where as I am more subjective as I feel for Dr. Roy's situation and hence I find reasons to support him.

[carla]

Vikrant, I am glad you are here and commenting. :) You are making me want to see EDKM again, and try to think about it from a more sympathetic perspective. You have a fair point that some of the blame for the sensationalist handling of Dr. Roy's work goes to the journalist who publicized it. I suppose the quick and respectful recognition by the foreign scientists of Dr. Roy's work was meant to allay any concerns that people like me had about his apparent crackpottishness.

[mlost]

HAHAHAHAHAAHA ROFL

This is one of the most craziest review, I've ever read. Bhaisahab, US of A chodd ke india aao and then think from the perspective here. This is one of the most honest films ever made in India.

Waise jise jo karna tha karr raha hai karega, aap log starbucks mein baith ke coffe piyo aur movie review karo...

In short marate raho.........

[carla]

Thanks for the thoughtful and insightful comment, mlost.

[Reshma]

To begin with, I haven't watched this movie, although I've wanted to for ages. I'm a research student in biochemistry at an Indian university, so I can comment about the appalling way researchers can be treated here with some authority. I think that more often than not, it is easier to conduct one's own research privately in India as the whole process is thoroughly entangled in red tape (it took me a year to register my topic, and it was completely free on any ethical ambiguities). The cost of materials is also pretty low and we are used to doing without "luxuries" like diposable agar plates and mol bio kits that people in developed nations take for granted, so not only are we experts in "jugaad", making things easier on ourselves with the little we have, but our research can be completed at a fraction of the cost. Hence it is quite possible to do some very meaningful research at home. Sometimes in fact it is easier. It also helps that no one cares about hazards and safety. I've seen spent used PAGE gels thrown into the sink!

The whole point is that if one wants to publish path-breaking work through normal channels like peer-reviewed academic journals, one has to contend with jealous colleagues and nasty, often incompetent superiors (genrally administrators) who are completely unqualified to interfere in any research work. The audacity of a person willing to disregard the system to actually progress in his field annoys them. While I think jealousy is probably a universal problem, it is much more severe in India, especially in Bengal, where scientific progress seems to be systematically stifled by the State.

As Vikrant had commented, this movie was based on the suicide of Dr. Roy, one of the finest minds that India produced. From your review, however, it seems as if the movie did not do justice to this tragedy. I hope they make a better one, though I hardly think any of this posthumous recognition will matter to him.

[carla]

Hello Reshma,

Thank you so much for your comments. I especially appreciate your front-lines perspective on biomedical research in India.

Are there many cases of researchers going around the peer-review process and using the press to publicize their results? How are such researchers received within the scientific community, generally? As I said in my earlier comments, what confused me most about the film was that it was supposed to be shocking that scientists were so skeptical of Roy's work. But, I did try to allow for the possibility that I wasn't coming at it with the right perspective.

You correctly note that jealous peer reviewers (who are of course scientific competitors by definition) and incompetent bureaucracy are universal problems, but I am ready to take your word that they are particularly difficult problems in India. By the way, the state of scientific research is backsliding in the US. Government funds are becoming scarcer and scarcer - hence more conservatism in grant-seeking and more back-biting by competitors/reviewers. And in your field, more and more research is under corporate sponsorship, which has dangerous implications for ethics and scientific freedom. It's a bad scene.

As for the movie - as I said above, I am harder on films that waste potential than I am on movies that are just bad out of the gate. *Ek Doctor ki Maut* was not a bad movie by any stretch. And especially for you, as a bioscience researcher, I do think it's worth seeing. It has a few warts which kept it from being an outstanding film - but it also has a few splendid moments which go a long way to redeeming it.

[Reshma]

Hello Carla,

It is quite unusual for people to publish outside the peer review process, but work is often done privately (but generally remains unpublished). I have seen several instances of this. This is because research in these cases is done mainly for entrepreneural reasons.

Naturally, if any scientist leaks a story (especially a path breaking one) to the press directly, it will be met with scepticism, a healthy habit, and India is no exception. Hence this is rarely done, unless a team of researchers at a university or research lab want to announce their findings, in which case, a paper is sent parallely to a peer reviewed journal. However, after publication of such stories, the scientific community generally does invesigate them, and does not ostracize and humiliate the scientist/s concerned.

In this case however, the bureaucracy was at fault. Dr. Mukhopadhyay's work was not evaluated by researchers but physicaians, with very little knowledge of scientific research. This is because, in India one can apply for a medical degree directly after high school (five year course + a year's internship), so there is no grounding in a pre-med course, with any research techniques or research protocols as such. The primary function of doctors here is health care not research, though thanks to the booming pharma industry many doctors today are looking at research oriented careers.

One must note that the international scientific community did take his claims seriously, but he wasn't allowed by the government to travel abroad to present his findings. They were just being nasty. He'd probably have done the work at his own expense too. No wonder the poor chap killed himself.