Dev.D (2009)

I almost gave up on Anurag Kashyap's Dev.D after the first half hour, when it threatened to be just another retread of the classic Devdas story - a story of a pathetic, unredeemable narcissist, a story that never resonated with me.  I was well rewarded for sticking with it.  This new adaptation makes some adjustments that, while small, nevertheless yield a far more satifying film Sanjay Leela Bhansali's execrable 2002 version.

The story of Dev.D is familiar, as Devdas is a Bengali tale that has been told many times both in Hindi film and in other Indian cinemas.  Dev and Paro are childhood friends, separated when Dev's family sends him to school abroad.  They remain in touch through his long exile, and upon his return, the young adult Dev (Abhay Deol) and Paro (Mahie Gill) find that their friendship has developed into strong romantic attraction.  They intend to marry, but social forces intervene.  In this version, Paro is led to doubt that Dev will want her because her family is of lower status than his, while Dev overhears an angry servant telling salacious tales about Paro and, electing to believe them, rejects her.  Paro marries a widower selected by her family, and Dev falls into a deep drug- and alcohol-fueled despair, in the company of a prostitute called Chanda (Kalki Koechlin), who cares for him despite his narcissism and his rage.

It is in the treatment of Dev's relationship with Chanda (Chandramukhi in more traditional versions of the story) that Kashyap's Dev.D improves over earlier renderings of the tale.  Chanda is given a heartbreaking backstory that offers her some substance and helps motivate her warmth for Dev.  And Dev, for a change, is permitted an arc; in contrast to the simpering, unchanging pile of misery in Bhansali's film, here he grows in Chanda's care.  Chanda analyzes Dev, seeing that he loved the idea of possessing Paro more than he loved Paro herself.  The film's best moments come when Chanda confronts Dev with his narcissism; he accepts her insight and evolves in response to it.

In addressing, rather than indulging, the flaws of Dev's character, Dev.D is elevated.  It is not merely a gritty retelling of the old tale, dressed up with frank sexuality, coarse language, and a rock soundtrack.  Instead, it's a touching and mostly believable story of two damaged people finding each other in the darkness of their anguished lives.  Paro is sidelined, compared to other tellings of the tale, but she isn't missed; the story is Dev's and Chanda's.  And when Paro does reappear in the film's second half, she too has grown; instead of wasting herself pining for Dev, she takes a maternal pity on him.  The result of giving these young characters a chance to develop is that Dev.D advances the Devdas legacy.  Like its characters, Dev.D learns from history, rather than wallowing in it. 

Comments

[Meera]

Welcome Back Carla!

[shweta]

Hear hear!

Good to see you back, and gr8 to see you appreciate Dev D

[DG]

Great to see a new review here, Carla! Welcome back!

[bollywooddeewana]

Vah vah vah great review, i still haven't seen this, but i'm sure i'll like the new modern twist on the tale as i've seen both Bimal Roy's and Sanjay's one. Great to have you back..........xx

[Virginia]

Great to have a new Carla review to read and engage with, and in particular I am so happy to have you aboard what is for me the ongoing Devdas conversation.
.
Agree it is not just a retelling with sex & drugs stuck in. Also think that except for the change in Dev (a big "except"), it's not unfaithful to the psychological themes that are in the story (D. more of a jerk than a victim, etc).
.
Hadn't been able to decide on whether or not Kashyup's imagining of a different ending works for me, but your take is persuasive, Carla!!

[bollyviewer]

Welcome back to the blogging world!

I agree with your take on the modern twist to Devdas - it certainly makes Dev D a watchable film which none of the earlier versions (I havent seen the Bimal Roy one) were. I just wish Kashyap had used a lighter hand with Hard-Rock-Cafe photography. My eyes could have done without the blue/red/green filters.

[yves]

Hi Carla, welcome back! Nice to have your take on that 5th (I think) version of Devdas! You're right of course about SLB's version... even if it was sweet, it was like too syrupy-sweet. Am I right or is that 2009 version more like salty?

[memsaab]

I'm sorry I missed the viewing! I hate Devdas but maybe this one I could tolerate :)

[carla]

Thanks everyone - good to be back. I'm hopeful that I'll have the energy and focus to write somewhat regularly again.

memsaab, I hate Devdas too - those who were there can attest I almost lost it about a half an hour in, yelping "I don't think I can make it through another Devdas story!" But it really did get better.

Yves: I don't think there was anything sweet about Bhansali's Devdas. This version wasn't so much saltier as it was just more of a story - characters grew and changed from beginning to end. Bhansali may have intended to tie his larger-than-life archetypes to some kind of grand theme but his film was an embarrassing mess that utterly failed to do that.

Bollyviewer: fair point about the photography. :)

Virginia: You are exactly right. I think what impresses me most about Kashyap's film is how relatively small the changes are that he made to the story, addressing all of the problems that made earlier versions so annoying and yet remaining true to what earlier versions tried (and failed) to say about the human condition.

[VIRGINIA]

I think this - that story, whoever tells it, engages this question - how responsible is that guy for the mess that was his life? that's a thing you (Okay, I) have to think about when you read it or see it.

In this one maybe this is true - Kashyup lands Dev D with a few more responsibility points, percentage-wise -- father/society not really in the way, etc -- and also allows him a few more points of personal effectiveness by the end of the movie.

[Nida]

Hello Carla! Great to have you back.

Thank you for watching Dev D in the first place--Knowing your feelings on the Devdas story, it was very kind of you to give this one a try for those of us that wanted to see it :)

As for the film, you've made so many great points. I agree that the film seemed to be the one Devdas version that recognized all the things that were so despicable in the original story, and veered from them towards a more positive direction. Nice since it seemed as if the story's popularity reflected acceptance of Devdas' jerkiness without consequence.

I'm still keeping my fingers crossed that the next Devdas version will be a whole film dedicated to Chandramuki with Devdas as a mere supporting character.

[maxqnz]

It is a real delight to see you posting again, Carla, welcome back! I guess that means your transitional phase in meatspace has gone well, and that's great news. Thanks too for starting with Dev D. I have been wondering whether to bother with it for quite a while, and I think your review has tipped me over the edge. A serious question, though in relation to the comments above about the photography: Is there anything in it the strobe-sensitive should avoid?

[Kaushik Chatterji]

Can't say I agree - the reasons for Dev's downfall are so explicitly detailed, you cannot ever feel sorry for him. And even though Chanda's back-story is interesting (although given the inspiration, not creative at all), the film's tone - including the excessive stylization and the predominant humorous dialogue - does not let one develop any manner of emotional connection with any of the characters.

http://hand-signals.blogspot.com/2009/05/dev-d.html

[maxqnz]

" you cannot ever feel sorry for him." "... does not let one develop any manner of emotional connection with any of the characters."

For me, both these statements are true of the ridiculously overblown and thoroughly noxious abomination that was SLBs Devdas so it will be interesting to see if I react similarly to Dev D. If I can find here in Aotearoa, that is.

[Kaushik Chatterji]

" you cannot ever feel sorry for him." "... does not let one develop any manner of emotional connection with any of the characters."

For me, both these statements are true of the ridiculously overblown and thoroughly noxious abomination that was SLBs Devdas

Sorry mate, never saw that. You know it's based on a classic whose story is well known and that it's been made several times in its original language as well as Hindi.

[maxqnz]

Kaushik, don't be sorry you never saw the SLB version, be VERY, VERY happy. I am familiar with the history of the Bangla story. I haven't seen any Bangla film versions, or even Bimal Roy's 1955 Hindi version. The basic storyline is unappealing to me, which is why I was interested in Carla's review of this version. Perhaps if I could read Bangla, the written original might grab me, but the film versions don't, til date. :)

[VIRGINIA]

Devdas holds my interest in all versions, but not my affections or emotions. He's an interesting character to me, not a loveable one. A major reason is that he is like a real person in that you cannot attribute his actions to a single cause.

[carla]

Nida: I would love to see a film all about Chandramukhi - what a treat that would be, whether it uses Kashyap's imagining of her backstory or a different one.

Kaushik: Thanks for your comments. I don't think one needs to feel sorry for Dev; and I don't, even in this telling of the tale. But I appreciate that he undergoes some change and develops a shred of remorse; it makes a more compelling tale than versions in which he is an unredeemable, abusive slob from end to end.

Virginia puts it well: interesting, but not necessarily loveable.

[Shalini]

I have to admit I've avoided watching "Dev D" because I really take another film on Devdas, but your review has persuaded me otherwise. No, sorry, I'm lying:-)- really don't have it in me to sit through another take of the tale.