I'm an aspiring filmmaker looking forward to making my own film. For the last couple of days, I've been reading interesting things about the film "Bachelor" in your daily. Before saying something on Mr. Rifat Mahbub's letter, I would like to admit that "Bachelor" inspired me a lot as an aspiring filmmaker. To sharpen my edges, I've participated in a number of film workshops here and there. To be very honest, those workshops rather made me more confused. But watching "Bachelor" gave me the boost! This is the first time I realised that films with much more psychological complexities and layers can be made in Bangladesh too. "Bachelor" captured the reality of life in a rather unpretentious way which is quite unusual in our cinema (only exception so far I've seen is Matir Moina by Tareq Masud). All the performers excepting Shabnur gave a real good performance. For me the most interesting feature is the structure of the film! The whole film ends up where it has started from; completing the circle.

Now I would like to say something on Mr. Rifat's letter. He wrote that there was no climax -- anticlimax and it gives us an essence of a tele-film. It's a funny and vague conclusion altogether! If a film can be called tele-film for not having so-called climax and anti-climax, so many of the world classics will have to be dubbed as tele-films! The meaning of climax surely varies from one filmmaker to another. What it means for Bunuel does not necessarily match with what it means for Kiarostamy. Every filmmaker has a very own style of seeing and showing things. Mr. Rifat's letter carried some more irrelevant comments like 'the other characters are not fully portrayed and some of the characters are dropped behind (like Arman Parvez Murad)', 'only Opi mysteriously vanishes and is replaced by Shabnoor' etc.

I only want to say these are all very personal observations with which so many people might not agree and these have a little to do with the quality of the film. Film is not about the equal right of presence! Anyway, for us, all the characters are strongly vivid!

A lot of attention has been heaped on "Bachelor", a film released recently. Some liked it, and others did not. However, regardless of whether they liked it or not, people felt compelled to air their opinion about it. The film has definitely succeeded in causing a stir among the Bangla speaking people of the region covered by satellite TV. In other words, "love it or hate it, you cannot ignore it". Can you say the same about any other Bangladeshi movie in recent times?

Showing the film on a satellite channel suggests that the makers of the movie wanted their product to be seen by the highest number of Bangla speaking people. Sort of like a free sample. As a business ploy, I think this has definitely worked. Any film made in the future by the makers of "Bachelor" will be worth watching. Not being much of a moviegoer, I myself watched the movie on TV. I liked it, despite the disturbing commercial breaks. It has been handled well. The editing is very good. I would have liked it even better if the movie had ended at the point where the hero renews his relation with an old acquaintance of the opposite sex, with his wife totally ignorant about it. The end would then have been more in keeping with the general mood of the film.

The purpose of a film is to entertain. Entertainment however can have different meanings for people of different socio-economic backgrounds. Satyajit Ray's Jalsaghar, for instance can captivate, only, an audience interested in cinematic perfection, but the average man on the street (anywhere in the world) will be bored by it, and feel that he has been taken for a ride. The success of a film depends partially on the extent to which the audience can identify with the characters. We are or have been young at some point or other in time. The characters in "Bachelor" are real. We can all identify with them. But that does not mean that everybody has to like the movie. With appropriate sub-titles, however, it has the potential to be appreciated by audiences throughout the world. Why then, can we not call it a film of international standard?

Movie lover, On e-mail