Chiriyakhana (1967) Poster

(1967)

User Reviews

Review this title
13 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
A Byomkesh Story, Conceived By The Creator Of Feluda
(Reviewed on the basis of watching on T.V. 36 years after release)

Plot: An ex-judge Nishanath Sen, invites the famous sleuth Byomkesh Bakshi and his associate Ajit to his residential colony. The colony is inhabited by peculiar people most of whom are social outcasts; and hence has got the name 'chiriyakhana' (zoo). Nishanath also asks Byomkesh to inquire about all the details of a singer-cum-heroine of an erstwhile Bengali film. Soon, news arrives that Nishanath has been brutally murdered in his colony. Will Byomkesh be able to nab the culprit from among the weird residents of the 'chiriyakhana'?

Review:Byomkesh Bakshi, the dhoti-panjabi clad Bangalee gentleman sleuth who prefers to call himself a 'satyanneshi', has been a household favourite since being introduced by Sharadindu Bannerjee in the 1930's. As a result when it was announced that Uttam Kumar and Satyajit Ray, the greatest star and director in the history of Bengali cinema respectively would again join forces one year after the classic 'Nayak' (1966) to bring one of the biggest Byomkesh-bestsellers 'Chiriyakhana' onto the big-screen; expectations were bound to be sky-high. Were the expectations fulfilled? Depends on whether the viewer is a Byomkesh fan or not.

If one is a die-hard fan of the 'satyanneshi'-stories and expects to see an equal reflection of the sleuth in Uttam Kumar; then there is a clear word of advice: STAY FAR AWAY! For it should be made clear at the beginning itself that barring the title of the story and names of the characters, the whole story and characterizations have been altered inside-out by the director, including Byomkesh and his accomplice Ajit. This Byomkesh is a complete Ray-product bearing no stamp of Sharadindu.

Let us start from the beginning. A unique charm and specialty about Byomkesh has been the fact that he is married, is a father and is as worldly-minded like any common Bangalee; and yet he never allows that to be a hindrance to his profession. This makes his task more challenging than a Sherlock Holmes or a Feluda. But Ray models Byomkesh on his own creation Feluda and makes him a bachelor. Instead the forever-bachelor Ajit becomes a married man here. Another shock which the viewers are exposed to right at the start is Basuki, a snake which has been domesticated by the on-screen Byomkesh but would have been unimaginable for the literary Byomkesh who is a common family-man. So was the skeleton, hanging in his study. Whatever remaining expectations of any similarities are thoroughly crushed when our Bangalee 'satyanneshi' proudly acknowledges his taste for everything and accepts a glass of whiskey from a colourful host! This trait was undoubtedly drawn by Ray from the Western spies and clearly established the fact that this Byomkesh is not a conventional Bangalee 'gentleman'. Although we don't know much about the literary Byomkesh's taste for cinema; it was hilarious to see the 'Mahanayak' expressing his abject disapproval for contemporary Bengali cinema, especially after 'Nayak' a year back. Another interesting point is the camaraderie between Byomkesh and Ajit where they alternately address each other as both 'tumi' and 'tui'; while in the books it's always strictly 'tumi' even after years of acquaintance.

For fans of the novel also it could be a huge disappointment. It's adequate to say, it would be much easier to mark the similarities, than to point out the differences! But if one is willing to ignore the novel, then one must applaud the director for weaving a totally different story from someone else's premise and characters and yet delivering quiet an engaging whodunit-thriller. It's still tough to understand the reason why anyone should tamper with a perfectly fine story, give it his own shape and still give its credit to the original writer! A viewer ignorant of the novel, would praise or criticise Sharadindu if he likes or dislikes the film-story; where else in reality it's Ray who should be held accountable for both.

Ray takes all liberties in molding his Byomkesh and soon the viewers also begin to enjoy the fun. Amidst the barrage of alterations, there is one sequence where the director must be patted on the back for wriggling out of a really dilemma-tic situation. In the novel, the main culprit passes on a cyanide ampule to his wife by engaging in a long lip-lock with her. It goes without saying such a sequence would have created a mass uproar back then; and yet Ray was not a director who would settle for a cheat-kiss. Hence, it was an indescribable relief when he steered clear of any such controversy and unearthed a climax which was wholly acceptable to a conservative family audience. A heart-felt thanks to the master for sparing me the blushes in front of my parents!

As for the performances, Uttam Kumar brought his heroic personality to the character just as Soumitra Chatterjee would go on to do for Feluda. Although he gave it a more serious touch sacrificing on the sense of humour of the literary avatar. It was amusing to see him in the get-up of a Japanese horticulturist Okakhora with the characteristic fleet- footed walk, besides portraying a Kabuliwala as well. The only odd point that strikes is Uttam's height, as Japanese are seldom so tall. Shailen Mukherjee as Ajit is good. He is quite funny when Byomkesh brings Basuki near him or when he asks Dr. Das fearfully if he had ever been to Japan. Chinmoy Roy was also quite funny in asking to take his photo or when he was doing a 'namashkar' while holding a pup all along. Special mention must be made of Subrota Mukherjee during the interrogation scene which was hilarious. Jahar Ganguly and the inspector were the others who impressed.

Overall, 'Chiriyakhana' is Ray's best thriller beating the two Feluda- adventures, which were based on his own story. It might even have been better if he had made this film outside the brand-Byomkesh. The die-hard 'satyanneshi' fans would surely agree.
3 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
"Oh yes, this movie has many sexy actresses"
smkbsws16 September 2020
Ray's second and last movie with Uttam Kumar. This is a story of Byomkesh Bakshi, which has been adapted at least 25 TV serials and films in different languages. Always a fan of detective novels, so I ignored the technical glitches in this. Also, the adaptation should be taught to the new directors who are making and remaking Byomkesh every year but afraid to change the story a little bit. Oh yes, this movie has many sexy actresses.
4 out of 5 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Deviated from the novel.
nilendu7 October 2006
Chiriyakhana is based on Sharadindu Bandopadhyay's famous detective novel of the same name. There was many a deviation from the novel just like the case in Ray's some other cinematic adaptations. The biggest one being, in the movie Byomkesh (the sleuth) is bachelor, his 'Watson' Ajit is married. During the movie events Byomkesh is shown to be living in a "mess bari". Ajit stays with him since his wife is out in Ghatsila. Secondly, the murders took place with a 'blunt instrument' (Ray's fascination with blunt instrument was also evident in some of his own detective stories with 'Feluda', namely 'Hatyapuri'). Also, in the movie Byomkesh is shown to wear disguise twice, none so was in the novel. Movie character Byomkesh has a pet baby python, keeps a human skeleton in his room and has no problem drinking scotch in the evening. Book character was fairly lazy to own a pet, too cerebral to actually study anatomy and in spite of being a habitual smoker, never drank. Not that I mind the cinematic deviations, but there should be a strong logic behind each. While I can understand the room being too drag without the skeleton and the snake -- I cannot get the point of Byomkesh being single. May be Ray's ideal sleuth was tall, cerebral and deliciously single as we see later in form of "Feluda".

Uttamkumar is just about average as Byomkesh. There are two weaknesses that would draw a lot of attention today. His mimic of a Japanese horticulturist is too over the top and secondly, his character was needlessly rough with the characters of the farm from very beginning.

Overall, this is one of Ray's average movies. It's surprising that this was awarded the best picture in 1967 in India and Uttam won the "Bharat" (India's then version of Oscar for best actor) award for his role.
6 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A gripping and interesting Byomkesh Bakshi detective thriller by Satyajit Ray is little hurt by couple of loose ends.
SAMTHEBESTEST30 April 2021
ChiriyaKhana / The Zoo (1967) : Brief Review -

A gripping and interesting Byomkesh Bakshi detective thriller by Satyajit Ray is little hurt by couple of loose ends. ChiriyaKhana was once considered Ray's worst film because of its complex plot and unfaithfulness to its source material, but by the time passed many intellectuals have praised the film. Even now i see many people calling it a weak film but why? I mean it isn't that bad. Especially when you consider a detective thriller in Bengali cinema in 60s, then Chiriyakhana is indeed a pretty much enjoyable flick. I myself would like to add some extra bashing for those couple of loose ends in the writing but that doesn't harm the entire product too much. Byomkesh Bakshi, a detective, is hired by a rich man to investigate the name of an actress appeared in a movie decades ago, who has eloped ever since. The case becomes complicated when the rich man is murdered by someone for that. The case becomes even more interesting and mysterious after the another murder and couple of unfolded events and someone who has seen lots of thriller from World Cinema would easily get the hint of the climax right there. However, the narrative stays intresting throughout the runtime. One of the major reason for that is its characters. So many characters, so many names, so many complexities and their affairs and you have to remember each one of them after just the soft and formal introduction. That is one hell of task for us viewers and if you can complete it then there's nothing complex for you in this film. Uttam Kumar as Bakshi is superb, fantastic, amazing and what, and the supporting cast is extremely good too. Ray's powerful storytelling keeps the film gripping and intense and if it wasn't for those couple of loose ends by the writer then ChiriyaKhana would have been a Classic for me. Nevertheless, it is still a great attempt and very much successful too.

RATING - 7/10*

By - #samthebestest.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Uttam Kumar compensates Weakness of Ray. The film is not that bad as criticised
cdebarun-126 December 2007
The original story was rather weak. 1 > It was never clear from the novel why Nishanath was interested about Sunayana. Ray at least tried to explain why Nishanath suspected the existence of Sunayan n the colony. 2 > The end of the novel was too dramatic, not much practical.

One more thing, at initial investigation Byomkesh was a bit rough with the inmates of colony, might be he was emotionally involved as he could not save client's life. Pythons, skeletons, etc. are shown to make the film more cinematic.

Strength of the movie: - 1 > Performance of Uttam Kumar, characterization was excellent. 2 > Performance of all the actors. 3 > Logical deductions and psychological analysis thru photo gallery. 4 > The theme seemed to be much practical with respect to the original story.

Weakness: - 1 > the progress of the movie was slow initially and suddenly gears up. the pace was not uniform.Ending was rather abrupt. 2 > Although Uttam Kumar tried his best, the idea of having a Japanese horticulturist. It was a bit comedy there, but overall Byomkesh was very serious throughout the movie. These two do not match. 3 > When Byomkesh was arriving in Mohanpur, it was initially a local train( no separate engine), but in the next shot it was shown that a separate engine is there. Anyhow, as this stays just for a second on the screen, the error does not have much impact 4 > When Byomkesh throws the key inside the taxi, he was too close to Dr. das. Byomkesh could have been easily noticed by Dr.Das.

Overall it was very enjoyable.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
The combination of a great actor and a great director
cdebarun6 May 2000
In this film, we find Uttam Kumar in a special character. This type of character is an exception or his romantic film image. His performance is excellent, or superb. On the other hand , it may not be one of the greatest of Satyajit Ray, but certainly a very good entertaining one, especially for those who likes mystery. The new ideas of Ray,the treatments , the scenario, the dialogues are excellent. The way in which the detective analyses the situation, carries out his action plan and at last catches the criminal is rarely found in Bengali movies. Also credit goes to the handsome Bengali hero with the great personality. The film is a milestone of Uttam Kumar's film career as he won Bharat Award for this film(and also for the film "Antony Firingee"). Uttam Kumar is the first hero in India who won this award, as far as I know.
2 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Synopsis of the movie
royamit200310 March 2010
Warning: Spoilers
Since synopsis of this movie was missing thought I will put that in for benefit of all. A deadly combination of a great director Satyajit Ray along with a legendary writer of all times (Bengali) Saradindu Banerjee (we used to love him when we were kids.... long long time ago!

Chiriyakhana is a Ray film rarely seen outside Bengal. A whodunit, the story revolves around a private detective Byomkesh Bakshi (Uttam Kumar) solving two murders.

The action takes place in a colony outside Calcutta, set up for the benefit of outcasts by a retired judge, who is also director of the colony. He contacts detective Byomkesh to conduct an investigation. The director is soon assassinated. This is followed with murder of a deaf-mute witness.

Trivia: This is not among the favorite films of great Ray which he directed
1 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Combination of Uttam kumar, Satyajit Ray and Saradindu Bandyopandhyay is too much !!
peter-11618 November 1998
This detective thriller portrays Uttam kumar as detective Byomkesh Bakshi -- the novel creation of Saradindu Bandyopadhyay. Satyajit Ray has mixed into it suspense, thrill, intrigue and subtle comedy.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Suave Portrayal of Bengal's Beloved Satyanweshi
Jini-B4 May 2020
I have watched a number of different renditions of Byomkesh Bakshi, especially over the last few years, and this has been one of the most stylish portrayals of the character. First things first, I feel this is one of the weaker plots in the Byomkesh series and there are some much greater stories in the series. So, going in, I was a little skeptical, but there are certain elements that have been added in this, which make it more interesting.

Second, Uttam Kumar's portrayal of Byomkesh was great. He captured the spirit and embellished it with his own nuances, which make it a very engrossing watch. The supporting cast were also quite good. I liked the chemistry between Byomkesh and Ajit. The direction was good, although the pace was a little choppy in parts. I also felt there were certain elements in the movie that weren't quite Byomkesh-like. The disguises, the gun, and the bachelorhood were in stark contrast to the actual book character, and were a little jarring. But overall, this movie was entertaining and fun.
1 out of 1 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
One of the worst movies of Mr. Ray
kanabuma21 October 2017
This movie is a disgrace to Satyajit Ray, my favorite director. Actually I watched this movie, after reading the novel Chiriakhana, by Saradindu Bandyopadhyay, the novel from which the movie was adapted. I couldn't watch the movie beyond one hour. Poor selection of characters, worst screenplay, a steep deviation from the original story, contributed to the failure of the movie. The original story by Bandyopadhyay, was one of the best detective stories ever written in Bengali, even in any Indian language.If Ray wanted to make an ordinary Indian, hero-centered mystery movie, he could have made such a movie. But destroying a splendid story like this is the most intolerable aspect in this movie. Those who had already read the novel, should avoid this movie.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
One of Ray's weaker films
sayoni2526 December 2006
I watched this movie for the second time yesterday after a gap of about twenty years! The only difference is that now I have read all the original stories of Byomkesh. The movie as well as the characters are Satyajit's and not Saradindu's, which is a pity since I adore Saradindu's Byomkesh Bakshi. I guess this movie was made to cash on Uttam Kumar's star power at the box office. Although, I admire Uttam, unfortunately, I do not quite like him as Byomkesh. He is more of a star with his usual mannerisms in this movie...overall a good entertainer if you are not familiar with Saradindu's Byomkesh but otherwise, this is one of the weaker films of Ray as well as of Uttam Kumar.
3 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Worst film of Satyajit Ray
abhipapu25 October 2010
This is coming from a big fan of Uttam Kumar, Satyajit and Sharadindu -- -

This is not only THE WORST movie made by Satyajit Ray, but it may be one of the most boring detective movie ever made. Period. From 1997 I tried to watch this 4 times at night and every time I slept in the middle. Due to a lot of courage and love for the original book, last year (2009) I could watch it completely (after waking up). I cannot believe that the director and screen writer was Satyajit Ray. It does not show any characteristic of Ray.

There was only one thing that got murdered in the film and that was the book named "Chiriya Khana". The original story by Sharadindu was weak, but engrossing. I read it a few times just because of the fluency of the writer and I have no problem in reading it again. Sharadindu's writing reminds me of a calm river smoothly flowing towards the ocean. Even a weak story can be so attractive just because of his writing skill. However the movie is a different media and Ray's version did not do the necessary adjustments to make it even remotely interesting.

Apart from being slow, the movie looks contrived; some changes are over-the-top and unnecessary e.g. baby python, skeleton, posters, Japanese horticulturist. Why the heck a Bengali guy would disguise as a Japanese (skin color, facial structure, eyes)? Isn't it easy to disguise as another Bengali (or at least a Marathi, Punjabi etc)?

The acting was OK; actors looked drugged, but they are victims of a poor screen play. As far as Uttam Kumar's Byomkesh goes, it is just another detective, but not Byomkesh Bakshi.

The end was quick, but that was probably the best part of the film because it stops the torture on the viewers.

I don't know how it received so many awards and how some people gave it so high ratings. I can only guess that since we (bengalis) don't get to see too many Bengali detective flicks, we applause whatever comes in our way. Sigh!!!
2 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
The weakest film of Satyajit Ray
partha6511 November 2010
Warning: Spoilers
"Chiriakhana" (The Zoo) made in 1967 should be considered the weakest and the worst film made by Satyajit Ray. It is not due to the fact that cinematographic deviations are not allowed, but every such deviation should be with a purpose. Purposeless deviations should be criticized.

Deviations in the film from the story.

1. Byomkesh is married to Satyavati at the time of the story's setting, whereas Ajit is a bachelor. The movie says just the opposite.

2. Since Byomkesh is married he lives in his apartment along with Ajit and not in a mess as shown in the film. The apartment is lot tidier as he is married.

3. Byomkesh's mannerisms are not what have been shown in the movie. He does not drink; but frequently smokes and drinks tea, doesn't put up collages on the wall, doesn't keep a human skeleton, never kept a pet snake.

4. In the original story Byomkesh never took a disguise. In the film he is shown to resort to disguise at least twice, once as the Japanese named Okakura and once as a Pathan.

5. The full name of Byomkesh's assistant is Ajit Bandyopadhyay. In the film it is seen twice that he introduces Ajit as Ajit Chakraborty.

6. The climax scene in the movie is an anticlimax. The phrase "Dantaruchi Koumudi" is never mentioned in the movie which added another dimension to the climax scene in the story.

Another omission in the movie is that when Byomkesh arrives for the first time to Mohanpur (railway station for Golap Colony),disguised as Okakura, the approaching train is shown to be an EMU electric local train. In the next scene the train is seen as a passenger train being hauled by an electric locomotive.

Considering Ray's reputation of looking into finer details, I would consider this film to be worst ever made by Satyajit Ray. I doubt whether the film was ever directed by him. It must have been directed by somebody else with Ray busy in a bigger project. (This is my assumption, I have no proof for this statement. The acting is just average with none excelling other than Nripati Chatterjee as Mushkil Miyan. Uttam Kumar was not a perfect choice for Byomkesh's character as his well known mannerisms do not match with the character of Byomkesh Bakshi.
0 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed