Through Agnostic Eyes: Representations of Hinduism in the Cinema of Satyajit Ray
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I particularly enjoyed this paper for its novel approach to Ray. It certainly adds to existing research not only on Ray studies but also on contemporary issue related to religion
Author Response
Many thanks to the reviewer for this positive response. I appreciate it very much.
Reviewer 2 Report
Page 1, line 24, page numbers for the reference missing.
page 6, page 277, rewrite the statement.
page 6, line 301, * symbol not justified.
Minor editing is required for the article.
Author Response
My thanks to the reviewer for this helpful report.
In response to the specific suggestions, I have taken the following actions:
Page 1, line 24, page numbers for the reference missing.
These are general references for background information on the history of Hindu social reform in the nineteenth century. The entire books are relevant, not any range of pages.
page 6, page 277, rewrite the statement.
Rewritten, with changes indicated by tracking.
page 6, line 301, * symbol not justified.
I couldn't detect what symbol is meant. If it is the endnote numeral (xx), then that seems to be consistent with the other endnote numerals.
Reviewer 3 Report
The author has clarified all the arguments in the paper. The statement of problem is clear, arguments are strong, references are relevant. Therefore, this research would add a substantial amount of knowledge to the existing work based on the broad theme.
Author Response
My warm thanks to the reviewer for this supportive, generous report. It is much appreciated.
Reviewer 4 Report
This is a very engaging piece. The overall structure of the paper into three sections of gender, caste, and fraud is convincing. The paper establishes deep engagements with several of Satyajit Ray's films. However, it does not focus on his major contributions such as the APU triology (except for one passing reference to the bhadralok world in Ray's films) or later triology (of which Charulata is briefly mentioned once.) Clearly the author seems to have made a choice of focusing on particular works of Ray. What is the argument there? The sections on gender and caste give in-depth review and analysis of Ray's films. However, the section on Fraud reads rather limited and hurried. The author makes a reference to the "Nehurvian India" in conclusion. This is a brand-new idea that the readers don't know about. Placing it earlier in the paper will be better. In the argument section of the paper, the author refers to the "positive consequences of religion" and how Ray's films don't integrate/comment on that. What are the positive consequences of religion? Why does Ray focus only on negative consequences? Overall, this paper needs a bit more editing for coherence. The idea of the influence of Brahmo Samaj on Ray's work is mentioned earlier but connecting it later in the paper will bring coherence.
Author Response
However, it does not focus on his major contributions such as the APU triology (except for one passing reference to the bhadralok world in Ray's films) or later triology (of which Charulata is briefly mentioned once.) Clearly the author seems to have made a choice of focusing on particular works of Ray. What is the argument there?
As the introductory section of the paper clarifies, the selection of films was determined by their direct relevance to the topic, i.e., Hinduism and/or Hindu practices. Although nearly all of Ray's films were about Hindus, religion/religious practices were addressed directly only in a few. It's the latter that are discussed in detail in the paper. Neither the Apu trilogy nor Charulata foreground religious issues and, therefore, are not discussed in any depth.
The sections on gender and caste give in-depth review and analysis of Ray's films. However, the section on Fraud reads rather limited and hurried.
In part, that is a reflection of the relatively marginal place the issue occupies in Ray's oeuvre and in part, a choice made because of space constraints. I decided to give priority to issues that were (a) more prominent in Ray's corpus and (b) more interesting to me historically and analytically, i.e., from a scholarly perspective.
The author makes a reference to the "Nehurvian India" in conclusion. This is a brand-new idea that the readers don't know about. Placing it earlier in the paper will be better.
I agree. The allusion to "Nehruvian India" has now been removed and replaced with a clearer expression of what is meant. That obviates the need to insert a prior explanation.
In the argument section of the paper, the author refers to the "positive consequences of religion" and how Ray's films don't integrate/comment on that. What are the positive consequences of religion?
The construction of the relevant sentence/s, i.e., "...any positive consequences that religion might have..." indicates the hypothetical nature of the argument. As I see it, that places the author under no obligation to mention actual positive consequences.
Why does Ray focus only on negative consequences?
If the reviewer has read the first few pages of the paper and still does not have the answer to this question, then I am in no position to enlighten him/her. As a historian and biographer, I cannot go beyond historical and biographical explanations, and I feel I have provided those to the best of my ability.
The idea of the influence of Brahmo Samaj on Ray's work is mentioned earlier but connecting it later in the paper will bring coherence.
Agreed. I have added a couple of sentences (tracked) to that effect.
