A chicken mistakenly becomes a beloved apartment house pet. It is the stuff of children’s books and yet has the dystopian undercurrent of a cannibalistic snuff film. (spoiler alert) The affable patriarch kills and devours his charge. Rishi Chandna’s “Tungrus and His Chicken from Hell” is hilarious. This 12 and a half minute film is also devastating and profound. This chimera of good and evil leaves audiences wondering about the nature of both. This simple, Disney-like drama, pits the folk wisdom of a childhood on the farm against the realities of city life. The substance of the story is absurdly simple. How could this film be anything but a portrait of a monster? Ironically it is a paean the conundrum of cruelty being the vessel of kindness. In the spare concrete apartment a tight knit traditional family is put to a test of wills and a testament to love.
Chandna knows how to set a scene. The first moments of the film have seemingly incidental shots of a run down apartment block coupled with planes overhead approaching a nearby runway. By mainstream Western standards this setting is drab. In the context o Mumbai India, where many do not have running water, plumbing or electricity, this family is, relatively, well off. The affable patriarch purchases a chick and brings it home to the rest of the family, a wife, two sons and a daughter. The chicken is not the main entree. The overall reaction to the bird’s presence is the essence of the story. The title says a “chicken from hell”, but in fact he is a normal rooster. The hellish behavior is a result of being confined to a cell block apartment with 5 humans and two cats. The film is more precisely “Tungrus creates Hell for a Chicken.” Everyone gives their reaction to this unlikely guest. The father tells the story of buying the chick on a side street for his cats to “play with.” The expectation was a quick death at the hands of the felines. The cats, however, failed to discharge their duty and became the hunted. Everyone muses over this strange turn of fate. Ironically the father, the one who initially bought the bird as a disposable cat-toy, is most enamored. There are many sequences of him chased and being pursued by his erstwhile new family member. The others are both bemused and appalled. They note the rooster has integrated himself in the family by being playful and obstinate; going so far as to treat the matriarch as one of his hens. Despite the moments of levity everyone, aside of the father, is fed up with the crowing and droppings; not to mention the social awkwardness of explaining to the chicken’s presence to visitors. The uncomfortableness fails to erase the affection. All the children indicate they want the bird gone but not harmed. The mother gushes and said it would be very quiet around the house without him. She adds one of the elder son’s favorite food was chicken but he wouldn’t dream of eating this particular specimen. The father seems to be the most enthusiastic about the pet as there is a scene of him loving caressing the rooster. Then he casually explains, at about the 9 minute mark: “if not today, then tomorrow. We’ll have to slaughter him.” Is this dark humor? No he is deadly serious. He is not only going to kill him, he promises to eat him.
As the audience is swept up in the madcap chicken shenanigans and forgets the father brought the chick home as a sacrificial toy. Chandna cleverly integrates important clues as to the father’s dark choice. The patriarch has a village background. He is the only member of his family who lacks fluency in English. His dialogue is delivered with sub-titles sprinkled with the occasional English phrase. Although the children are clearly formally educated the father is an autodidact. One feels he has traveled far in his journey but never forgets the lessons of the rural village. He brought the chicken into his home. He is responsible for the chicken. The chicken was supposed to die. The chicken is causing problems. No one can afford to be sentimental. He is responsible for all the trouble and he will take care of the problem. No matter the cost. To an urban, educated person his decision seems cruel and heartless. In fact it is the opposite.
There are two other documentary stories that illustrate the fate of the more “civilized” decisions of either keeping the chicken or letting it “free.” This American Life tells the story of Veronica Chater who, as a teenager, bought a pet macaw parrot, Gideon. Ms. Chater is an author and, after receiving an MA, documented her difficult childhood in the book Waiting for the Apocalypse: A Memoir of Faith and Family. The radio story she tells takes place over two decades after she purchased the bird and concerns her own family. Parrots have a lifespan equivalent to humans so Gideon, now in his prime, is terrorizing Veronica’s family. Her sons do not succumb to death by macaw but unlike Tungrus’ story there is a real physical danger. The sons have been bitten and, judging by the interviews, are emotionally under siege. The parrot believes Veronica is her mate and, the mother readily admits the bird’s desire to kill her human children. The decision to choose the safety and well-being of her children might seem outrageous, until one hears the plight of Lucy.
Lucy was an unfortunate chimpanzee had the bad luck of having an encounter with those star children of the Enlightenment, Western Scientists. Lucy was born in captivity to a group of chimps that were circus performers. One might think that might be a cruel fate but nothing can compare to the horrors of a primate being raised as a human by a psychotherapist. This man of Science wanted to know what would happen if a chimp was raised as a human. He called Lucy his daughter. Once the doctor got his book Lucy was abandoned. After a harrowing journey it was decided to release her into the wild. Imagine, after a life being raised by a human parents in a city apartment, being released into in a jungle of human hunters and feral primates. One need not have an advanced degree to foretell the outcome.
Gideon and Lucy’s stories show the uneducated, simple man in Mumbai understood more than the doctor and credentialed author. Animals must be respected on their own terms. More importantly taking responsibility requires hard decisions. The last image in the film is the plastic barrel rocking back and forth. It is the vessel where where the beloved chicken is writhing after being decapitated by the butcher. Seeing that container going still is one of the grimmest moments I’ve seen on film… PERIOD. My gut tells me Tungrus is a monster. Then I thought of Lucy and Gideon. In this light the brutality is the better of the bad choices.
I have the opposite life experience than Tungrus but I concur with his heartbreaking decision. I was raised in the heart of a large city but now live on a farm. I have experienced having to put down an injured animal with a knife. (A sheep caught in a fence and hopelessly tangled and bleeding.) This led me to purchase a firearm. Many of my city friends don’t understand. Tungrus probably would. He understands dimensions of suffering in a way that many educated city-dwellers will never be able to comprehend. The choice of eating his pet adds to the seeming barbarity. His own family is horrified. I think that’s the point. In his mind he owed it to the bird. One might see it as having a relation to Christian traditions of metaphorical cannibalism as a cleansing ritual. In his mind he is simply eating crow. If you dare to see the film you might feel he’s still a horrible SOB. He wouldn’t disagree. It’s just the price one pays for being civilized.
PS — thanks to Erin for sending the original link to TUNGRUS & HIS CHICKEN FROM HELL
REVIEW OF THE SHORT FILM TUNGRUS & HIS CHICKEN FROM HELL
What did I know, what did I know, of love’s austere and lonely offices?……..Those Winter Sundays, Robert Hayden
