REVIEW

I myself was dissapointed, felt it was a movie made for a non-Indian audience, too "Hollywood". I felt the movie was more about getting reactions and satisfying audiences....rather than telling the story that needed to be told. But that's just my humble opinion. However, I must say, the movie did encourage me to learn more about what facts of 1947. -- Kavita Chetty Regarding 1947: Earth I too was disappointed, not sure why. The film does contain many evocative scenes, but it is somehow unsatisfied with its understated approach and so sometimes overstates things -- this burden of narration falls unfairly onto the characters. But the acting is very good, and Aamir Khan certainly showed his stuff (after that sorry role in "Mann"). Woudl be better if we didnt feel like the director was talking down to us. -- Aravinda Pillalamarri Just saw Earth...and was less than impressed. As someone (like many other sawnetters, I am sure) whose family was displaced during partition, I welcome any attempt that gives visibility to this issue and generates discussion/interest. My sense is, the fact that 1 million people lost their lives and another 12 were displaced during partition is not very well known outside the sub-continent. I felt that the movie did not adequately address the political forces that were unfolding at that time. As a result, it didn't prepare the audience for such defining moments in the film as child marriage, riots and the train arriving with massacred bodies. It made the fear, hatred and violence appear almost pathological. I have been also wondering whether it was intended to catch the audience by surprise since the protagonist is a child to whom all these make no sense. Yet, since it was made for an audience outside India, I personally would have preferred a more complicated approach. IMO, a reference to history does not diminish or justify the immense human tragedy of partition; rather it makes the connection between the private and the public....how life can really be turned upside down by forces way beyond our control. Probably I felt this way because I have seen much more moving treatment of the issue in other films and literature. There was a television serial made out of Vishma Sahni's `Tamas', I think in the early 90s. I liked it then. -- Sujata Pal During the last few weeks, I have been reading many of the posts on Deepa Mehta's Fire as well as the critiques of her work by Madhu Kishwar & Sawnettors. I have to agree with the points about accuracy and support those who posted comments about DM's use of artistic license. I think the same can be said of Earth. I was one of several people that attended the launch of Earth in Toronto Yesterday (sept 3rd) (a benefit for the United Way). I found that Earth was not a bad film -- it was just a mediocre film. There was nothing in it that made it a film of distinction -- I kept thinking that DM's take on partition is like any other film I have ever seen by Bollywood about independence & cultural politics/violence of the time. Her characters lacked development -- I kept thinking at the end that I felt nothing for any on them including the child whose story DM is telling. There were many people who felt that it was a powerful tale, but I kept thinking that it was just not moving enough. Why? We have all seen films about the violence and bloodshed during partition. Why is it that film makers continue to use carnage as a way to provoke audience reaction? Why is a train full of bloodied Moslem/Hindu bodies used to illustrate the madness of that time? Doesn't any one see that DM exploits the cinema/images in her tale of religious hatred for the commercial/shock value. This is not to discount the importance or relevance of partition on India/Pakistan's continual conflict, but I am tired of seeing the same old religious violence & conflicts of interfaith couples dealing with the "turmoil" unfolding around them. I suppose, I would prefer stories where people achieve victory despite the madness around them. There are other things in the film that bothered me too, but not being particularly well versed in the cultural practice of the time -- I will not judge DM. However, I know many of you are either from that region or are scholars of that time period. Is it acceptable that a nanny during that time would consort with only men and never have any female friends except for her boss? Would she be able to take the child under her care all over town in the company of single men without fear of her employer? There are many such questionable instances. My final rambling on Earth is that DM has selected or highlighted aspects of the story that I am sure will no doubt bring her more controversy in India. I think that she uses controversial scenes as a way to distract us from a film which is for the most part quite unremarkable. -- Meena Narahari