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

I myself was disappointed, 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

I saw Earth last week in DC, and found myself quite moved by the film. Several of the actors were splendid -- the little girl Maia Sethna, Nandita Das (who looked gorgeous), Aamir Khan (ooooh). I especially liked it that all the people spoke in appropriate languages, and those that weren't in English were subtitled. Even the little girl spoke a Parsified Hindi or an Indianized English. This is really the only way a film like this would work: it's so awkward when everyone is forced to speak the same language. Lovely music, too.
I read the various criticisms of the movie posted on Sawnet, and it seemed to me that some were really criticisms of the book on which it was based. (I read the book, Bapsi Sidhwa's Cracking India, and liked that too). Yes, there were overdone moments, where the symbolism was excessively heavy, but I found it easy to overlook those. I was more bothered by the implication that it was all the fault of the Brits, and the final speech by Lenny was a bore.
Deepa Mehta and Bapsi Sidhwa were both present at the screening, and took questions afterwards. The first question was from an Indian, who said he had the impression that this Partition story was from a very "Indian" p.o.v, that Indians often thought that Partition was unnecessary, and he wondered if the Pakistanis had the same feeling. It was an interesting question, and one that Sidhwa did not quite answer -- she said Partition was something that could no longer be discussed, it had Happened, and we should now accept it and move on.

-- Susan Chacko

I too was unimpressed by Earth as a movie about the Partition. Tamas and Garam Hava were much more powerful, I felt, in conveying the complexity and emotions of that time. I haven't seen Train to Pakistan yet, but have heard mediocre things about it as well.
[...]Earth, I felt, went for shock value--the blood, the bodies, the atrocities, whether shown on the screen or narrated--I felt some of it was disjointed...show as much as possible in the time allotted. Other movies/serials left viewers with an equally clear mental/emotional picture of these horrors and what the *people* must have experienced (vs. a series of horrible events), yet they did so by, for example, the expression on someone's face--in fact, if I recall correctly, in Tamas not one drop of blood or act of violence was shown, yet it left me more devastated/gut-wrenched at the end than Earth.
On the bright side...the music and the acting in Earth were, IMO, superb.

-- Reeta Sinha

About Earth: I saw it too and was disappointed (though I don't know why I had expectations after Fire and the wayit was directed). I think I bought the hype before the film. I didn't care at all for the way the film was directed. I cannot understand the relationships angle in the film and the character that Nandita Das played irritated me endlessly with her inconsistent personality the way it is in most Indian Bollywood films these days. In other words, I feel Deepa Mehta tried to take away the focus from personalities in a personality based situation(that is the relationships). The film had all the ingredients of a regular tearjerker. I think the theme is a dramatic one but all the drama came from the wrong sources like the music. That's my two paise on it:))

-- Nithya Krishnaswami

While the film certainly has its flaws, I feel that fellow sawnettors are being unnecessarily harsh on the film and Mehta. The essence of the film, I feel, is the sense of betrayal that it portrays. Not only at the personal level but also between two religious communities. Hindus and Muslims have never been able to trust each other after the partition. This betrayal, I thought, was brilliantly portrayed by Mehta and Aamir Khan. The movie was not about the horrors of partition. It was about a change in the feelings of people of one community towards another and vice-versa.

-- Tanushree

I went to see Earth eagerly, partly because it is just such a seductive package and partly because I come from a Partition family.

I was more than disappointed, I was profoundly annoyed with the film because it was initially so damn dull, suffering from a horrible script, full of cliches, repetitive scenes, flat characters and great music poorly used. I do feel the film was redeemed by a very powerful end, which came together at every level - narrative, cinematic, acting- and left me shaken and disturbed. []There was some sensationalism in a couple of scenes but I maybe preferred it to the endless, stupefying scenes of unimaginative flirting and dead symbolism (broken plates and ripped up dolls, somebody save me!).

But, whatever its artistic merits and flaws, Earth annoyed me for the historical understanding it chose to present. It stated very much the mainstream HIndu Indian view of history - that Partition was created by people "up there" - the Brits, the politicians, etc. and the common people did not want Partition and there was actually great amity and harmony before. This as we know was not the reality and there were tremendous parallel division along economic and religious lines.

I recently read two fabulous books about Partition, which I highly recommend, Urvashi Butalia's "The Other Side of Silence" and "Borders and Boundaries" by Ritu Menon and Kamala Bhasin. There have lengthy interviews with women and every single one sees Partition as an inevitable occurrence, born of class issues as much as communal politics. Perhaps the architecture of Pakistan and the violent nature of Partition would have been different, had there not been so much arbitrariness and haste and uncertainty. i wish the film had tried to convey the many factors that contributed to Partition rather than aggressively assert this simplistic viewpoint.

Another thing which bothered me, though I don't know if I am being oversensitive, was the film's relationship with religion. To me its subtext clearly read - if you are definedly (yes. I know that's not a word!) religious then you cannot be secular (whatever that is). So this whole good Muslim bad Muslim thing play into the stereotype of the Muslim who will not give up his religious for anything and who is therefore a fanatic and therefore violent. Aamir Khan is so identifiably Muslim from the beginning while Rahul Khanna' religion is not visually clear. Rahul Khanna also tells Nandita Das that they can go to Amritsar and he will become a Hindu - fitting neatly into this middle class belief that only a person who does not care about his/her religion can be secular/good. All the Hindus in the film are also presented in this way - having no difficulties about changing religion and usually presenting a rational point of view.

Two days after I saw the film I saw a letter in a Bombay newspaper that said -" Earth is a great film because it shows us the Truth about Partition - the Muslims were fanatical, Sikhs were hot headed and the Hindus have suffered because of this." I have heard this echoed so much by people around me, for so many years as a justification of Hindu fundamentalism (which is never recognized as fundamentalist or violent, of course) that I really don't think we needed another document to fuel this belief system!

One last gripe - yes, the actors were great, but I swear if Nandita Das had simpered one more time I would have fled screaming from the cinema. But she is beautiful, so I guess, she's excused!

-- Paromita Vohra

Film description: Based on Bapsi Sidhwa's "Cracking India", a searing story set around the India-Pakistan Partition of 1947.