Deepa Mehta's Earth was a pleasant surprise in terms of entertainment, but in terms of a serious vehicle for historical perspective-not so much. I d0 tend to agree with Ansari's assessment given by the author Sidhwa that the story needed a neutral forum for the telling. "A dispassionate account which shows both Indian and Pakistani sides equally as victims and victimizers could be given best through this Parsi perspective," Sidwha explains to Ansari. In this respect, Mehta is true to the book, but I would have liked the Parsi family fleshed out a bit more, for they seem to function merely as foils for the other characters. Characterization of the father is minimal and the mother seems no more than lady of the manor. If they struggled to remain neutral, their anxiety was not well conveyed until the very end when Shanta is dragged off. I also would have expected to have seen more of a reaction from Lenny's mother when Lenny's father brings home a handgun. Ansari's contention that Earth is "...a romance, a tragedy, a history, and a comment on the human heart: its tenderness and the beast that hides within." is a good pitch for pulling in movie viewers, but I'm not sure this film would fill the bill for those looking for a meatier story.
I find myself more in Wallia's corner in terms of Earth being a bit of a lightweight. I'm entirely in agreement with her/his (?) assertion that, "... Mehta's script fails to create dramatic situations that could bring out Lenny Baby's anguished bewilderment of the tragic events of the partition." Lenny's reactions felt contrived and disjointed from her usual behavior. Truth be told, I found the Lenny character altogether annoying. Wallia and I would also share the view that Dil Naraz comes up short too. His transformation from charming, clever suitor to spurned, vindictive,cold hearted killer is a bit of a stretch.
I also think Wallia is spot on in regard to the simplistic treatment of the historical events of the film. Maybe it is not the film's intent to provide a thorough rendering of India's partitioning, but the historical perspective was too muddied to give any real understanding of what transpired and why. Without the readings, I would have come away only knowing that the British were leaving and upon their departure religious factions that had a long history of peaceful coexistence went crazy killing each other and that Pakistan and India have had a contentious relationship since.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I, too, have found Earth to be puzzling in many aspects. Yet, upon my third viewing, I believe the Ice Candy Man's transformation is believeable. He was a chameleon - hum, sort of like the Parsees - throughout the film in his choice of work (ice cream, conduit to allah] and as he attempts to control the lion within, until he can no longer. I'm putting Cracking India on my reading list so I can better understand this story.
Great post Ellen. Amy certainly shares your view of Lenny-baby: http://theworldonadisc.blogspot.com and I'm sure you two are not alone in that sentiment... Jeff
I not only found Lenny-baby annoying, but also a bit sneaky. What's with the hiding under the dinner table?
Lenny-Baby, to me, was just a kid -- who hasn't fully learned how to behave, yet. She, like other kids, unknowingly asks the wrong or painful questions at the worst possible time.
As for hiding under the table... what better place to hear what's going on when you're normally excluded form adult company. Kids WILL do things like that.
As I noted in another response to this movie, I think Lenny-Baby was trying to pair up Shanta and Ice Candy Man -- he was Lenny-Baby's hero! And, because he was a hero, she didn't understand (still a kid, still learning) that he was capable of great evil. Her final betrayal of Shanta to Ice Candy Man may have been her last attempt at match-making, gone terribly wrong.
(With regard go Willia's criticism of how the cultural context is presented -- would we be as harsh if we critically watched "Gone with The Wind?" -- as it grossly simplifies all of the factors and conditions that led us to and through that war. "Gone with the Wind" wasn't about the Civil War, but about a great love Story set in a Civil War context. How does "Earth" really differ?
I'm starting to get really put out with some of these paid movie reviewers -- they seem to use movies as an excuse to pontificate about their personal agendas.
Lisa, you've watched it three times?
Walt, good point about "Gone with the Wind," but with regards to your last comment, don't most people have a personal agenda? Is it a bad thing that film reviewers expose the cracks as they see them and open up a debate? Exposing cracks and controversy where there really are none is a different issue.
"Is it a bad thing that film reviewers expose the cracks as they see them and open up a debate? Exposing cracks and controversy where there really are none is a different issue."
If there are really cracks there, it's a good thing. But some of these reviewers seem to be doing the reviews to twist the stories into a platform from which to talk about something else.. (Like Willia getting all bent out of shape about how the movie treated Sikhs... and some of the reviews of Indochine when went off on a tear about French romanticism and love for a way of life lost, etc., etc.)
Post a Comment