Sitting in the Hirshhorn museum’s Ring Auditorium after waiting for over an hour on Saturday, I really wanted to like Water, Deepa Mehta’s last in her trilogy of films based on the elements. I wanted to write a glowing review of it for you all, but after sitting through it (and the really, really long introductory conversation between Mehta and the Smithsonian’s Manjula Kumar) I came away simply underwhelmed. It wasn’t that the movie was horrible, it wasn’t. It was just unimpressive. I think back to Mehta’s Fire, it was unique for the time of its release and blessed with the presence of Shabana Azmi and Nandita Das; I found Earth, the second installment of the trilogy phenomenal, visually stunning, musically evocative, and well directed. Contrastingly in Water, I saw a cast of mostly uninspired acting, drab sets, and music that just faded into the background (perhaps by design?).
The film was shot in Sri Lanka, and while watching the movie, Sri Lanka’s lush landscapes easily gives the non-India locale away. I can’t say for sure that in 1938 there were no palm trees in Varanasi, but I am not buying that the city’s ghats were surrounded by them. I found Seema Biswas (Shakuntala) of Bandit Queen fame and the relative newcomer Sarala (Chuyia) playing the young widow excellent, but the beautiful Lisa Ray (Kalyani) was mediocre at best. Shakuntala’s dutiful strength and Chuyia’s naïve intelligence were indeed stark contrasts to the rather forgettable Kalyani (spoiler warning: one of my favorite scenes shows Chuyia sitting amongst the praying widows, fearlessly blurting a question to the pundit asking, “what happenned to male widows?”).
I wanted to be moved by the climactic scenes featuring MK Gandhi, but I found them artificial and contrived, which only added to the hokey vibe of the movie. The film, it’s not bad, but I didn’t find it great. For the curious however, it’s a decent timepass.
Related posts: earth, fire, WATER, Water Is Finally Here, Is Deepa Mehta Back in the Game?
Saw it on it’s opening night in Montreal with Mehta and Ray in attendence. Neither really said anything. Was totally bored with the movie, irritated by its schlockiness, put off by all its visual mistakes (those are Tamil temples and Tamil women in a movie that supposed to take place on the border of Bengal/Bihar?), the lame Gandhi-train ending and the horrible acting by Lisa Ray. So miscast. I also seem to vaguely remember some embarassing flute-playing sequences that made me cringe.
I do, however, remember liking Sheema Biswas, the evil old widow and Chuiya – they kept me from throwing popcorn at the screen. Sadly, Water really had nothing new to say. It was just so much shallow, visually stunning, fluff. Widows suffered under horribly cruel Hindu patriarchy; men are pigs. Oooh. And John Abraham looked like he was wearing party shirts he bought at the casual-formal section of American Eagle.
i’ll give it a chance. i’ve suffered thru worse.
Hating on Deepa for aspects of the film doesnt take into account certain aspects about what Deepa went through to make it. The movie was half filmed with Shabana Azmi and Nandita Das when fundamentalists physically destroyed the sets, threatened the technicians and staff with mob violence, made death threats against Deepa and the actors. Palm trees around ghats for one simple reason – it was impossible to make in India because free speech had been denied by fundamentalist mobs. Take it in that context and view the displacement as a comment on the political and religious bigotry that denied the original cut – themes which the movie of course touches on and deals with. This in the face of menacing Hindu fundamentalist challenges to free expression and art.
brownfrown
See above for the reason why the Tamil sets and temples. Because fundamentalists prevented her from filming in Benares. This is an insiders view on the horror that beset the original production.
The Politics of Deepa Mehta’s Water
Brownfrown, Sajit, I echo much of what you said, as I too felt completely underwhelmed / bored by Water. Regardless of what she went through to make it, the film was written well before a single frame was shot, and the writing itself felt pretty uninspired. The humdrum acting (except for Seema Biswas) only reinforced this.
I would also argue that what Deepa Mehta goes through to make these films actually serves to get her an audience, and that such mediocre filmmaking would otherwise go unrecognized if it weren’t for these controversies. I’ve even met some Film and Television Institute of Pune folks who went so far as to say that Mehta COURTS controversy because it plays well at the box office. I don’t know if I’m that cynical, but after seeing Water, I could see why one might believe them.
If nothing else, it certainly wouldn’t be worthy of ‘opening night’ status (the way it has been at a number of film festivals) were it not for the production controversies. In this way, Mehta gets preemptive props while festival directors and attendees get to feel as though they are standing up for free speech and against fundamentalism. Hey, at least everyone wins, though in this case it felt like winning $0.25 after a promise of high stakes poker.
Why is making a movie about widows in Benares courting controversy?
Its a quick get out clause. Same thing was said about Rushdie, same thing was said about the Sikh playwright in England, same thing said about many many artists, MF Hussain, and so on and so on. Blame the artist, not the individuals (note, individuals! Not entire religions) who perpetate censorship and deny freedom of speech through the mob and intimidation.
Anand: Are you saying we should like film, or cut it some slack because of the struggle? Mehta had over four years to make the movie somewhere else. In my mind, that is plenty of time to get it right. Additionally, people don’t like MF Husain or Salman Rushdie because of their struggle or because of the controversey they stoke. They like them because they are good.
Hi Anand,
I certainly did not mean that this topic is not worth taking on. Nor would I ever blame any artist who takes on topics of social merit. Nor did I intend to imply that controversy isn’t worth courting. Bertolt Brecht said it best; “Art is not a mirror held up to reality, but a hammer with which to shape it.”
I feel that you missed my point – what I am saying is that a mediocre artist (which is what I feel Deepa Mehta to be, and need I explain that this is just my opinion?) can benefit from this kind of RSS hoodlumery. It generates interest, buzz, whatever it is that PR people call it. Doesn’t it make sense that many more people know about her films – and ostensibly go to see them – because it received significant media coverage so early into its conception?
Obviously I personally didn’t care much for Water. However, if other artists are emboldened to take on courageous (and hopefully better executed) projects because of it, or if some viewers come away with some newfound understanding that shapes their beliefs and actions in terms of how women in India are faring today, then big ups to them. And by association, to Ms. Mehta herself.
I think the point that Anand makes is interesting, its an argument people use quite often but one I don’t really understand. I think that in certain circumstances, the politics surrounding a film and its context makes a movie that much more meaningful. If a film is groundbreaking in some way, a “watershed” film like maybe Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner, then your appreciation of it definitely increases. I did not think that the burning effigies and death threats affected my opinion of Deepa Mehta’s film in any way. It certainly was not going to be the deciding factor for whether or not I was going to like it. To like a film simply because of the controversy surrounding it would be a poor reason to like this film. I agree, its incredibly unfortunate that “fundamentalists physically destroyed the sets, threatened the technicians and staff with mob violence, made death threats against Deepa and the actors.” But, you know, Lisa Ray still sucked.
Just a quick question: I watched the film at the Bangkok Film Festival (incidentally, it won the Golden Kinarree Award for Best Picture – no, really) and something’s been itching my brain for the last couple weeks. Were the swastikas above the doorways at the ashram drawn backwards (facing the wrong direction), or did the guys loading the film here make a mistake? I would assume that there was something wrong with the reel, except all the subtitles were normal. I was very confused and remain, to this day, confused still. Or, even more curiouser, has this notion of the swastika facing the “right way” only come about after WW2? I know not of these things. I come here to have you answer my inquiries. SM (via Wikipedia) knows all.
Hey Anand, Oh I know the film was shot in Sri Lanka and it was supposed to be shot in Benares six years ago and got burned down by an angry mob of saffron-flag waving fundies. That still doesn’t make this an interesting film or one that has any real depth. And if you’re going to use a location whose semiotics are that marked, um, build some sets or edit the hell out of it or something. I wish this movie was controversial. I went in it to it hoping that it had a lot to give the right wing a run for it’s money. Unfortunately, the crazed fundies should have saved their breath and,if they really hated her so much, saved themselves from giving her all that free press for a movie that’s just… boring.
I agree with Kavita – she’s a mediocre talent, and, I’m sorry to say it, but a bit of a hack. Some interview I was reading had her explaining that she felt passionate about her films because they reminded people to fight injustice within thier own cultures. This movie wasn’t made for desis. It had nothing new to say to desis that will inspire them to do much of anything. Of course it was embraced as an example of an “art” movie (as opposed to a “Hindi movie”) by a lot of desis, but the movie was made for film festivals and the Canada Art Council and people who “just love India, you know?”. It was made for people vaguely familiar or perhaps not at all familiar with “Indian culture” – and it pushed all the sentimental buttons that makes cultural tourism so “interesting”. Which is her perogative, of course. So as a minor movie that’s holds about as much weight as My Best Friend’s Wedding – it’s vaguely entertaining in a put-it-on-in-the-background while you’re making dinner kind of way. Btw. I watched Fire and Bollywood Hollywood and felt the same sense of disappointment and refused to watch Earth because of it. The book was just too good to ruin. And now she’s off to go tackle the Kamagata Maru issue. Oh great.
p.s. My momma is being stingy with the Horlicks and Marmite these days. Thus I don’t think I chose my words as carefully as I shoulda…
When I noted that my FTII friends say that Mehta ‘COURTS controversy’, I meant that they were saying that she courts the RSS. Again, I’m just quoting and putting out there. I was shocked – SHOCKED! – at the suggestion but they gave me this matter-of-fact ‘guuuurl, you oughta know better’ look and so I kept my shock to myself.
Sajit, I just saw it and got to disagree with you. The movie was pretty darn good. Not as good as Earth but still very good. Lisa Ray’s character was meant to be understated and came across as such. I saw it for free but I would most definitely pay money to see it.
Deepa Mehta was at the screening and answered questions from a very appreciative audience afterward.
I liked the movie. It felt real and I came out of it feeling very sad. Mehta captured the darkness and the hopelesness of the women completely. Acting prowess aside, the message was very stark.
when i think lagaan got nominated for the OScars and that Devdas went to Cannes, i feel much better about Water. there were lots of flaws-but there was Seema Biswas who can outshine any actress in india( i thank god Shabana was not available and thereby prevented the film from being yet another SHABANA AZMI film). the other thing i don’t get is why every NRI who makes a film is immediately dissed by desis as somehow not being desi enough? of course one is never desi enough – I lived in india for my first 24 years but its only the 14 years that i have lived abroad that is ever noted. Does it say something about how Indians value time spent in India-I don’t know! but back to Deepa Mehta, she is no doubt not a hugely compelling talent but then why do we think that Oscars and other film awards are not influenced by political considerations? Saving Private Ryan, Forest Gump, and so on…its human to be influenced by issues and political considerations. and its not just politics, clearly nobody was complaining when the French loved Devdas-which was an utter piece of crap. what of the cultural stereotypes that made the French like that film?