The big news in Oscarland this morning (with a Desi Angle of course) was the inclusion of Deepa Mehta’s Water amongst the nominees for “Best Foreign Language Film.” According to Canada.com, Mehta said that she was in a state of shock over learning that her film had been nominated. Frankly, so was I. Don’t get me wrong, I am happy for Mehta. She clearly put a lot of hard work and time into the film. And it is clearly something she is (and should be) proud of. I just don’t think the movie was that good. As I mentioned in my quickie review here, I thought the film was a good timepass, but in the end I thought it lacked the authenticity a period film like Water should really have.
Mehta’s third film in her trilogy of elements is set in 1938 India and revolves around Chuyia, an 8-year-old Hindu widow – brilliantly portrayed by Sarala – sent to leave her family behind and live in an ashram with other widows. The movie follows Chuyia and focuses on her interactions with Shakuntala (Seema Biswas), the de facto caretaker of the widows, and Kalyani (Lisa Ray), a widow who wants to start a new life and relationship with Narayan (John Abraham), a Gandhian. While Biswas and Sarala both give really good performances, I thought the third facet of the plot, that of the relationship between Ray and Abraham, along with the misleading sets a definite contributor to the mediocrity of the film.
Water will be competing for the Oscar against Denmark’s After the Wedding, Algeria’s Days of Glory, Germany’s The Lives of Others and Mexico’s Pan’s Labyrinth. I did find it noteworthy that Water is the first non-French film from Canada to be up for a best foreign language film (link). I think that is impressive initself: think about it, Canada submitting a Hindi language film as its submission for Best Foreign Language Film. I think that is amazing.
Given that many of the reviews of Water published in the mainstream media are quite positive of the film, clearly my impression of the film is not that of the majority. Nevertheless, I am in agreement with the reviewer who wrote that the many overly positive reviews are a reflection of people confusing an honorable message with a good movie. I do wish Mehta the best at the Oscars though.
The Academy Awards air February 25 at 8 PM on ABC.
Related posts: Fun With The Reviewers: Deepa Mehta’s Water, earth, fire, WATER, Water Is Finally Here, Is Deepa Mehta Back in the Game?
The movie was great and it was definitely a breather from the normal bollywood films one might see. I wouldn’t be surprised if it did really good at the Oscars. I think it speaks very well to its audience.
I had a similar reaction, Sajit. I thought that Seema Biswas’ performance was worth the price of admission, but couldn’t feel emotionally involved in the Ray/Abraham love story. I wish Nandita Das had been cast as orginally intended – it was so disappointing to be disappointed in a film I’d waited so long to see.
On the whole, I liked it less than both Fire and Earth. I thought Earth was the strongest film of the three.
When Mehta did the press tour for the film last year, she did make it a point of saying that she valued the fact that she didn’t feel pressured in Canada to dissolve into some melting pot, but rather she could keep her Indianness and still be Canadian.
thank you. we try.
I absolutely hated Water which was er about as dull as ditchwater with woeful performances. It was like a prettified version of those endless Doordarshan adaptations of Bengali novels where pretty widowed protagonist was wooed by some handsome nationalist. Nothing different and as woeful a treatment as DD ever dished out. Besides there are any number of Indian movies (also in languages other than Hindi) which have already dealt with Hindu widowhood in a much much more powerful manner – RaoSaheb (with Anupam Kher before his Bollywood idiocies) and Phaniyamma I can recall off hand. If any movie screams that it has been nominated for its kitschy, exotic suffering Indian womanhood this is it, this is it, this is it. Now, please let me crawl under some stone with embarrassment for ignorants at the Academy and international audiences who have simply no clue about what Indians have thought and written and filmed about widowhood for the past so many years. If they knew, this absolute tripe and drivel would not pass for good cinema.
Mehta pulled punches in this one — both the emotional and the critical ones I felt she was too aware that the world was watching and judging and the world often misses the point and she didn’t want to leave the culture too vulnerable. It’s an understandable concern, but Mehta was made to challenge those easy
Seema Biswas was captivating. I felt her character was better positioned to tell the story… she and priest shoulda got it on.
Fire is — by far!! — my favorite. Everything about it was perfect. Subhana was pure magic.
“…but Mehta was made to challenge those easy preconceptions and force the world to break out of them”
(oops!)
err… Shabana
(blame all mishaps on the American upbringing)
Everything about Water screamed “wasted opportunity.” She should have got Shabana Azmi and Nandita Das back on board, they would have made the film so much more powerful – and the story was such a good one (though not exactly new) that it deserved strong actors. The pretty-people Lisa-John love story was so Cinderella cheesy. The random Holi scene where Chuiya and her mother-superior tormentor suddenly and briefly make up and have a laugh seemed thrown in for “colour” (it was used in the US promos, of course).
And the introductory and ending quotes – the opening one from Manu and the closing one about the millions of widows in India were borderline disingenuous – not to underestimate the power of religious orthodoxy in perpetuating patriarchy, but there’s a hell of a lot more to it, and to imply that all widows today(not just Brahmin ones in the 1930s and 40s as depicted in the film) are subject to the same horrible conditions as Chuiya was pushing it. It would have been more realistic, if she wanted to get into the condition of widows today, to talk about their drudgery and sometimes sexual abuse in their husbands’ families after being widowed.
I’m generally wary of defending “tradition” and dare I say, religion, and certainly not on “national pride” grounds, but I do hate it when well-meaning people give the reactionary right back home reason to accuse them of pitching things as negatively and stereotypically (“evil Brahmins” and “backward religion”) as possible to cater to a Western audience.
Factual question that has plagued me since I watched the film – were girls really considered widows if they hadn’t consummated the betrothal at the time the ‘husband’ died?
i concur that the movie wasn’t ‘all that’…and i couldn’t stand lisa ray.. she presented the film here at a local museum, and honestly her acting talent–sub par… abraham is good eye candy, but that is about it..
but i’m not suprised.. i don’t really feel that the oscars ‘are all that’…
aside from a few flaws (mainly casting) i thought overall it was beautifully done. it stands out in my mind especially now with the controversy with the Dakota Fanning Controversy over Hounddog. Everyone is in a tizzy because a 12 year old is acting in a rape scene, acting being the operative word. But in actuality this happens – it happens in Cambodia, India, Thailand and the US…no country is exempt. I’m not sure if I’ll see Hounddog but I did see Water and I thought it did justice to little Chuiya…and the actress that played her.
Pan’s Labyrinth must win the best foreign language film award any other result would be a travesty!
I’m with Red Snapper on this one. While it would be great to see a desi picture win best foreign film, Water just doesn’t even compare to Pan’s Labyrinth.
It’s a great movie isnt it Sriram?
I saw Water on DVD and thought it was blegh. My girlfriend enjoyed John Abraham though. Oppressed women, plaintive music, exotic vistas, oh the simultaneous beauty and ugliness of India etc etc etc.
Lisa Ray is half Polish.
LMAO!!!
Denmark’s ‘After the Wedding’ also has an Indian connection:
Canada submitting a Hindi language film as its submission for Best Foreign Language Film. I think that is amazing.
I thought there was some sort of Oscar “rule” against this sort of thing. IIRC, the UK had to withdraw Asif Kapadia’s “The Warrior” from consideration a few years ago, because the movie was in Hindi, which isn’t considered a native language in the UK.
I thought it was a good movie. Ray’s benevolent humanism is evident all over.
Abraham’s idealistic character and the futility of his intended marriage to Ray’s metaphorically demonstrated the limits of the Gandhian vision of social reform.
The sets were quite elegant, and it was not all grim: there was the holi scene were human happiness overcame, if for a day, the existential plight of the widows. There was Chaya’s departure by train into the new transitional India, in which both British policy and the agitations of Hindu reformers were transforming social relationships.
As for evil brahmins, well, brahmins did banish their widows – Abraham’s character said cynically that they did it to reduce their financial burdens. Thats probably right. The one phelgmatic pandit in the film seemed as much a victim of his own shastras as an agent of oprression.
Actually scrub my snarky comment # 14, after reading risible, I agree it’s a wonderful film.
Probably just my feeling of inadequacy at being marginalised by John Abraham for the duration of the film got the better of me — but then I have Rosario Dawson to make my other half feel inadequate and plain if it comes down to that.
But Pan’s Labyrinth should still win, everyone go and watch that movie it’s fantastic.
I see that I’m in the general consensus here. The movie was great, and my roommate (non-Indian) asked me if Indian lifestyles were still like that..and I told her that for the most part, it’s not (though it still exists).
I hope other people don’t come away with the same assumption..and the nomination doesn’t make a huge difference; Pan’s Labyrinth is going to win..I hope.
I’ll confess to not having seen that movie and good luck to Deepa. If 10 years ago, someone told me an Indian movie from Canada with the names Lisa and John among the main protagonists was up for an Oscar, I would’ve looked at them like they lost their mind.
A pandering & disappointing movie. A much more honest movie about organized religion & its ‘good’ intentions is Peter Mullen’s ‘Magdalena Sisters’. Mehta wants to make a hardhitting expose of societal ills, & ends up with a gauzy Bollywood love story. I particularly had issues with the closing sentence about many (thousands? millions? I don’t remember the number she quotes) Hindu women facing similar fate even today.
To clarify: am not saying Brahmins didn’t do evil things, I’m sure they did them as depicted in the film at that time and place, and in many instances today; I had trouble with the straight line the film seemed to draw between the Manu quote and the situation of the widows and the closing quote about millions of widows today, as if to suggest, simplistically, that scripture/evil brahmins are still the main culprit here, rather than more widely entrenched gender inequality. Perhaps it’s just a bit too obvious after endless such themes in Hindi films, the most recent of which was Mrityudand some years ago.
Rao Saheb was great, though. I saw a bit of Magdalene Sisters and it was pretty good too.
I am hoping for Ms. Mehta to LOSE. I hope luck dose not favor her.
I wish Nandita Das had been cast as orginally intended – it was so disappointing to be disappointed in a film I’d waited so long to see.
Yes, ITA, b/c I LOVED Nandita Das in the other Mehta films! Mehta said that part of the reason she re-cast was b/c of time (aging) and felt that Lisa Ray could handle the part b/c she knows how to play innocent. The love story was weak, but I liked this movie a lot (esp. the photography).
Thanks for your magnanimity.
Red Snapper… Pan’s L is the odds on favorite for foreign language O.. talking to an agency pal in LA, so justice will prevail hopefully..
I thought the movie was terribly disappointing but, frankly, after seeing her Bollywood Hollywood (with Lisa Ray, to boot), I am not surprised. Nandita and Shabana would’ve been awesome. Lisa’s looks, at least in this case, were a drawback in the role. Seema Biswas, as always, gave a bravura perf. And the little girl was good. the sets were okay, nothing to write home about. even the later Ray (Satyajit, some say Sandip ;)) films have better sets and ambience than this one. anyway, good luck to her though. hope she does win. it’s always good when a desi (canadian desi or not) someone wins something for something. opens doors for the rest and all that. mayhap…. 😉
I would actually give Water a thumbs up (although probably not the Oscar). I thought what was really creative is how she draws a tight parallel between the plight of widows and the plight of India under British rule. Most impressive, was how she did this without being preachy or sounding like an extremist feminist.
Of course, the Oscars are political and had it not been for the horrific attempts to censor this movie and keep it from being made, the Academy may not have felt the need to bring the world’s attention to this film.
I am not sure if my votes are for this movie…..i agree with Akila and ChickPea-the love angle with not-so-good performers simply was bizzare. And there have been probably better movies on this topic (though not as controversial) before, as Akila stated.
And then these sort of movies (intentionally or un-intentionally) perpetuate a certain impression of India…..don’t get me wrong, but i’ve had collagues asking/saying things to me like this after they watched this movie, “OMG, that was so painful, i didn’t even know they treat women in India like this”…..the people range from Americans, Swiss, Chinese, Japanese-all possible nationalities who take home the impression that this is how women are still (and still is important here)treated in India. You’ve do a lot of talking to tell them that this is not how it stands today. and am sure you’ll agree that these are uncomfortable questions to deal with. and may be such movies do contribute to (if don’t relate to my own experience, you may refer to this scene from The Office:Diwali episode) scenes like when Michael asks his desi hosts, “Is your that sort of marriage, when if you (pointing to the uncle ji) die, she’ll have to jump in fire too”…..
Having said that, i am glad that a Hindi language movie came this far. But i still would have preferred Nandita Das playing the lead.
And how about John Abraham in an Oscar nominated film? Waa.
Pan’s Labyrinth?
I thought that scene where the blood soaked captain (a very one dimensional character..) is chasing the girl through the caves makes me wonder why critics pan (yes!) Bollywod over-the-topness. There was absolutely not enough intertwinng between reality and the dreams to draw me in. I thought I saw 2 separate movies at one sitting
Don’t be so sure. Monsters Inc lost to Shrek. When they read the result I got so violent, my two kids had to restrain me.
I think the point Musical (#30) makes is one that I’m constantly debating. On the one hand, I hate to see India called out for hindu fundamentalism or mistreatment of women because it projects a bad image of India to those who don’t know it. On the other hand, putting injustices in the spotlight does eventually shame society into changing its ways.
I have no idea why they cast John Abraham. Its like making Schindler’s List, with Brad Pitt as Oskar Schindler.
Eons before the movie shifted to Sri Lanka, back when Azmi and Das were still in the cast, Akshay Kumar was supposed to do the JA role, so just contemplate that for a minute or two… (The horror!)
I feel Deepa Mehta is over rated and she courts controversy. If you compare Deepa’s films with Aparna Sen’s Sati or Mr & Mrs Iyer, you can clearly see the difference. Sati and Water deal with the same problem, but nobody opposed Aparna for what she depicted in that movie. Same with Mr & Mrs Iyer, one of the best movies on the topic of religious extremism.
[quote]I thought there was some sort of Oscar “rule” against this sort of thing. IIRC, the UK had to withdraw Asif Kapadia’s “The Warrior” from consideration a few years ago, because the movie was in Hindi, which isn’t considered a native language in the UK.[/quote]
The Academy gave the rules for the Foreign Language Film category a major overhaul this year. As long as a particular country (the U.S. excepted) finances the film in question, it is elegible for a nomination, no matter what the spoken language is. Just so long as it’s not a native language, then it’s fine. “The Warrior” would not have been rejected this year.
It’s a ridiculous rule, but so was the previous rule. There has to be some middle-ground, but I can’t begin to imagine what it could be.
I do not like movies like water, although some of the stuff they have is true, deplorable and a matter of shame for every Indian , but movies like these hardly do a role of increasing awareness in the homeland. Most of the time they are made for foreign audiences who can hardly do any thing to improve anything. But it definitely cements their general notions that Indians are nothing then women exploiting, cow worshiping evil snake charmers.
If they really want to help the country then try to show it more in India, why do our dirty laundry outside?
But the attitude always seems to be ” Look how fucked up my country is without you master, now where is my award “
Just my 2 cents.
Damn, let’s all hate on Deepa Mehta for actually trying to shed some light on an issue that needs attention.
To all the people who say, “her movie is crap, there are X Indian movies that do it better.” That may be true, but none of them are directed by Deepa Mehta. Her name carries some weight, and just getting this movie made was quite a story in itself.
To the people who say, “it is cinematic garbage,” I must respectfully disagree. Is it the best movie I’ve ever seen? No. But is it worth watching? Is it a good vehicle for drawing attention (and raising money!) for a cause that requires attention? Absolutely! It’s poignant, and it’s hardly the shallow treatment that various people here depict. There’s a fine line to walk in making a movie that is both accessible and yet still be taken seriously, and I think she does a fine job of that. In fact, I think she does a better job of it with “Water” than she did with “Fire,” which had some melodramatic flourishes I didn’t much care for.
To each his or her own, I suppose.
cc, I don’t think this is entirely accurate. The article from Canada.com indicates the rule change is as follows: “Water was allowed for consideration because of recent changes to Academy rules which allow films to contain up to 30 per cent English. Previously, no English was allowed.”
True. I liked Fire way better than Water. Other than the usual suspects (Das, Azmi etc.) Javed Jaffrey was quite good as well.
This year, I am rooting for Pan’s L.
As for Oscar’s worth, I think it’s the good movies that give the trophy its shine. Not the other way round. Plus the post-Oscar financial rewards are a nice bonus for deserving film makers.
That’s just one of several rule changes. As I said, there was a major overhaul.
For example, before this year, there were no shortlists. This year, nine of the app. 60 films were voted on to a “shortlist” in order to have a runoff election. There would have been no “Bollywood and the Oscars” post last week had this rule not been put into effect.
And “Water” would not have been considered for this category any other year unless India submitted it. The only films Canada could submit until now were French films.
ItÂ’s interesting that you questioned the authenticity of the movie. I think the movie should have been in Bengali because according to some researcher, majority of the widows in Benaras are from Bengal. In addition, in his essay Sati, Ashis Nandy tells us a lot about the possible reasons for this. Read more here. Interestingly, the government of West Bengal had invited her to shoot the movie in Bengal. Canada submitting a Bengali language film as its submission for Best Foreign Language Film. Now, that would have been really amazing.
Wasn’t there a brouhaha about the Water story being lifted from a well-known Bengali one?
According to Wiki, Sei Samaya,the award-winning book by acclaimed Bengali writer Sunil Gangopadhyay.
I know actors are supposed to be acting and thus even an African can play Hamlet in certain contexts, but… I couldn’t get past watching Lisa Ray and thinking, “What is she supposed to be, an Anglo-Indian??!” (who wouldn’t be subject to the strict Bhramanic rules in any case). In addition to the fact that she’s not a very good actress, it detracted from the film a lot, though I did like it overall. Oscar: no way (agree that Pan’s Labyrinth is phenomenal), but great that she got a nomination.
I have problems with ideas like this, or the worrying about whether “Westerners” get outdated or incorrect or incomplete notions of [insert foreign country here]. I remember hearing someone say similar things about “City of God,” where someone was worried that it perpetuated the image of nothing but poverty- and crime-ridden favelas in Brazil, etc.
In cases like that, I’m adamant that it’s not the filmmaker’s problem if the audience/viewer is ignorant or parochial about world affairs, history, or current events! You can’t educate the entire American public (or even the small fraction that go to films like this) in the space of two hours. A writer/filmmaker can’t worry about every detail: “How will this look to the average white Texan?” Trying to “represent” the length and breadth of an entire culture/country/history in a single work of art is an impossible burden to place on someone. In most cases, you’re telling the story of a handful of individuals, not an entire population; thus I think the artist just needs to try to be as responsible to as s/he can in telling that individual’s story. That being said, some plotlines are tired and inaccurate, and thanks to those who noted that Mehta’s closing credits may have been misleading about modern conditions.
two words: john abraham
No one has mentioned this thus far, but in addition to the other reasons given as to why Water is disappointing, I was also turned off by the final scene’s gratuitous focus on Gandhi. It was such an idealized perspective on him and his influence.
Aw, come on, we all know this was crap. Water makes the final 5 in this category, but Rang de Basanti doesn’t? On what possibly objective basis? One is a movie starring not-very-good actors (has Lisa Ray ever put on a convincing performance?) and talks about a bad situation that was happening nearly 70 years ago. The other is a movie that is set in modern-day India, exposes the apathy of youth, is really well done, and actually causes a sea change in the attitude of youth in India. How does this not make the final five?
Let’s make it clear: Water was not a bad movie. It was decent. But much like Crash last year (which was also decent, but which at no point when I was watching did I think “wow, this is the best movie I’ve seen this year), it is not a great movie, and it should not be getting these honors. Whereas Rang de Basanti was one of the bext movies that I have seen in years, English or not. What a travesty.
You guys already put it best when pointing to Shubhra Gupta’s article here. http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/004122.html