While not a mainstream Hindi movie, I thought I’d include a review here that I did a few months back of Deepa Mehta’s most recent film.
Water, the final film in director Deepa Mehta’s trilogy of the elements, proves to moviegoers that good things can come to those who wait.
The history of the making of the film is itself an epic saga. It took a total of seven years to bring the movie to screen. In 2000, just two days into filming in Varanasi, under the complaint that Mehta’s film was casting India and Hinduism in an unflattering light, violent protests, destruction of the sets and death threats by political and religious groups shut the production down. Four years later, after a patchwork of funding and a new cast were lined up, filming began again, this time in Sri Lanka, under an innocuous false title and tight secrecy. Mehta can consider herself vindicated, as the film was selected to open the Toronto International Film festival last September and has been garnering rave reviews since.
The movie opens with the main character, the eight-year-old girl, Chuyia, sitting in the back of a cart, chomping happily on sugar cane and being chastised for tickling the feet of the man stretched out next to her. We learn that the year is 1938, she is a child bride and her husband is dying. Uncomprehending and unperturbed, she sits blankly in the next scene while the now deceased man is cremated in Varanasi and her long, thick hair is shorn. Under the dark of night, her parents deposit her at a widows’ residence just off the banks of the Ganges, setting in motion a chain of events that leaves its mark on many lives, just as Gandhi’s influence at that time is having an effect across India.
When faced with the dire penury and restrictions the widows endure, the distraught child rebels. Some of the women are touched by her and take pity on her. Shakuntala (played by Seema Biswas, in the role that was to have been Shabana Azmi’s) is stern but kind, and she becomes a mother of sorts to Chuyia. Living upstairs, apart from the others, is Kalyani, played by the ethereal beauty, Lisa Ray, who has been allowed to keep her hair long because she is prostituted to wealthy clients across the river. She plays older sister to Chuyia, and her small garret serves as a refuge. The ashram is ruled by Madhumati – the physically imposing madam of the house (literally) – who can only see Kalyani as a unique revenue source. When she learns of Kalyani’s love for a young man, she does everything she can to thwart the union, first cutting off her hair, and then locking her up.
The love interest, Narayan, is played by John Abraham, who Mehta says she chose for his eyes and voice, and “because he could convey idealism and not be a wimp.” Narayan is a sensitive, thoughtful law graduate excited by the teachings of Gandhi. He questions everything that he cannot make sense of or accept: British rule in India, his mother’s wish that he marry soon just because of his age, and the treatment of widows. Narayan falls in love and is prepared to flaunt convention and his mother’s opposition to be with Kalyani, just as several threads of the story come together, with tragic results.
Of the three films in the trilogy, this is the strongest and most complete. While Shabana Azmi and Nandita Das (who is still not on speaking terms with Mehta) would likely have performed well, we are fortunate to witness Seema Biswas shine in a role that she has made her own.
On the occasion of Fox Searchlight Pictures release of Water in the U.S., Deepa Mehta was in New York for interviews, where she said the most challenging role to cast was Chuyia. She looked at 80 young girls in Mumbai, Delhi and Kolkata, but found that “most have been so influenced by Bollywood and the soaps they have unconsciously imbibed mannerisms that are so over-the-top and I thought it would be real work to undo that.” Sarala, the young actor chosen, comes from a small town near Colombo. Speaking only Sinhala, she learned her lines and direction through translation and sign language.
Lisa Ray and John Abraham are unexpectedly solid in their roles. Also in New York to promote the film, Lisa Ray commented that, while she has no intention of pursuing work in Bollywood movies, working with Abraham was “a revelation” and that she would have to, on occasion, stifle a laugh while still on camera because her co-star would trip on his dhoti upon exiting the scene.
The dialogue in Water is pared down and not as speechy as in Fire and Earth. Mehta herself admits it was too lengthy in the original script.
The absence and appearance of color weave in and out through the film. The widows’ residence is grey and bleak, emphasized even more by the ghostly residents, semi-catatonic in their grubby white saris and shorn heads. A riotously bright parrot and black puppy, two creatures not bound by man’s use of religion, provide vivid contrast to the bloodless lives of the virtual shut-ins. Because our eyes become accustomed to the visual monotony of the household, the scene of the puppy Kaalu running through the Varanasi lanes, dashing by chickens and through dry red peppers, the brilliance of the clothes worn by a mother and young daughter giving alms at the temple, Chuyia’s Krishna costume and the colored powders as the widows celebrate Holi, all explode on the screen like a flash flood in a desert. Even Narayan asks Kalyani about her would-be new life: “What is the first color you will wear?”
When talking about being a Toronto resident for over 30 years and returning often to India to make the movies that she does, Mehta credits being an Indo-Canadian, saying that “In Canada we really are a multi-cultural society, there is no melting pot and that is why I never felt that I had to leave my Indianness behind.” At the same time as the movie’s release in the U.S., Newmarket Press has just published Shooting Water: A Memoir of Second Chances, Family and Filmmaking by Devyani Saltzman, Deepa Mehta’s daughter. The twenty-something Oxford grad narrates the deep impact that her parents’ divorce, and choice to live with her father, had on her parents and herself in the past 15 years, and how, working in India and Sri Lanka as a member of the Water crew, allowed her a chance to rebuild her ties with her mother.
I finally saw this movie, and I think that much of both the praise and criticism are warranted.
Firstly, the praise: I think it was clearly very beautiful visually and really captures the look and feel of the times. I also enjoy the characters of the child and Narayan, I think both he and his fat friend articulate the prevalent views of the times and show both sides of the elites during the Raj: some kowtowed to the British while others held firm to their idealism and patriotism. I also think it is important to draw attention to the treatment of widows, which has improved but is still rather lamentable in certain portions of the country.
However, I think that this is also a movie meant more to provoke a reaction from a western audience than to authentically depict or critique practices within Indian culture. This is clearly an NRI movie, and I say that as an NRI, because it lacks the same affection and comfort that you see in the work of a Ray or Ratnam film. Mehta chooses to exaggerate the visuals a great deal, particularly her use of color and its absence. Similarly heavy handed is her use of water as a metaphor, from the title to its use in nearly every pivotal scene.
On casting, I think that it was very well done, with the possible exception of Lisa Ray. Trust me, I love Lisa Ray, i think she’s one of the most beautiful women around, but she simply looks overly glam, foreign and out of place. While there are some very light skinned Indians, she is clearly not totally Indian and it detracts from the film’s verisimilitude. Not to mention, it seems like she was cast to add an extra bit of glamor to what is already a sensationalistic role (see below) and I can’t help but think also so the romantic lead would be appealing to western (mostly white) audiences.
Finally the plot. As I said, I think it’s important to draw attention to the negative aspects of Indian and Hindu culture. I even liked the portion with the auntie who loved sweets, and I thought most of Chuyia’s story was very well done. But how Madhumati’s heinous and immoral actions through her dealings with the eunuch can be somehow be called a legitimate critique of Hindu fundamentalist culture, I just don’t get. If anything, rather than exploring the ways in which widows are oppressed by society, Mehta chooses to set up a straw man, an easy villain who is a widow herself, without exploring her reasons of motivations in any depth. If anything, she is selling her subject short. Furthermore, even if you accept that Kalyani’s prostitution is somehow due to her condition as a widow (leaving aside that I think the story of the other widows was much more compelling) then I still maintain the act at the end involving Chuyia was over-the-top and only to ratchet up the emotional impact. I found it hollow and unrealistic, and even though I do acknowledge that such heinous things do occur, I feel like the introduction of this act by itself should have changed the the subject of discussion from widow oppression to pedophilia and sexual, rather than being used as a device to heap upon a subject already beaten to death by that point.
I did think Narayan’s articulation of the real motivation for widow’s colonies was spot on; I just wish that more of the movie were spent on such realistic explorations rather than fanciful plot twists that are intended to provoke dramatic emotional reactions.
Overall, a nice film, but nothing revolutionary and definitely not an authentic depiction of Raj-era India or a work of important social criticism.
No I haven’t seen the DVD yet, but I will look for it! Sounds good. Have you listened to Farah Khan’s commentary on the Main Hoon Naa DVD. Some fun stories (though, as a small gripe, I hate that they completely take out the soundtrack of the film on that audio track, not just lowering it when she speaks)…I can’t watch any scene with the John Woo pigeons now without giggling.
Hi JKM,
Thanks for stopping by. Yes, that was a point Deviyani stressed in the interview, that it wasn’t a “making of book”. I’ve been trying to find the time to transcribe and post the 3 interviews (Mehta, Ray, Saltzman). One day soon hopefully.
On the subject of Taxi 9211, have you seen the DVD with the director’s commentary? I LOVE it! I wish more Hindi movies would include this feature, if they were like Taxi; it was informative, to hear the behind-the-scenes details of the difficulties they ran into shooting on this street or that, etc etc.
I liked this movie when I saw it at a showing at the Smithsonian with Ms. Mehta along for questions (although, an unfortunate use of the time allotted allowed for only five!). I agree that Seema Biswas quietly stole the film with her powerful performance, while Sarala was amazing, Lisa Ray delicate and touching, and John Abraham managed to not annoy me (or take his shirt off) for the whole film. With that and Taxi Number 9211 (where John had benefit of Nana-rub-off credibility) John had me thinking that I might have to reassess him…then came Garam Masala to straighten me out again!
Sorry about the JA digression. I read Devyani Saltzman’s book, and though I liked it, I had bought it expecting more of a behind the scenes book and it really wasn’t. It was much more of an explanation of the intricate webs that bind a family, especially those that break, re-break and reform in a divorce. Worth reading, but not quite satisfying to the die-hard movie making voyeur. Even with it’s scanty and miniscule pictures, the Making of Lagaan book was much more to my taste, that way.
Hi Tarana,
Thanks for your comments and for visiting.
About Lisa Ray, funny enough, I’ve heard from Indians that they felt she was inappropriate, that her mixed heritage made her less able for the role and the language, and less suitable physically.
On the reason she chose Lisa Ray, in the interview I did with Deepa Mehta at the time of the movie’s release, she said that by the time they were going to film, years later, she felt that Nandita Das was now too strong a woman to convey the vulnerability she wanted for Kalyani. (Shabana Azmi was out the second time around because she is very visible and was seen as a political liability if they were to try and film “secretly” in Sri Lanka.) According to Mehta, she and Shabana are fine with each other, but Nandita Das has still not spoken to her to this day.
I watched Water a couple of weeks ago, screened in Chicago.
I have to say that I personally feel that Earth is the strongest of the the three films. There is a ‘rootedness’ to the film that I felt Water lacked. I felt much more emotionally connected to Earth whereas in Water I was noticing the composition of the shots, the cinematography, the wonderful child actor, seema biswas etc without connecting to any of them. The film has beautiful moments – i love Chuhiya – but overall it left me cold.
Also, I encountered the usual “the actress doesn’t look Indian” from the American friends I saw the film with. And while I attempted to explain (once again) that India has a very varied ethno-cultural disposition, I also felt that I would have loved to see Nandita Das in the role. I wonder why she wasn’t in it.
However, I love your blog. As Velu before me, I’ve also been digging up archives to read.
🙂
Sanket, yhanks for your comments. You know, one interesting situation I’ve noticed is that several people I know – Indians living in India – have thrown their hands up at this film in great disapproval of Mehta’s portrayal of her country of birth, and the word “NRI” has been used as if it were an epithet, so she’s obviously striking a negative chord with some people.
Velu, thanks for stopping by, and do come back. Yes, John really was quite solid in the movie, wasn’t he?
Hi
I saw Water when it was premiered at the IFFK last year. There was so much hype abt the movie, that I shud say I was pretty much disappointed at the end of it all. Apart from being a varietable medley of colours and the invincible John presence, the film held little interest to me as a viewer. 🙁
This is my first time here, and I shud say u have a fantastic blog. I have been spending the last few minutes digging up the archives, and generally having a good read. Shall come back for more, for sure.
🙂
Great review on an equally great movie. This movie transcends ‘Bollywood’, ‘Hollywood’ and other pre-conceived notions of what films are what – it is just an extraordinary film in any language. For those of you that want to introduce non-Indian friends to the world of Hindi Cinema – this movie would make a great first choice.