Film: EarthIndia, 1998
Directed by Deepa Mehta
Readings and Links: ‘Earth’: Unforgettable” by Zarminae Ansari and “‘Earth’: Reviewed by C. J. S. Wallia”
Who among the reviewers did you agree with more and why?
---It was my intention to write this post after viewing not only Earth but also Fire and Water. Unfortunately, the latter two films haven't arrived yet, so I'll dive in now but I hope to be able to come back to this post with a revision after watching the full trilogy.
C.J.S. Wallia and Zarminae Ansari both wrote insightful reviews of Earth, but I find myself siding with Ansariy on nearly every important point. Wallia's numerous objections to the film include its "simplistic" treatment of the "complex history of the partition," the "limited" viewpoint from which the story is told, and the "distorted roles" of the various religious factions and political groups portrayed. I believe Wallia's chief problem with film is that he does not judge the film on its own terms. The limited viewpoint is that of a Parsi child, who understands the partition only in simplistic terms. Earth is not really the story of the partition, it is the story of the end of a childhood. The simple fact that the filmmakers chose to retain the limited viewpoint of the child and not show the story from a wider angle (with a few bothersome exceptions) relieves them from some of the responsibility they may have otherwise had. The "complex history of partition" is not part of Lenny's world, and it's not really part of this story, though it's an important historical issue.
Wallia notes that the novel on which the movie is based is "not come to grips with the events of the partition of the Punjab and the historical roles of the British, the Muslims, the Hindus and the Sikhs." I have not read the novel, Cracking India (originally titled Ice-Candy Man) but I assume that Wallia is sincere, though perhaps mistaken when he states that it is "too weak as a partition story." The reviewer finds the story too weak to present all the various subtleties of the issues involved. But neither the book nor the movie appear to be intended as a "coming to terms" with all the complexities of the issue of partition. Wallia's more serious criticism is that the film "viciously distorts the historical role of the Sikhs in the freedom struggle and during the partition of India to convey the strong impression that they initiated the riots." In viewing the film, I did not get the impression that the responsibility for the riots was laid solely at the feet of the Sikhs - it seemed to me that there was plenty of blame to go around on all sides for the violence and upheaval that both ushered India to independence and broke it into pieces which remain in conflict to this day.
Ansari predicts this type of criticism when he writes that "the movie will undoubtedly offend both sides, since it spares neither, nor holds one as morally superior to the other." Ansari judges the film on its own merits, as a "story of a child’s confusion about the partition, which embodies the confusion of the millions who are eventually affected by it."
I do disagree with Ansari on the following point, however: "[Earth] effectively conveys the reality of the partition and will go a long way in explaining to the rest of the world the cause of the wounds that run deep even today between India and Pakistan." I'm not sure that Earth is capable of explaining the cause of these wounds. Wallia is correct in that it is too superficial to stand in for a history lesson to those who know little about India's past or the current problems in Kashmir, Pakistan, and India. But it's a good starting point, and I got the feeling that is exactly what it was meant to be. The illustration of an end and a starting point for understanding.
