Response to C.J.S. Wallia Review of "Earth"

After reviewing C.J.S. Wallia's Review of "Earth" I would have to agree with many of the observations. I felt the criticism a bit harsh in that there were many redeeming qualities of the storytelling style. While the characters may have been underdeveloped, Mehta attempted to keep a neutral approach to any commentary on roles of the different religious groups. Wallia provided the following commentary. 

However, Mehta's 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. On the contrary, most historians agree that it was Jinnah's and the Muslim League's intransigent demand and their announced and cruelly implemented "Direct Action Day" which started the riots and made the partition inevitable. In the Punjab, Muslim Leaguers began the riots in December 1946 in Rawalpindi and in March 1947 in Lahore. The first victims were Sikhs: "The largest number of victims at the March riots were Sikhs. The murderous game of stealthily creeping up, quickly stabbing the victim, and running away could best be played against the easily identifiable Sikh rather than the Hindu or the Muslim, who, unless attired in his special dress, had to be stripped naked to see whether or not he was circumcised before his fate could be decided. The Sikhs took a terrible beating....The communal bent of the police was an important factor in the killings.

I disagree with the assessment that "Earth" conveyed the impression that the Sikhs were the instigators of many of the riots. Historical references were made that suggested Sikhs were responsible for past violence, but it seemed to create more of an impression that the Muslims were responsible for many of the increasing rioting. 

The film was vague about many of the historical references that would either support or deny some of the details that Wallia defends. I believe his review to be too harsh, but contains in it some relevant observations.

"Earth" Simple Story -- Complicated Times

My initial reaction to Deepa Mehta’s 1998 film “Earth” was that it seemed to be lacking the depth that I expected from a film about the partitioning of India in 1947. Mehta’s own neutrality as a Parsi allowed her to stay objective as she described this period of Indian history that turned Hindu, Muslim and Sikh neighbors against each other. In her effort to remain neutral, she failed to represent the confusion, hatred and passion that individuals of that time were facing. She attempted to introduce the experience of daily life, traditions and pressures of India in 1946 through the eyes of a young girl, Lenny. The naïve viewpoint of the child may have proved to be too limiting for this subject matter.

In some ways she was successful. In one of the first scenes, she introduces the audience to the different individual influences in India at that time. She sets the British, Hindu and Parsi together at Lenny’s parent’s dinner party. They discuss the state of the nation and the future independence of India. This scene only gives the audience a glimpse into the political and economic struggles of the time. It makes historical references to industrial development, social enhancements and agricultural changes that affected Indian culture. The conversation, however, plays out as if it were an account from a textbook.

Later the audience is introduced to a group of friends comprised of a local Lohr men and one young woman, Shanta who is the Hindu nanny of Lenny. The young men seemed to be lifelong friends who come from different backgrounds. They are Muslim, Hindu and Sikh. They all have a common passion. They share interest in Shanta. Mehta uses the friends discussions to inform the audience of the events leading to India’s independence. The characters are set to represent several perspectives, but the conversations do not allow adequate development of the characters. There are few shining moments that the director manages allow the characters to come alive. The Ice Candy Man performs his antics in the park. He portrays the part of a “holy man” who has a “direct call line to Allah”. When a Sikh is asked for a connection to Allah—he is denied. There is some heckling from the crowd that reminds the audience the religious divisions that have created underlying fear and hatred between sects. The Ice Candy Man to address the crowd and proclaims the prophesy that these neighbors will soon turn on each other.

The characters are for the most part one-dimensional and the audience is only allowed to begin to see character development as Shanta begins a relationship with two of the suitors, the Ice Candy Man and the Masseur. The men’s personalities are notably different. Ice Candy Man is a man who expresses his passions outwardly and reacts to situations with emotionally charged actions. The Masseur tends to be reflective and introverted. He displays a passive personality that earns him the love of Shanta and, just as Ghandi who maintained a peaceful nonpartisan position, an unfortunate end.

There were moments that “Earth” managed to communicate statements the human condition but fell short of expressing the the complicity of the events of 1947. The Ice Candy Man reflects that it is the human heart that is troubled, like the lion in the cage, waiting for the door to be opened. This is an insight is universal. A Muslim boasts to his Sikh friend that “they” will be sorry when his god gives it to them “up their skirts”. The Sikh replies that it may be the other way around. The Muslim is silenced. I’m wondering, was it because he was questioning his own faith? Questioning if he was on the “right” side? If there a “right” side? What happens if one does not choose the “right” side? If there was any message that I received from viewing this film, it was a simple one. India was an extremely conflicted nation in 1947. They had been living as “invisibles”. Now they were forced to define themselves without any national identity to guide them.

"Before the Rain" Taking Sides

"Before the Rain" (1994) illustrates the importance of "taking sides". What drives people to "take sides" and what happens when sides are taken? Milcho Manchevski examines this through three intertwined chapters which allow the viewer to gain the perspective of three unique individuals and follow their stories as sides are taken and the world is changed by their choices. These characters are examined through three chapters, "Words", "Faces" and "Pictures". "Words" focuses on a young monk, Kiril, caught between the world of vows and neutrality or love and passion. He chooses love by harboring a young Albanian girl who is suspected of murdering a Macedonian. He appears to be Macedonian himself as he makes reference to a Macedonian uncle, Aleksandar. "Faces" presents a young professional british woman, Anne, who is torn between an unassuming life with her husband in London or a passionate and possibly dangerous life with a Macedonian photographer. She chooses her husband and homeland as her lover, Aleksandar, leaves for Macedonia. But the danger is still in England as she realizes there is no escaping conflict. She is ironically caught in a crossfire arising from the same Balkan conflict she tried to avoid. "Photos" introduces Aleksandar, Anne's Macedonian lover, as a world renown photographer who desires to return to his homeland of Macedonia to escape his successful but emotionally and physically draining career as a war photographer. He believes Macedonia to be a peaceful refuge. When he returns to home he is forced to "take sides". Macedonia has been divided by a movement of nationalism which has divided Macedonian and Albanian neighbors. He must choose between his family and his Albanian true love. He attempts neutrality to no avail. When he stands up for the young Albanian girl suspected of murdering his cousin, he is shot by his own family.

This film does not attempt to be a tale told from beginning to end. In fact, it's nonlinear nature has found its fair share of critics. If the critics view the details of the film carefully, the circular nature of the storytelling lends itself nicely to the notion that, Universally, it is the "sides we take" and the decisions we make that impact our world dramatically. A look at the future can sometimes give us a better perspective on the past. Some of the visual cues, the photos of the Nazi concentration camps in Anne's drawer, may have been overkill, but it cannot be denied that some of the dangers that Manchevski fears are approaching the region are foreshadowed by the violence that has already taken place. The late 1990's found the conflict between Macedonians and Albanians increasing. This aligns with Manchevski's prediction. Was this a vain attempt to warn his homeland of the threat of conflict and that if lines are drawn future peace may be risked? Or, was Manchevski simply giving a personal snapshot of his homeland in order to gain recognition for himself and his country? Regardless of his intentions "Before the Rain" did get the attention of the world. It portrayed the Macedonian landscape, culture, social pressures and struggles. It introduced the world to a nation looking for an identity and forced to "take sides".

There is one particular review that I would like to take the opportunity to dispute. John Simon's review “Wild and Wilder”, National Review, 47 April 3, 1995: 66-67 is less than approving of the chronological order, or lack of order, to "Before the Rain". It is not so much that I disapprove of his personal discomfort with the nonlinear flow of the movie, it is his lack of attention to detail that was disappointing. He believes scenes to be confusing. He describes the scene in which Anne is looking at pictures of the strife-torn Balkans taken by her lover-- he mentions the photos shot of Kiril and Zamira, the monk and young Albanian runaway. He makes a reference that these are taken by Aleksandar. He misses the fact that there could have been another photographer at the scene. Anne traveled to Macedonia and is present at Aleksandar's funeral. There are other details that if the audience is open and watchful dictate the passage of time. The repeated reference to the circle that never ends alerts the audience immediately to be mindful of details that repeat. Photographs, people, and places all are used to indicate time and references to the continuance of time. 

What's our problem?

You know what your problem is, it's that you haven't seen enough movies-all of life's riddles are answered in the movies. – Steve Martin

Okay, Steve, we're on it!