Earth - 1947 is a strong contender to win Oscar award for foreign film.

Entertainment Showbiz Pakistan , Bollywood & World Entertainment
1

Earth - 1947’: Heading For Uncle' Oscar! We knew it all along. That the Deepa Mehta directed Earth-1947’ always had an international quality to it. As were the mind blowing performances from Aamir Khan (mainly), Nandita Das and Rahul Khanna.

The film has been selected by the Film Federation of India as the official entry for the Oscars in the best foreign language film category. And who knows, given Aamir’s sterling appearance in the film, he might bag one too. What a way to wind up the millennium. With `uncle’ Oscar in your bag. With the dynamite actor, anything is possible.

2

A Pakistani reviews "Earth-1947"

Movie Review:"Earth" by Deepa Mehta
by
Ras Siddiqui
On Veterans Day (Nov. 11th), I took the time to visit the Tower Theatre in Sacramento to see the movie "Earth" by writer/director Deepa Mehta in spite of not being into Bollywood/Indian movies, even the "made in the West" variety. But this one did have a special appeal. Frankly, I went to see it because it's story line was based on a novel called "Cracking India" by Pakistan's Bapsi Sidhwa. As we know there are not too many Pakistani writers of English novels published in the West. But ever since I read "The Crow Eaters" and "The Bride" by Bapsi (whom we have just recently heard from in the PakistaniAmerican press introducing her brother M. P. Bhandara), I thought that it would be nice to try and share some thoughts about this movie with CHOWK readers.
So first, a warm welcome to Bapsi Ji for making her presence known from Houston. Let us hope that this is only the beginning of her interest in us here. And as one person who has read many articles by M. P. Bhandara in the Pakistani Press and have come to depend on him for keeping us abreast of what is brewing in Pakistan from time to time (and not only in politics), let us hope that we Pakistani-Americans will read his articles here too. Now to get back to "Earth" and the difficulty in reviewing it from a Pakistani perspective and as one who has not yet read "Cracking India".

Deepa Mehta may or may not have taken some liberties with the original story line but the movie without biased intent, did not turn out to be as neutral as I would have hoped (maybe my own biases prevail here?) . And I mention that because Bapsi as a Pakistani Parsi (Zoroastrian) writer has projected the difficult position and forced neutrality of her community in this story line. But let us start from the beginning. The central character and conduit through which all the events and personalities in "Earth" come to us is Lenny Sethna (played by Maia Sethna), a eight year old physically challenged Parsi girl in Lahore at the time of Partition (when British India was divided into two states, India and Pakistan in 1947). Maia is absolutely wonderful in this role and retains a smile and expression that will make a viewer's heart melt, even amidst high the tension, brutality and just plain horror portrayed in this movie. The story is about how history treats two groups with which this little girl interacts. One is that of her immediate family, her mother Bunty (played by Kitu Gidwani who is simply outstanding in this movie) and father Rustom (Arif Zakaria) and their religiously diverse, relatively affluent friends. The second and "working class" group is that which surrounds Lenny's Nanny, Shanta the Ayah (played by Nandita Das).

The story starts off with whispers of Partition and ends when it becomes a reality. Bapsi/Deepa have done a wonderful job in the area of speculation and disbelief as to which part of the country would go to which country. But it is in the realm of the question whether Partition should ever have taken place, that Pakistani-Americans may have a problem. So when Lenny breaks a plate and wonders how one breaks up a country the underlying message was not lost to this scribe. And the question did come to mind as to which country? And whether British India was actually ever really one country to begin with? The neighborhood in which Lenny grows up, within which her parents socialize has British, Hindu, Sikh and Muslim residents. The impact of Partition on this group is dramatic. This is especially true within the character of Mr. Singh (a Sikh) because when Lahore goes to Pakistan, he, along with the Hindu neighbors leaves. And he has to entrust some of his property to Lenny's family for safekeeping as once again the minority Parsi neutrality comes into play. One very touching moment is when Lenny's mother Bunty asks why they were letting the neighbors down by not doing anything for them with their neutral status? Her husband Rustom asks which group should they support or betray, Hindu, Muslim or Sikh? The analogy of "Sugar in Milk" and its applicability in the role of Parsis in South Asia was also very well done.

But it appears that the main story lies within the group that surrounds the very sensual Shanta (Lenny's Hindu Nanny) and the central male character Dil Nawaz (played by Aamir Khan) also known as "The Ice Candy Man" (Cracking India was published under this name in England). Shanta's beauty attracts not only Dil Nawaz but Hasan the Massuer (played by Rahul Khanna) both Muslim characters. Hindus and Sikhs also form a part of this group which is able to maintain relative harmony in spite of it's diversity. But then Partition comes into the picture in a big way.

The utterly devastating impact of the dark forces unleashed during Partition on the friendship and lives of these poor people is where I believe the main focus of this movie lies. There is no blame attributed to any one group or individual Hindu, Muslim or Sikh, but the transformation of Dil Nawaz after his twin defeat in love and against the historical forces of partition hit the viewer like a hammer. And the message that Deepa & Bapsi send to us through this movie is that such dark forces that live within the prejudices that the religious communities in South Asia should keep under control, if released can cause a catastrophe. All three communities and the exiting British are collectively held accountable here.

In conclusion "Earth" sends an anti-war message to South Asians. Through the colorful journey through Basant (Kite Festival) and the blood spilled streets during Partition in the City of Lahore (which to this day has many admirers on both sides of the India/Pakistan border), there is a lesson to be learnt. And if one can ignore the unnecessary and strong Urdu and Punjabi profanity (Galis) of which there is much of in this movie, "Earth" can be quite an educational movie. One is reminded here that Indians and Pakistanis are a fun loving, sensitive and caring people who unfortunately also carry a beast within them. The Partition of 1947 let this beast out of it's cage and we witness the destruction that it can cause. The message projected in "Earth" is that this beast should never again be let out. And that is where the movie,Deepa Mehta and Bapsi Sidhwa succeed in educating the viewer. The question now is as Kashmir bleeds between us, who is ready to listen?

3

(First of all I am discontinuing the use of Sag-e-MeeraN for the time being as my nick!!)

I have seen Earth:1947 (albeit on a pirated copy on my VCR with not too good quality print) and I must say it is an excellent movie. In fact I think I will have to watch it again to fully appreciate it. The movie also features quite a large amount of english dialogue as well as Urdu.

Aamir Khan is --as ever--wonderful. And the movie is fairly neutral as well but perhaps with just a hint that India should not have been divided (but to be expected?!) :)

The Nandita Das also acts very well in her role as do most of the cast. But really this is Aamir Khan's movie...

Being sent as your country's entry to the Oscars doesn't mean you will win it--but I for one wont be at all unhappy if it does win :)

4

The message of "Earth -1947" was that partition of India was one of the biggest mistake of this century. Mountbatten had said that if he knew Jinnah was going to die in one year he would have postponed the independence of India by one year. There would not have been so many killings,wars. If "Earth" wins the Oscar in BEST FOREIGN FILM category will the world think that Pakistan was a mistake or an accident as suggested by Ayesha Jalal.

5

In an extreme nutshell this fine movie (a definite improvement in the director's skill from Fire) shows the essence of being desi. The average Indian or Pakistani are simple hard working people but what lies sacred to us is our religion/ethnicity and our families. The future prosperity lies in there being the erradication of this intolerance for our people to sucseed in the next century. Pakistan might be a country for Muslims but we still have ethnic and racial lines of tension and prejudice. India too has these problems but at least the goverment promotes secularism to a somewhat extent.

As a Pakistani I asked myself looking at the bloodshed in the movie- Was Pakistan a good idea?

Is Nehru/Jinnah/Gandhi to blame? It seems that because Congress didn't want to give Muslims rights the continent split and then Pakistan did the same with the Bangladeshis in 1971. It is exactly this cycle of identity of being superior to other sects, ethnicity and castes that we have to overcome or I see huge problems in the next century with the social time bombs that are ticking.

Whatever the verdict the past is in the past. I feel patriotic at being Pakistani as a Bangladeshi would be to his nation. Joining collectively into one is not the solution but an understanding of others rights within and outside your nation state is the key. Only when this realized will Kashmir be solved. - gfm

6

pwahid wrote:
I went to see "Earth" last week (Nov 18) in Cambridge, Mass. The film contains many poweful scenes and quotations, very moving and thought provoking. Ras Siddiqui mentions the "Sugar In Milk" analogy. There is a scene where Lenny and her cousin are speaking to refugee boy whose mother was killed and the boy simply asks the two if they would like to play with him. There is much more, plus the betrayal at the end of the film.

I was in particular touched by the scene where the friends are eating in a restaurant and are discussing the current affairs of Partition. They start to argue then quiet down as they realize they are all friends. At this point the character "Hasan" asks his Hindu friend "Ramji" that no matter what happens they as friends will always stick together. "Ramji" replies in the affirmative but with uncertainty.

This particular scene stirred sad feelings within me (certainly a credit to the director here). I felt this way perhaps because we already know the history of what happened and what those people were about to go through. They were loving friends who depended on one another and then saw their hopes and expectations literally severed by the Partition. Right or wrong the Partition happened and our lives (South Asians) are forever affected by it. "Earth" helps us to remember those who were affected by the Partition in the worst ways.

7

I seen this film last year when it opened up at the Toronto film festival. I didn't like it, because I got the impression that there was an underlying theme in the film, questioning the reasoning behind the creation of Pakistan. Although the movie focused on the life of a parsi family (to maintain neutrality), it failed to do so and simplified the conditions of pre-partition India. Focusing on a select group of characters (each from the respective religious groups making up India) who got along just fine, up till the turbulance of partition. This type of portrayal neglects the power imbalance, both economic and political which existed in Indian society between Muslims and Hindus.

I don't think the movie deserves an oscar nomination (let alone an oscar), the acting was mediocare, the script was poor (at times over-dramatic to the point of laughter) and the directing was nothing exceptional. There are a number of 'other' movies at the international level, which are much more worthy of an oscar nomination. The Spanish film playing in Toronto right now, 'All About Mother' is phenomenal as is 'The Girl of Your Dreams', which opened at the Toronto Film festival, both staring Penelope Cruz, who is soon to be exported to hollywood.

Achtung

8

I’ve seen the film after reading someone’s comment about it being a natural film. I even made my family see it – ewww. First of all this film does not deserve any award let alone Oscar, not even Amir Khan’s acting was good in that film compared to his work in Sarfarosh.

As I understood the film, it starts by ’explaining’ Amir Khan’s and malish wala’s character – Amir Khan is a fraud (making phone calls to Allah etc) and the other one is pretty coolheaded guy.
The Parsi family is fine. Sikhs and Muslims are shown as high tempered ppl – which is ok.

Lekin how come the film is about Lahore and not Amritsar(sp?)? Especially when Amir khan says ’woh dekho moti darwazah, and some other darwazah where Hindu majority was living’ and no darwaza was shown.

In other Indian movies even a tiny winy diya can lighten up an entire room, but when Amir Khan enters the train to find his sisters, not much is shown. It’s not like I wanted to see them cutted in pieces – but if a scene like the one in the end were the Muslims wanted that Sikh guy to prove that he is a Muslim, can be shown – so could/should this. Since you don’t understand that train scene, his racist behavior is not understandable – not fair na. Any brother would’ve lost respect for humanity and other fancy words after seeing his sisters in a condition like Amir Khan’s!

Another reason for why I think that, the train scene wasn’t fairly shown, is that it’s easily forgotten by the viewer (may be that was the idea) while the other scenes where Amir Khan says he could kill 10 Hindu pr one killed sister. And where he says ’Yeh pagRee sale..’ and the scene where he’s laughing because Muslims are throwing patrol at already burning Hindu houses, had much more effect on viewers. Also when that group of Muslim enter the Parsis house is an ehhh.

Oh and exactly what was the point in showing the malish wala wanting to become a Hindu??

Why did we see a group of Sikhs yelling jo bole so nikhal…, killing and destroying anything that came their way, and Muslim equally idiots, while no Hindu groups was shown?? Only the Parsis wanting to help everyone, and the Aaya.

Since the film was made showing the Muslims act during the separation, how come Jinnah’s speech wasn’t heard while Nehru’s was on the radio?

:)

[This message has been edited by sabah (edited December 10, 1999).]

9

Sabah wrote: "...but if a scene like the one in the end were the Muslims wanted that Sikh guy to prove that he is a Muslim, can be shown..."

The funny thing is, as I understand partition history, this was a practice carried out by non-Muslims against Muslims. Individuals were asked to drop their pants, humiliating themselves, and were examined for circumsision, to identify Muslims who were obscuring their identities to avoid persecution. This is reversed in the film and in order to reverse history, they had to create this strange scenario where a Sikh converts to Islam, to avoid being persecuted by Muslims.

I wish I could have seen the movie with a group of Muslims so I could have discussed these issues. I seen it with a group of Indians, who were overjoyed by the 'accuracy' of the films and kept 'lamenting' over the creation of Pakistan. They continuously looked at me and said "oh, why did it have to be created!" I think thats the message the movie wanted to convey, and this theme appeals to an Indian audience and unfortunately paints a one-sided story for naive western audiences who don't understand the history of India's Hindu and Muslim populations.

Achtung

10

yea

11

If circumcision could be used by Hindu/sikhs to identify Muslims, it can be done other way round too. It is definitely not unlikely that it was done given the violence in partition time.