Mehta should not be allowed to make a movie that’s critical of Indian cultural attitudes towards widows, they reasoned. According to Hindu scriptures, a widow, labelled as worthless without a husband to measure herself by, should perform the custom of Sati and immolate herself on her husband’s funeral pyre, or lead a life of self-denial.
Two days into the film’s shoot in the holy city of Varanasi in India, more than 2000 hardline Hindu protesters ravaged the set of the movie, issued death threats to the cast and crew of the film, **burned effigies of the director and declared her anti-Hindu. **
Yes, the Ashrams' started as old age home at temples for Widows have been run really badly. We had another thread on Sati, where I agreed that this heinous crime was committed against women in India and good with modern world we did away with it, though there were few cases in last 50 years as well, those were investigated accused punished as well these were rooted in more economic reasons...
There were protests against stopping of screening of water as well. I am one of the people who supported the making of the film. No way one should be stopped from making his point of view - Freedom of speech.....
Good points among the article... .Govt of India allowed making of the film. Hence in this case Govt of India upheld freedom of speech, though it has not been perfect all the time..
Even better film is made, looking forward to watching it, once we have watched it lets start a thread whether we agree with Ms. Mehta's point of view or not...
Like You can see killing of Home Minister in Rang De Basanti, though do you really agree with that......... may be not........ :-)
Reading through article, great gesture by WB and MP govt..
Yet the battle was lost. Mehta shelved the film and did not go back to the script for the next four years even though, right after the protests,** the governments of West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh invited her to shoot in their states.** "I was angry at that point and I would have imposed my anger on the script," she says. "And I told myself that I will not shoot this film until I stop being angry. It took four years for that anger to go away."
Why is Mehta showing 1938 as the backdrop of the film. She may have got some story from current situation as well. As I know there are widows in Benaras and they aren't looked after well...
Though may be she wanted to create great contrast hence picked up older times when reforms were still far far away..
1. Mehta dared to challenge this belief, which she says is a misinterpretation of ancient writings, and decided to make a film about a group of widows living in an ashram in Varanasi.
<>
Sorry, for so many posts, I am elated that this film is made. Looking forward to seeing it. Hopefully this will raise some valid point and that will help to clean up the social misrepresentation of religious texts in Hinduism...
Sorry I read "Windows must perform Sati: Radical Hindus" instead of "Widows must perform Sati: Radical Hindus" and I go wat the heck? I thought that you meant Windows XP must perform some program SATI or something by Radical software
*Two days into the film's shoot in the holy city of Varanasi in India, more than 2000 hardline Hindu protesters ravaged the set of the movie, issued death threats to the cast and crew of the film, burned effigies of the director and declared her anti-Hindu. *
