1 line
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
1 line
1.4 KiB
Plaintext
Water shows the plight of Indian widows in the late 1930s, says in the end that the problem still exists largely by giving statistics in the end, refers to Gandhi several times in the movie before finally having a scene depicting him and does nothing extra ordinarily innovative or new in the movie. Yes, the cinematography is pretty impressive but that cannot be the soul of any movie for me. <br /><br />India has had several problems like many other nations but it has got rid of many of these problems at large. What if a movie is made on racism in America in a particular year which ends with 'x number of Americans still experience racism today'. <br /><br />a) How would it be relevant, and, b) How would it be some thing so extra ordinary being depicted in cinema.<br /><br />A view I read from a Deepa Mehta interview was that this movie is being interpreted as a voice for the marginalised every where. From reviews I read every where, the common thing I am hearing is how the director did a great job and was brave in bringing a problem to the world. The movie is more about a specific problem a society faced (and has got rid of through reforms at large). <br /><br />I do not see any thing earth shattering about the movie. Moreover, the movie lacked soul and shifted between the plots of Chuiyya and Kalyani. Sarala, the young Sri Lankan actress, portrayed the role of Chuiyya superbly and that was the only thing which impressed me about the movie, sadly. |