Water

It was on a lark that four of us attended the movie 'Water'. We ranged in age from 24 to 41 and we're all still talking about it two weeks later, in fact we're planning to go see it again before it's out of the theater. The movie entertained and educated, while giving at once an insight into the beauty of the country and the viciousness of some cultural norms. It seems impossible to believe that some of the things in this movie could have actually happened, and that perhaps today there are women (widows) living in similar circumstances. The characters in this movie are easy to identify with, to love and to despise. Despite the bleak conditions portrayed in the movie, there are moments of wonder and comedy and great love. The vistas are stunning, as are the character portrayals. Enjoy this movie on the big screen and then rush out to buy your own copy as soon as it's available. I too now 'want a ladoo'.

I just saw this last night at the TIFF with no expectations (originally didn't even want to see it). But what an enjoyable film this was!!! The dialogue was quite witty, the stars were attractive and gave very believable performances (my friend said that she was so drawn into it that she forgot those people were just acting and weren't really living the life of the characters). The story had the audience empathize with the situation and all those involved, with lightened bits of humour intermixed with sad/dramatic parts throughout.

What captivated me the most was how beautifully filmed each scene was (in that respect, it reminded me of House of Flying Daggers). The stunning cinematography, vivid colours were all so carefully planned. In every frame, I can envision a beautiful photograph which can be composed from it.

The score was also very good and added to the mood of the film.

Go see it if you have the opportunity, you will not be disappointed (oh, might want to bring some Kleenex tho').

oh, and since it was at TIFF, Deepa spoke a few words (she appears to be very down to earth and sincere) and the cast was also present (John Abraham and Lisa Ray are absolutely gorgeous but very modest and subtle). These people did such a fabulous job, but remain so approachable and true. Am so proud of them!!!!

I saw this film on a Saturday afternoon in a theater with about 40 other people, split about 60/40, females to males. All ages although the younger viewers were mainly female. (late teens) Towards the end, as I was choking back tears and grabbing at Kleenex's, I looked around as there was total silence from the audience. It was AWED SILENCE, people! Every woman was bawling her eyes out and the men, without exception, were scrunched down into their collars, staring intently, holding back tears. This is Deepa's finest hour. She can retire now knowing she has made a worthy film. I would have voted 10 but there were a few technical glitches such as one moment were the color/lighting changed for about 3 seconds in an important scene and then snapped back. No blame to Deepa, though. I have sent several to see the film and all have raved about it, Can hardly wait to buy the DVD and see it again. The criticisms were political and should not be considered. Any film that criticizes aspects of a religion gets blasted from fundamentalists. This film is NOT a political statement. It is entertainment based on a political statement. It should not be missed. Brava!!!

This movie is not banned in India as said in some of the reviews. I have watched the movie on a legal DVD. It was released in movie theatres too. Like most of the other reviewers I too found it to be a great movie. I was disturbed for some days after watching this movie. But I must also add that the depiction of widows in the movie is not representative of Hindu community as of today. No one of my generation here talks of or is aware of Manu's Laws on which this movie is based. I come from a fairly conservative small town Hindu family . But I do not remember my widowed aunts, grandmothers or cousins being treated in the way depicted in this movie. None of them was banished to live in an 'ashram'. They stayed at home and led a quite but dignified life. A cousin of mine who lost her husband in an accident was remarried by her parents! I am not an ultra-rightist. I too deplore the harassment Deepa Mehta faced while shooting in Varanasi. But through this review I wanted to give a balanced picture especially to the western movie goers.

This beautiful and poignant film also packs quite a punch; the sorry plight of Hindu widows in traditional Indian society is made evident. Deepa Mehta has clearly set out to make a film with a message but she lets the story carry the message and she does not demonize the supporters of ancient oppressive practices, some of whom are motivated by faith rather than self-interest. Strangely the film's beauty undercuts to some extent the political message: I can imagine a devout Hindu seeing it as supporting the traditional view.

As explained in the film, according to ancient texts a Hindu widow had three choices; she could join her husband on his funeral pyre, she could marry his younger brother (if available) or she could go into an Ashram (refuge) with other widows and live a life of self-denial to atone for the sin of having lost her husband.. It is the third option Chuyia (Sarala) takes on the death of her husband in 1938. Chuyia however is only nine years old and scarcely remembers getting married.

The Ashram is a poor place, self-supported by the proceeds of begging and prostitution, but there is camaraderie amongst the women (who are of all ages) and Chuyia, initially, is not badly treated. The focus shifts to Kalyani (Lisa Ray) the Ashram's "jewel" who becomes involved with a young political activist Narayana (John Abraham), a supporter of Gandhi.

The film is not so much an attack on religion as on particular beliefs. I've no doubt one could live the life of a devout Hindu without believing that widows are responsible for their husband's deaths just as one can be a devout Christian without believing in slavery, or that the earth is flat, or was created in 4004BC. Although the film is set just prior to World War 2 there are undoubtedly many supporters of the ancient texts still out there – Mehta was prevented from filming in India by some of them and "Water" was eventually filmed in Sri Lanka. I find it impossible to have any sympathy for their position because it really amounts to using the practices of a society which has long passed away to defend an economic interest, or rather to excuse the abandonment by her family of a woman who has had the ill-luck to lose her husband. As Chuyia asks, where is the Ashram for the widowers? Also, whatever could be said for child marriage on social or economic grounds 2000 years ago, there is no possible justification for it now.

It's a great pity the film was banned in India and Pakistan – it is a film for the citizens of those countries rather than me, but it is striking to watch and I suspect, not easy to forget.