Earth

In 1947, after centuries of colonial rule and 89 years of the British Raj, the Indian subcontinent was finally given long overdue independence. The quest for independence, as lead most famously by Mahatma Ghandi, gave rise to the issue of how to grant it. In the end, sectarian agitations led to the bloody partitioning of India. From British India emerged the Hindu majority India and the Muslim majority Pakistan, accompanied by massacres, riots and "the largest, most terrible exchange of population known to history." It is during this most horrific of schisms that "Earth", directed and part-written by Deepa Mehta, takes place. "Earth" is set in the large cosmopolitan city of Lahore, as it transfers from Indian to Pakistani rule, and is shown from the perspective of a young, lame Parsee girl, called Lenny (Maia Sethna), and her group of friends. This group is a relative microcosm of Indian society, with Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Parsees all represented. As the film progresses, Mehta uses the tensions that surface and eventually destroy the group as a parallel to the hostilities of the Partition.

As Parsees, India's "invisible" people, Lenny's wealthy family is supposedly sheltered from the growing conflict by an ever-fragile 'neutrality'. Lenny's naïvety is used quite effectively to endear her to the viewer. Her innocence makes the tragedy of Partition even more profound. The events occurring are incomprehensible to Lenny; her naïvety is best illustrated in the opening scene, in which she breaks a plate and, utterly perplexed, enquires "Can one break a country?" The story, though narrated by Lenny at beginning and end, does not always seem to be from her viewpoint and one doubts if she could accurately be described as the protagonist.

Lenny's Hindu ayah, or nanny, appears to be more of a focus. Shanta (Nandita Das) is beautiful, and is surrounded by a circle of male admirers, and, in particular, two Muslims suitors who vie for her affection. One is the poetic Dil Navaz (Aamir Khan), or as Lenny calls him, Ice Candy Man, and the other is a masseuse, Hassan (Rahul Khanna). Although it initially seems that it is with Dil Navaz that her affections lie, Hassan proves to be her true love, much to the surprise of the viewer. Whilst it is never really shown why Dil Navaz's courtship fails, the viewer could infer that it he lacked a certain gentlemanliness and that he possessed a certain darkness. What is clear is the love that Hassan has for Shanta; a love that is realised in a beautifully handled love-scene. Shanta is a woman for which he would convert to Hinduism and risk his life.

Mehta does not shy away from depicting the savagery of the conflict and the film possesses some extremely powerful moments. One in particular is the debilitating and horrifically gruesome 'de-limbing' of a man caught in the fury of a mob. Another, arguably most powerful, scene is the discovery of a trainload of massacre victims by Dil Navaz, among them his sisters, and sacks of severed breasts. The climax of the movie is a devastating illustration of the consequences of unrequited love. In the scene, we see the supposed protection of the Parsees crumble as an enraged Muslim mob arrives seeking Hindus and Sikhs. Shanta, a Hindu, is hidden in the house, as the mob questions workers who have converted from Hindu and Sikh to Muslim and Christian and then demands Shanta. Dil Navaz, played deftly by Aamir Khan, appears from the crowd, and appearing a "hero", deceives Lenny into revealing Shanta's whereabouts who is then dragged away screaming, and presumably murdered.

Based on the novel "Cracking India", by Bapsi Sidhwa (who co-adapted the script), the film translate to screen in a rich, flowing melodrama. It is strong in symbolism and the obvious motif of 'breaking' (plates, persons, dolls and relationships) works to keep the Partition in frame-of-mind. Mehta has created a sensual piece of dazzling colours that correspond with the moment in time – in the first half it is joyful and organic, in the second it is dark and ominous. The accompanying soundtrack, by A.R. Rahman, is effective and appropriate. However, the film sits awkwardly betwixt the style of 'Bollywood' and that of Hollywood. It has, one could argue, obviously been made with a Western audience in mind, and consequently, does not set to be historically informative. Nevertheless, it is an effective piece that does not befuddle the viewer, and provides insight into how people were directly affected by the Partition, an event that still reverberates today.

(S. R. Watson, Flinders University, Adelaide)

I saw this film about 10 years back and have seen it thrice since then.Last time I saw it was on the "independence day" but this time after reading the novel "ice candy man".It made me appreciate the movie more and understand how beautifully Deepa Mehta adapted this partition story to a character study.After fire which was a brilliant film,ahead of its times in the Indian context this was her most accomplished work.Deepa Mehta keeps her objectivity without indulging or being judge-mental of the dark side of human nature as it emerges in the face of adversity.

For me this movie is not about partition,but about human nature.The veil that separates us from animals becomes an anomaly in certain situation.So it is not so much the partition that drew the worst out of the characters but the demons such as lust,violence,jealousy,anger,resentment that already exist at the very core of human nature.It may or may not manifest itself in its most carnal form.But in this case it does.

The innovation of songs as a part of narration was a masterstroke and when you have A R Rehamn at the fore,there will be magic."Raat Ki Dal Dal" is probably one of the most wonderfully pictured songs I have have seen in recent times,as the camera zooms in on Aamir as he is waiting for the train from India,encapsulating his anxiety.The art work is accurate enough,the cinematography is excellent(notice how the camera-work changes from being still and peaceful in first half to more vibrant in the second half).

The performances of the entire cast is brilliant,whether it is the parsi family or Dil Nawaz's friend circle or even Gulshan Grover for that matter.Everyone seems to be on the money.Rahul khanna is a natural talent like his brother(which explains why he is not making it big in this superficial industry),he is rightly understated through the film.His is the only character which doesn't have as many demons and is probably at peace with himself after having the women of his dreams.Nandita Das is a brilliant actress whom I have long admired along with Seema Biswas and Konkana Sen.Her courage and talent shines through as she plays a character who is oozing sexuality,is flirtatious and maybe some what naive.

In case of great actors,I try not to use the "best" and "greatest" to describe their performances,because it in a way diminishes their remaining equally brilliant body of work.But this was a new high for Aamir khan in my book.Before this movie I thought he was one of the most talented,versatile and courageous actors within the industry.This film is where he transcended to greatness and stayed there.To be very honest,most of the ground work was laid in the novel for this role,but one needs great vision to convey this charming character's journey into madness.The use of body language and "silence" is what separates the great actors from others.Al Pacino,George C Scott,De Niro,Sanjeev Kumar understood the value of it and here Aamir showcases his class especially in the climax.

This film is not for the faint hearted.But that is what I have admired Deepa Mehta for.She has always been ruthlessly truthful when it comes to human nature whether it is "earth" or "fire".Unfortunately most of the Indians like the "escapist" mode just to "make them feel good about themselves".If you are one of those this not for you.

P.S.Majority of the reviews here are spot on and people not aware of the horrors of partition were also able to connect on a human level which fulfills the purpose of this film.

This movie has attempted and succeeded at trying to get a handle on the brutal days of 1947 when British India was separated into independent India and Pakistan. I would suggest that this movie be a required viewing for anyone studying the past and present of these two countries. Lahore of 1947 is not very different from Sarajevo of the 90s. And this too is no fiction. Mayhem depicted in the movie is *very* tame compared to what actually happened. It is my ferevent hope that the people of India and Pakistan view this movie and hope "Never Again".

EARTH will seem familiar to anyone who has ever seen a historical epic. Its tale of political and national disjunction and horror is filtered through a precariously neutral upper-middle class family, in particular through the eyes of a young child, a scenario not dissimilar to, say, EMPIRE OF THE SUN. Further, this child, beautiful but lame, is somehow a figure for India itself, its scar of partition masked by her disability, or an embodiment of this soon-to-be-lost, dangerously naive innocence, scenes of great personal intimacy contrast with scenes of mass violence, until the two collide in the gut-wrenching climax. As with any historical epics, the film's sweeping smoothness conceals formal ruptures, as the film moves registers from the 'naturalistic' or narratively, psychologically plausible to Expressionism, to blatant allegory. This internal conflict may mirror the struggle over boundaries the film narrates.

If the film is conventional is outline, it is also intelligent, beautiful and economical in a way most stodgy historical epics are not. Its predominantly Western structure is filtered through with a restrained Bollywood sensuality, and, in the first half especially, after one has gotten used to the rather stilted dialogue and stylised situations, one is astounded by the caressing fluidity of the camerawork; the uncommon beauty of compositions, especially indoors, where the essentially muted 'earth' colours of the decor are pierced by unearthly shards of light; the profusion of dazzling colours, in costumes, and especially in the horrific marriage sequence, undermining the strained sobriety of most historical epics; the unforced breaks into song and dance, the accumulation of vignettes, some comic, some full of joy and promise, some bursting with foreboding, that give a sense of life being lived, a life already fragile in status, waiting to be destroyed; the unabashed use of melodrama, its critical framing device (in one horrible scene, the protagonists watch helplessly from a balcony the strangely beautiful conflict, passive like us the audience), and its emotional demands on the audience I realise that much of my pleasure comes from a racist 'Orientalism', a projection of my desires of exoticism and Otherness on the East, but my own country has a traumatic history of British Imperialism and partitions, so I don't feel too guilty.

The first half is as good as anything in cinema this year, once one has got used to the shifts in register. It is full of the autumnal sadness of a Chekhov play, or Ray's CHARULATA, or LE REGLE DU JEU, where we observe people living life, being friends, making love playing games, while we know history is sadistically poised on the brink, waiting to crush everything. Mehta never falls into nostalgia for this doomed idyll - she records the legacy of the British Empire; the horrors of the caste system; the emotional repression, the arranged marriages between senile paedophiles and pre-pubescent girls. But this section is also full of epiphany, the thrill of the sexual chase, friendship, poetry and, above all, comedy, all the things about to be distorted and destroyed by history as it performs a body snatching operation onto people we have come to love and turns them into vicious murderers.

The second half is an unrelenting catalogue of jolting spasms of violence. Day gives way to night, earthy browns and sun to blackness, friendship and love to death and hate. The film is also a bildungsroman, the tale of the development of a young girl as she learns about life, love, family, gender, language, society, history, culture, politics a development cruelly cut short, distorted, vandalised - when we see the charming dew-eyed narrator half a century later, emotionally in ruins as she stands self-effacingly in the ruins of Imperial pomp (an amazing shot, the film's sparing use of ruined architecture gives the film on occasion a ghostly feel), we sense irreperable loss.

Deepa Mehta has such a commanding presence in her films that she is able to leave her audience both educated and devastated by her stories and by the ingenious ways in which she tells them. EARTH is a magnificent example of her gifts and while it may not be as visually luxurious or as touching as her subsequent WATER, it is a fine film that not only depicts a troubled time in India's history, but also informs us of the intricacies of how people relate to each other - first as humans, second as religious sects.

The film has at its heart the year 1947 when India was given its independence from Great Britain and at the same time bifurcated into two countries - India and Pakistan. The story opens with a tranquil park picnic in Lahore where friends - Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Parsee - while away the afternoon in camaraderie. Only slight overtones of edgy topics about religion mar the conversation until the topic focuses on the incipient split of the country into two countries. Each of the friends represents each of the religious sects and it is how these differences, at once unimportant to friendship, end up in separating the friends under the influence of the devastation of bloodshed that follows the division of the country and the displacement of millions of people, all under the guise of independence.

There is a strong love story, a committed crippled child who experiences all of the happiness and subsequent tragedy that is to follow and the story ends with some words of wisdom by the grown little girl reflecting on choices made, and other sidebars that maintain interest at every frame.

The acting is first rate from a beautiful cast and Mehta's direction makes this tale of change whir by the viewer. For those not educated in the differences of the four religious sects of Hindu, Parsee, Muslim, and Sikh the tale can become confusing: would that Mehta would have included a discussion about the film in an added feature the way she helped us understand the plight of widows in WATER. And the subtitles unfortunately do not translate the English spoken portions of the film, portions that while very important to the story are nearly indecipherable due to the accents of the characters speaking.

But these are minor quibbles in a film that pleads for repeated viewings, so beautiful is the movie and so very important is the message. Highly Recommended.