May 05, 2006
Fun With The Reviewers: Deepa Mehta's WaterFilm
You might have decided to skip this one, perhaps on the basis of Sajit’s negative review from a couple of months ago. Or you might go with the positive reviews in half a dozen respectable newspapers (and USA Today) as well as the 88% reviewer approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and risk your $9.50 to support a highly respected Desi filmmaker. Personally, I will probably go see it.
Meanwhile I’ve been surprised by some culturally clueless and simply inaccurate comments from reviewers.
First, the hands-down most facile, offensive, goofy comment I’ve seen in any movie review this year comes from “Metromix,” affiliated with the Chicago Tribune. At the tail end of an almost laughably abbreviated summary, the reviewer tries to gear up readers for the film with a fashion-oriented tagline: “Bonus: Gear up for that summer ‘do: The widows all have buzz cuts.”
“The widows all have buzz cuts.” Wow. That one sentence couples the triviality of the film review business with a shocking level of ignorance. I know these folks have short deadlines for copy, but could they at least look up something on the subject of Hindu mourning rituals before publishing a review of a film on Hindu widows?
On the other hand, it might be offensive, but at least “All the widows have buzz cuts” is pithy and sharp — the kind of outlandish thing you expect the “naughty” character in a Salman Rushdie novel to say. I’ll leave it to readers to give the final verdict.
Fundamentalism or Tradition?
Another oddity from some of the reviews is the abuse of the word “fundamentalist.” “Fundamentalism” is pretty appropriate if you’re referring to what happened in 2000, when RSS goons with the support of the UP government attacked Deepa Mehta’s set in Benares, destroying her equipment. (The NDA government did nothing to punish any of the offenders; many people involved in the protests were party leaders and relatives of government ministers.) But “fundamentalist” isn’t quite accurate to describe the setting of the film:
There is a tradition within fundamentalist Hinduism that when a woman is widowed, she has three options: (1) to throw herself on her husband’s funeral pyre, (2) to marry his brother (if he has one and it is permitted by the family), or (3) to live in poverty in a group home for widows. Although Water transpires in 1938, an endnote indicates that this practice has not been entirely abolished in India. (link)
The reviewer flings around the word “fundamentalist” with abandon, but it’s sloppy. The word doesn’t fit the context of widowhood in 1930s India at all: “traditional Hinduism” or “Hindu customs” are phrases that are more appropriate.
Who said anything about Sati?>
Check out these lines from the Washington Post review:
The subject is the issue of “widow wastage.” Possibly no term exists in English to convey the cultural tradition; it’s a kind of continuation, by less fiery means, of sati, the practice of immolating a widow on her husband’s funeral pyre. As writer-director Deepa Mehta dramatizes it, when a man dies, his widow is a financial burden to all. Thus she is consigned to an ashram, a kind of rooming house/prison for widows. (link)
Huh? There is a kind of logical connection here — involuntary widow ashrams and Sati are both troubling, archaic practices — but they are still two very different traditions with different symbolic meanings.
Depends on what your definition of “is” is>
The New York Times ran a somewhat unusual story about Water earlier this week, “Film Ignites The Wrath of Hindu Fundamentalists.” Though the title suggests the controversy is occurring in the present, the actual article refers again to the sacking of Mehta’s set in Benares in 2000. There is no current controversy over the film in India, because the film hasn’t been released there.
Water is scheduled for a limited release in India (90 screens) in July, and there may well be are more protests, riots, or theater burnings (as in Mehta’s earlier film Fire, 1996). This time I hope the central government won’t just stand by and let “mob censorship” take its mindless toll.
amardeep on May 5, 2006 11:03 AM in Film · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
Good points raised by the author here.
As usual, the Western press is very quick to call extreme positions in other (non-Abramic) religions as "fundamentalist." I do not in any way support the way widows are treated in certain parts of India, as the film depics, but if you call this fundamentalist Hinduism, what will you call some of the Christian denominations in the US? I don't think I have ever heard the word "fundamentalist" attached to any of the American churches or groups. There is a clear bias against Hinduism in the Western press.
Another aspect about Water is that a director like Deepa Mehta will never come out with a movie based on the negative aspects Islam or Christianity because she knows that (1) it will cause a furore and fatwas will fly, and (2) it may not sell as well.
What do people think of the title of The New York Times review of Water. It is as follows: Film Ignites the Wrath of Hindu Fundamentalists. Is it still igniting the wrath of fundamentalist to this very day? I think this article is oudated by five years-the reference to the term fundamentalist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/03/movies/03wate.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I was curious about this movie since the protests and riots in Varanasi during filming. There was also news of the leading lady shaving her head to look the character. Something was missing from her previous film Earth-1947. the movie just ended with no real conclusion. Aamir was brilliant though
oooo here we go again...
Amardeep
Good thing you brought the topic up. I liked the movie in general, the issues of treatment of widows in traditional Hindu society is a theme that's been cropping up in Indian cinema recently (eg: Chokher Bali).
I don't know if this is necessarily a 'fundamentalist' issue, but just an issue of denial in general. It's the same phenomenon that caused people here to ignore, for the longest time, the abuse of children which was prevalent in the Catholic church. Most people don't like to believe that their religious institutions may have violations concealed in them, that doesn't necessarily make them 'fundamentalist'.
I've been recommending the movie to most of my friends.
The 'buzz cut' thing is a lame attempt at humor, I'm not offended.
I don't have any problems with Deepa Mehta minting money showing the "poor condition" of Hindu widows or Satyajit Ray showing "Indian poverty". Of course, they are not inventing anything out of their hats.. :-)
But do we have any statistics on "how widespread" this practice is, even in 1938.. I am curious because my great grand mother was widowed with not much money at an young age (27) around that time.. with three little kids.. And she did bring them up pretty well..
AB, an interesting fact for you: actually the word "fundamentalist" was first coined to describe Christians the Evangelical churches that became popular in western Europe and the U.S. in the 1800s (try reading this). Some religion scholars say it should only be applied to religious communities with strong traditions of scriptural literalism, that is, the belief that their religious book represents the absolute truth or the Word of God. Hinduism doesn't really fit the bill, since no one text has that kind of status. There are many scriptures, and not many people would say they believe the stories in the Mahabharata are dictated by God and therefore absolutely binding.
Most people outside of religion studies departments, though, are comfortable using the word 'fundamentalist' to describe any kind of extremist behavior tied to religion. The sacking of Deepa Mehta's set in 2000 might be a good example of fundamentalism (in a broader definition) at work. Even if we don't use the word fundamentalism, it is still an act of extreme intolerance.
My point here is that the word may be relevant to that event but it isn't relevant to the theme of the film.
Gagandeep, please read the post -- I actually addressed the same article you refer to.
Jeet, The reviews do talk about a part where Lisa Ray's character has her head shaved. But it's not clear whether Mehta actually shaved Lisa Ray's head, or just made it look that way.
I looked forward to this movie for years. and then... ooooo the underwhelm-ment. I kept waiting for the magic of the previous elements. But my friend loved it -- as did most of the theatre. I wonder if my disappointment is the result of heightened expectations, or if Mehta really did get soft.... i blogged about it a bit.
"Meanwhile Ive been surprised by some culturally clueless and simply inaccurate comments from reviewers."
i'm not surprised at all. even western journalists stationed in india say the most inane things, as do, unfortunately, some indian journalists living in india (and a lot of foreign journalists just regurgitate what some journalists in india tell them, without doing any investigative work of their own). they are both woefully ignorant and ill-informed (maybe in school, maybe in college, maybe from other movies, books that they've read). read a biography of golfer vijay singh, and it invariably states vijay is "hindu" for "victory." they don't even take the time to differentiate between a religious description and a language.
i think the inaccurate NYT headline is meant to garner more attention for this movie, even though the movie isn't at the moment garnering opposition in India. it may well do so and then the title would be appropriate, but right now that's just comes across as an attention-seeking gimic that is being promoted whenever talking about this movie. since Mehta's problems trying to get the movie made, there has been a documentary and a feature film on the subject by indian filmmakers concerned about the well-being of the widows that were shot in Varanasi and went off without any incident (a fact not mentioned in any of the reviews). maybe it's because those filmmakers are not as well-known, didn't make a big brouhahaha but just went about their business and got the films made. this subject of widowhood and the tribulations of widows has been explored before in indian movies and novels without incident.
"This time I hope the central government wont just stand by and let mob censorship take its mindless toll.
-this is the same party that banned "Satanic Verses" in response to "mob" pressure. even the communist part in india is guilty of bending to this type of pressure (Taslima Nasreen). each party in india has its own standards for what to censor and what not to and what constitutes "mob censorship" and what doesn't. that is the sorry state of indian politics.
I liked the movie and the message that Deepa Mehta was trying to convey. I know of widows in the villages of Kutch who have had to shave their heads and go live at 'Widhwa Ashrams' because they are considered unlucky. Some of them as recently as twenty years ago.
As for the shaving, in Chokher Bali, the old women had cut hair but tmbwitw still sported long tresses. Maybe it's a generational or regional thing?
Water dragged for a bit but the little girl was amazing. I am generally quite sombre but listening to her tell John Abraham's character that she was a widow definitely shook me.
Ponniyin, I don't know for sure how common the practice of the involuntary confinement of widows was in 1938, or how common still is (it certainly couldn't be legal, though that doesn't mean it couldn't still occur). In the interviews Mehta has been doing of late, she says that the specific inspiration for this film was seeing an old, bereft widow woman on the streets of Varanasi, and also that she believes this does still occur in some places.
But tens of thousands of widows still end up in Varanasi and Vrindavan.
Mohini Giri seems to be a person who has made this her cause, and has published a number of studies on the subject of widow displacement. One detailed study is here. She and her team interviewed more than 300 widows in those two cities, and asked them a series of questions relating to their status. I've only just glanced at it, but one statistic did jump out: 81% of the widows living in rehabilitation centers in Vrindavan were widowed before the age of 20.
ponniyin, please don't equate mehta to ray! i would rather have a ray handle sensitive topics critical of indian society than mehta. mehta's heart may be in the right place (to give her the benefit of the doubt) but her execution is troublesome. one can see the difference in the effect of the movies of the two filmmakers by comparing the reviews of their movies. the reviews of ray's movies, written decades ago in a less globalized era, promote far less harmful stereotypes than do the reviews of mehta's films.
For those of who made this movie and those who liked it, what are we doing about it? Can creating awareness among westerners and urban Indians really going to change anything? What is the purpose of the movie?
Supposedly, the closing title cards in the movie claim "There are 34 million widows in India (2001)" implying the happenings are still present and widespread.
DM systematically avoided to point out that the most powereful women in India today is a widow!! (Sonia Gandhi). She purposely forgot to point out that there are at least 4 women CM's. She purposely forgot to point out that India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh already have or had a women leaders. She purposely does not mention that Hindu's, on banks of Ganges" worship the "female river"...
DM is fits the definition quite well.i enjoyed the movie..saw it here, with lisa ray present to answer questions for the audience afterwards... (she wasn't that impressive..)... but i found the movie and that girl sarala to be superb...
I caught this during a Sakhi event in NYC about a month ago and heard Mehta speak and even got to ask her a question. I have to say I do strongly believe her heart is in the right place and she was very grounded and realistic about it. Asked about her inspiration she said it came from watching a widow struggle.
Before I saw the movie I had several preconceived notions about her rather interesting choice to cast frivolous actors like John Abraham (don't lynch me ladies) and Lisa Ray who is lovely but I had my doubts. Abraham surprised me because he did his role really well. You can see Ray struggle with her Hindi which sometimes bothered me but she did well.
There were some truly poignant characters in the movie and I couldn't help but feel how much my Malayali girlfriend missed out on by just reading the subtitles. I'm still amazed to this day the really poor quality of subtitles used in Indian movies. Especially when it comes to filmmakers like Mehta who are targeting a western audience. I could do a much better translation and there is something inherent emotion that is lost in translation. But it was a touching movie.
And yes there are widows in Vrindavan to this day, many living very much like they showed in the movie though many live there out of choice because of oppression faced at home from DILs.
I think movies about such topics should be made. I have not seen Water. I have not been too impressed by Deepa Mehta in past but will still see the movie, perhaps for Lisa Ray and to think about the topic.
On the other hand, I saw Choker Bali and liked it, it had the sensitivity of Rabindranath Tagore written over it.
It is possibly true that treatment of widows is directly tied to their socio-economic status too and that perhaps maybe, has always been the case, to some degree even in 1930s too. Sometimes, it was ploy to get the elder brother's widow out of picture in power poltics/ inheritance of wealth and land in joint-family system.
In privileged sections of society, I guess it was not an issue: Indira Gandhi was a widow and so is Sonia Gandhi (as hammer_sickel pointed out).
And I think that in terms of having any noticeable effect on the actual problems being addressed, such movies dont go anywhere.
In fact someone else should go make a movie on effects the such movies have in real life. For eg, those wonderful children in "Born into Brothels" - where are they and their like today? its still the same old, same old for them i'll bet.
Yeah, its the job of the movie maker to create awareness; but the buck seems to stop right there.
I saw Water at the Smithsonian about a month ago and was totally unimpressed. The victimized South Asian woman theme is getting old. Im not saying that there isnt gender discrimination in all cultures and societies, but what I want to know is so what? What are we going do about it?
This debate over the use of the term fundamentalist is interesting because it's never questioned when applied to Muslims. Fundamentalist is a label that is applied easily and without question by outsiders. Obviously, someone within the group would never use that word to describe themselves. So slippage occurs because, while others may see what they are doing as fundamentalist, they do not. Can something be fundamentalist if the people who are supposedly fundamentalist dont consider themselves to be?
Amardeep, you make an interesting point about the origins of the term and why it can't really be applied to Hinduism. Vijay Prashad talks about an emerging Hindutva and the Hindu Right. Do you see the Hindu Right as something separate from Hindu fundamentalism?
"using the word 'fundamentalist' to describe any kind of extremist behavior tied to religion."
it should apply to any kind of extremist behavior, whether tied to religion or not. atheists can be fundamentalist as can communists as can writers as can dancers as can painters etc.
This is hilarious. Any dumb wit could have seen these misconceptions arousing in the minds of Westerners from seeing this movie. Now majority of the western people who have seen this movie, will assume that this is a common practice in India and India is blah blah blah ... I posted very similar thing, when the SM posted their first post about Water ... I am just surprised that people would have expected anything other than the current views of non-Indian people after watching the movie ... I believe Deepa Mehta got exactly the reivews that she was expecting. The usual about trashing Hindusism and Hindus. Even "SM goons" view don't seem too different for non-Indians ...
Amardeep,
Thanks for the link..
.......
During our survey, the majority of the women whom we interviewed were found to be from West Bengal. After having conducted a detailed study of Vrindavan we shifted our attention to Varanasi where at least 10000 out of these 33 million Indian widows reside. We found widows sitting on the banks of the river Ganga at the entrance of the Vishwanath temple holding a small broken bowl in their frail hands begging for alms.
.....
WGIA,
I din't mean to put Ray on the same pedestal with DM. Comparing "Pather Panchali" with "Earth"/"Fire" would be blasphemy.. :-)
Vijay Prashad talks about an emerging Hindutva and the Hindu Right. Do you see the Hindu Right as something separate from Hindu fundamentalism?
I'd be curious about which Vijay Prashad article you're thinking of. Remember where you read it by any chance?
Again, I would say that most people use the word fundamentalism these days in a broader sense -- general religious extremism. When 500 members of the NDA alliance went to Deepa Mehta's set in Benares and destroyed it, that was a serious blow to free speech. And it didn't help that Arun Jaitley and Vajpayee basically washed their hands, and said, "yeah, sorry about the $650,000 of damage our friends did. But don't expect us to do anything about it."
Those actions were provoked by a kind of thinking that we might as well call fundamentalism. People weren't waiting to see what she actually did with the film, and didn't seem to be concerned that it has a historical setting. They just heard the words "widow," "prostitute," and "Benares," and got ready to pounce.
One of the earlier threads about this film had this comment worth reading.
The comment re-printed an article titled Water: Drenched in 'Colonial Benevolence'
By: Kamal Arora, Saydia Kamal, Usamah Ahmad
>>The victimized South Asian woman theme is getting old...
Heck no. There's still a lot of money to be made from that victimhood.
I'm thinking of writing a story about a woman who has just graduated and works in a call-center in Bangalore. Between constantly fighting advances from her male-chauvinistic boss and her secret crush for a married woman in the HR department (gotta throw some lesbian shit in), she struggles to pay rent and take care of her bedridden mother (who was deserted by her husband (the girl's father) who went after a younger woman) and college fees for her sister. But wait, as her romance with the married woman progresses, she discovers that her husband is in fact, her father! So now she's having amorous relationships with her step-mother!
How will she break this news to her mother? How will her mother take it? Should she continue this relationship? Will her sister join in the act? Will the father indulge in vouerism? Who will give medicines to her sick mother while all this is going on? For answers to all these questions, you would have to wait till the story is complete, a producer is willing to produce it (and give it a Hindu sounding title, like "Kunti" or "Kamala's Kama") and the movie is made.
For now, just watch MI-3. I heard it's awesome.
M. Nam
Amardeep,
Prashad writes about the Hindu Right in a chapter in "The Karma of Brown Folk."
earth, fire, water (playing on the hindu concept of five elements)make good, profound sounding titles:do the films fulfill the promise? i've seen the first two - cushioned in a historical situation, the first film earned a lot of acclaim (gadar,much low-brow, set in the same time,also gained much from the setting), but i don't think it brought in any new wisdom to understand the partition. fire was 'provocative'- in the sense that intelligent viewers felt they had to see this film that dared to explore a 'new' kind of relationship in 'indian' cinema. what did one get to see : a new kind of masala. i still don't understand the significance of the chinese gent in the film spewing abuse on india. and certain other characters : the old woman, the swami, the servant, the two husbands.. all caricatured to fit certain stereotypes. this film too gained a lot from the time it was set in: the sangh parivar, riding on the confidence gained from many political successes gave the film much gratuitous publicity.
should i watch i film in which lisa ray plays a hindu widow in benares.. with john abraham playing a part he'd have to live two lives to even grasp its basics? is deepa mehta as serious a director as the titles of her films and the publicity/press surrounding her suggest? isn't she a new kind of formulaic, masala film-maker ?
And why does NYT not report the excution of an Indian engineer in Afganistan, whose wife , on hearing the sad news,later attempted suicide.....and this may need confirmation....there is supposedly a second wife who turned up
at the cremation.
I sometimes if Somini Sengupta and co. are allowed to do cultural Quality Control on their colleagues' briefings.
Neale
The New York Times ran a somewhat unusual story about Water earlier this week, Film Ignites The Wrath of Hindu Fundamentalists. Though the title suggests the controversy is occurring in the present, the actual article refers again to the sacking of Mehtas set in Benares in 2000.
I noticed this too. It was/is really annoying, particularly since the article had, I think, only one paragraph on the Wrath. Obviously fundamentalism isn't dead, but I agree that "Film Ignited The Wrath of Hindu Fundamentalists Several Years Ago" might have been more accurate :)
The reviewer flings around the word fundamentalist with abandon, but its sloppy. The word doesnt fit the context of widowhood in 1930s India at all: traditional Hinduism or Hindu customs are phrases that are more appropriate.
I can't remember my history well enough right now, but I think even in the 1930s, "orthodox" might have been a better, value-neutral word than "traditional" or "fudamentalist." I remember reading that suttee, at least in West Bengal, was generally restricted to a small subset of the Hindu aristrocracy and that it was played up by the British as one of their ways of "educating the natives" as it were. My great grandmother was a widow in the 1940s and 1950s and she did none of the three options listed.
it should apply to any kind of extremist behavior, whether tied to religion or not. atheists can be fundamentalist as can communists as can writers as can dancers as can painters etc
Primarily on a semantic level, I'm not sure if I agree with this. Systems can be orthodox, millenial, narrow-minded, etc. even if they're not religious in nature--communists, christians, etc.--but there should be a distinction between describing an orthodox approach to dancing and to God (even if "the God" in question is the idea of the market or the proletariat or whatever). Not doing that seems to strip the word of its meaning and historical context.
Regarding Vrindavan, there are literally thousands of women and men living there in what would be considered impovereshed conditions by all of us, by choice. Due to spiritual inspiration they have thrown themselves at the mercy of God (Sri Krishna) and go to his birthplace to live out their lives in devotion to him. Some of such folks are not even Indian. If most of us see these women and men, most of whom wear the white sari/dhoti of widows, we may assume that they are widows but many are not. Many have chosen a life of singlehood.
Neale, The times did report on that briefly (scroll down).
This hasn't been a big story in the U.S. in general -- no one will be interested in the fate of a single Indian engineer in Afghanistan. (Even the American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are relegated to the back pages, these days) I've been concerned about it, but haven't blogged about it, because what is there really to say about it -- except that it's tragic, and the Taliban are still bastards?
by fundamentalist dancer, painter etc., i meant not those who are orthodox (and i do separate an orthodox approach to God from the word fundamentalist given the political connotations of the latter these days) as such (because i think to be able to break traditional rules and do something interesting in the arts you should have a proper grounding in the fundamentals first before attempting to break those rules) but those who think, like religious fundamentalists (in the sense of the word used today), that that is the only way and who seek to impose that as the only method of dancing, painting etc. Those who are well grounded in orthodoxy of dance, painting etc. are usually more respectful when they do break the rules because they have a better rooting in it than those who merely want to shock and have no proper grounding in the basics.
i know i'm saying this very badly.:) a fundamentalist secularist is someone who takes secularism to the extreme: for example, not allowing Muslim lawmakers in Turkey to wear the hijab in parliament, or the Shah of Iran ordering forced removal of chadhors. (now the discrimination is reverse there.) india is full of fundamentalists in the religious sense and in the secular sense as well.
by fundamentalist dancer, painter etc., i meant not those who are orthodox (and i do separate an orthodox approach to God from the word fundamentalist given the political connotations of the latter these days) as such (because i think to be able to break traditional rules and do something interesting in the arts you should have a proper grounding in the fundamentals first before attempting to break those rules) but those who think, like religious fundamentalists (in the sense of the word used today), that that is the only way and who seek to impose that as the only method of dancing, painting etc.
Yeah, okay--I get the anology. I would still just say "severe" or some such thing, but to each his/her own (word choice :).
Amardeep,
Thanks for pointing out the mention in the NYT. But it is only the mention, if i remember right
the Water article was hogging the e-headline for a day or two.
I always wonder what makes valid news? The death of Mahajan is huge in India - the circumstances
notwithstanding. He changed telcom in the country. But again, no western (we need a better word soon)
coverage.
Neale
I'll take a stab at defending a part of the review:
The connection comes from the fact that women's lives are considered to draw their meaning from that of their husband, and once their husband dies:
If true, then involuntary widow ashrams serve the same function as Sati or forced marriage to her brother - to tie up an inconvenient lose end, to deal with a woman once her husband is gone and nobody needs her any more.
I have no idea if that analysis is correct. I have no idea how interlinked these practices were (was involuntary commitment a substitute for sati?). Nor do I know about their particular substantive roots.
BUT the connection between the two is clearer than archaic and deplorable practices against women, they follow a logic of a widow not having a proper place and therefore needing to "deal with her"
What do you see that I don't here? The connection is clear enough that from somebody else I would wonder if they were being disingenuous, but not from you ...
For eg, those wonderful children in "Born into Brothels" - where are they and their like today? its still the same old, same old for them i'll bet.
Xfile,
Yes and No.
After watching the movie, I gave money to Kids with Camera - donation and brought their photography book. One of the child was admitted to a private school in US. It can make a difference, yes, but in only in small steps.
Please follow the kids through Kids with Camera website.
Ennis,
Well, for one thing, I don't know if I buy the three options the reviewer gives us (where is she getting that from, I wonder).
More specifically, defenders of Sati (in its ideal form) talk about it as an expression of devotion -- a kind of sacred act that was always defined as voluntary. In practice (one thinks of Roop Kanwar in the 1980s) widows have often been coerced into it, via drugs or just plain force, by the family.
Widow confinement, on the other hand, has a somewhat different iconography. It isn't a blessed status, and I don't think pious Hindus would think of the two as related.
But yeah, I admit that's somewhat of a fine point. (Especially since, historically, both practices were used as ways to handle unwanted women.) Here I was bothered by what I thought of as the reviewer trying to be clever. Some information on living widows in India might have been more salient in a review of this film in particular.
MF Husain is being persecuted again
So that is the Indian Government actively persecuting an artist.
I've posted a couple of links in the news section on an interview with Deepa Mehtha and a Harvard author's take on widows in India.
Thanks, Dasichist. The Chicago Public Radio interview with Martha Chen is terrific -- highly informative, with good examples from her field work in Gujurat. Her book Perpetual Mourning looks quite good, though at $59.95 it's priced mainly for university libraries.
She talks about the ashrams a bit at 18:15. At the end she also talks about the changes that have been occurring in rural India. (For instance, fewer widows even in rural India shave their heads now.)
(Incidentally, Ennis, she does include a chapter on Sati in her book! Which supports your point.)
Shiva, Try the interview I linked to above. She does get into a lot of particulars, and offer a non-biased perspective on what widowhood means -- specifically in the villages.
-this is the same party that banned "Satanic Verses" in response to "mob" pressure. even the communist part in india is guilty of bending to this type of pressure (Taslima Nasreen). each party in india has its own standards for what to censor and what not to and what constitutes "mob censorship" and what doesn't. that is the sorry state of indian politics.
Oh no, tauba tauba! Arre bhai, you see : banning "Satanic Verses" is an act of most profound secularism, just as the whole constitutional amendment thing for Shah Bano was. Didn't you know that Amardeep proclaimed himself to be a secular Congresswallah on the other thread? Get with the program, bhai : the only acts that classify as unsecular are opposing separate laws for separate religions, protesting against fatwas from Islamic clerics, prosecuting converting missionaries that denigrate Hinduism or purchase conversion-for-tsunami relief and so on. Get the drift?
Gujjubhai, You really don't seem like a very friendly or rational person, and I don't know whether it's worth it to respond to you. If you want to have a meaningful debate you'll start responding more to the topic at hand instead of repeating your arbitrary presumptions.
But just because I prefer the Congress to the Hindutvadis doesn't mean I agree with everything Congress has done or is doing. Just a couple of weeks ago on my own blog I came out against the current reservations policy. I've also repeatedly said that I support the institution of a UCC. And nowehere in this post did I say I approved of the banning of the Satanic Verses. I am pretty hardcore for freedom of speech.
Here we are talking about Deepa Mehta. Congress didn't do enough to protect the screenings of "Fire," but then, who started the protests against the film? The RSS and VHP. Who rubber-stamped the illegal destruction of her set in 2000, setting back India's image in the world? The NDA, with full support from the UP government and Vajpayee and Jaitley at the center.
The victimized South Asian woman theme is getting old...
Heck no. There's still a lot of money to be made from that victimhood.
Yes, there are no victims of gender bias in South Asia.
Or sex bias.
I think Deepa Mehta should send some money to RSS/VHP/whoever who opposed her movies for good publicity..
You add the caption, "film attacked by Hindu fundamentalists" and it would evoke interest even if the movies are crappy.. Sounds like a good business plan.. I know it was a craze among students/youngsters when "Fire" came out to see some "lesbian" action.. :-)
Amardeep,
I do not think Sati was ever a very prevalent practise in India.
Problem with water is not that it portrays the plight of widows.
First problem is that although it is a period setting western audience will assume the same for current period (This is not to say that widows do not have problem even today, but not of the smae magnitude as that of say 60 years ago)
Second problem is the presentation raises a pertinent question that whether the director seriously wants to explore the issue or it is just a case of reinforcing stereotypes.
To some Americans here it will be difficult to understand, but stereotypes are a touchy issue with Indians.
Regards
Shiva - Martha Chen has spent more time in rural India / Bangladesh than most Indian academics. I haven't read this work, but I've heard her speak, and I'm pretty sure that she has interviewed many people.
I do not think Sati was ever a very prevalent practise in India.
As I understand it, Sati was widely practiced through the middle ages. By the time the British banned it in the early 1800s, it was rare, but even after it was banned it occurred something like once a year. So in that sense you're right -- it's not very common. (Much more common is the practice of hurting or murdering widows, especially in more recent years.) But of course symbolically it has been hugely important at certain instances. Quite often, thousands and thousands of people would go on pilgramages to the site of a famous Sati. In the 1980s Sati was a rallying cry for the BJP alongside Shahbano (justly) and the Babri Masjid (unjustly).
Incidentally, I just wanted to remind you: Sati is not an issue in this movie.
Second problem is the presentation raises a pertinent question that whether the director seriously wants to explore the issue or it is just a case of reinforcing stereotypes.
Come on, now. This is an Indian woman director here. She is making a feminist statement about a real part of Indian history. She's interested in it because it's real, and these particular issues haven't been dealt with much or at all on screen before.
I've been to Mathura and seen some of the conditions widows still live in today--very similar to what I saw in Water. While the conditions for widows in more affluent, urban, or progressive households may not be as harsh, there are still huge human rights issues which come up. Elderly people are often neglected and abused, especially women. Here in the United States, I often see men who lose their wives quickly remarry. I see this slowly becoming an option for women, but there is still so much judgment. I see a lot of people wanting to avoid the "stereotyping", but it's important not to ignore a pattern. I especially see so-called progressives become very defensive because of the tendency of white (sometimes somewhat ignorant) sympathizers to view our cultures without the complexity that truly exists. However, many of these same progressives would not want to ignore other ugly issues in our culture such as communal violence. We need to start treating women's issues as human rights issues.
How common was Sati? Here, from BookRags.com:
Fundamentalist Hinduism requires women to die with their husbands?! Yeah right. Show me the book in Hinduism that says this, dear friends.
Amardeep (48#)
I agree.
I agree, but I will make a distinction between Sati (who many argue had religios sanctions) and abuse of widows (which is a social malaise).
However whatever be the cause such acts are a indictment of the society, the people and the religion.
As said before I conside it most vile.
I do not think that Sati was exactly a rallying point.
I assume you are referring to roop kunwar case.
There also the support as well as protest was divided across party lines. I remember some members of Congress supported the incident, while Bhairon Singh Shekhawat condemned the incident, thus earning the ire of community and losing the subsequent elections. (I tried to Google for it but found only this and this)
Anyways wiki has an article about Sati
Oops! In my defense I was just responding to the comments.
I was referring to her earlier work Fire where she used Hindu props (Names like Sita & Radha for protagonist) in order to give a religious statement (unneccessarily in my view) most probably for controversy.
Also I think movies about Widows have been made in the past, problem is that they were mostly arthouse productions and hence not well publicised. Deepa Mehta on the other hand has no dearth of publicity.
Regards
From the wiki:
"The custom of the immolation of a widow (or other close relatives and slaves) was also practiced by the ancient peoples of Scythia, Egypt, Scandinavia and China."
And I thought clogs were the worst things the Scandinavians imposed on their women...
Are you joking here? Most of the Vrindavan widoes (and close friend is a social worker there) are not there by choice, the living conditions are terrible, and the Uttar Pradesh mafia runs huge prostitution rings. Its really a blot on the face of modern India, and quite disgraceful.
Re: Water. Why should a movie have a purpose? Why can't it tell a story. It shouldn't have to bring up the counter-example (i.e., Sonia Gandhi) to make the example (mistreatment of widows) any more relevant.
I am not going to say that mistreatment of widows in India is common. Even if there are 100,000 widows in Vrindavan and Kashi, living in horrible conditions, and many more who are midtreated in their own homes, it is a drop in the bucket in nation of a billion people. That fact doesn't make any mistreatment appropriate, and if it happens, it should be called out.
And who cares if Westerners get the impression that India is backwards. (i) in some ways it is and (ii) why is it relevant what they thing.
Hari (54#)
Could you give some reference.
Regards
Amardeep and Ennis,
You don't get my point. Have you talked to anyone?
And re Roop Kanwar one other 'progressive' politician who has kept very quiet about it is VP Singh. In those days when he was busy attacking Rajiv Gandhi's administration, Blitz, one other pro-Congress publication; and of course the Indian Express, criticised Weepy for his silence. The entire Rajput group (including Arjun Singh) cutting across party lines is alleged to have soft pedalled the issue so as to keep their vote banks intact.
And Amardeep, this isn't the first time that a movie has dealt with the issue. And why do NRI movie makers have no time for mainstream Indian cinema? Maybe it is too low brow and not arty enough? Durai one of the early-70s new wave film-makers in Tamizh (along with Bharatiraaja, Rudriah and Mahendran) made "Oru Veedu Oru Ulagam" (one house, one world) around 1980. In the movie Shobha (who won the National Best Actress award for her work in Pasi (Hunger)) is the daughter of a vaidika brahmana (a priest) married into a less orthodox family. When her husband dies in an accident Shobha's father insists on subjecting her to every ritual (breaking her bangles, removing her manglasutra, wiping off the bindi) but when it comes to the ultimate indignity (tonsure) the father in law steps in (after having sat through quietly thus far) takes her away. Shobha recovers from the tragedy and gets back to her studies at college... Raj Kapoor's Prem Rog deals with the same theme in a more grandiose fashion. Three Telugu movies, two of them by the famed K.Vishwanath one of which was remade in Tamizh (with Kamalahasan) and in Hindi (with Vijayashanti and Anil Kapoor) have the widow remarries and gets on with her life. These aren't arthouse productions (thankfully) and have been very successful. And in classic mainstream Indian movie fashion are optimistic (as the late Indian movie critic Hamiduddin Mahmood always pointed out) and progressive. Of this series Durai's is still the best and in its day provoked some serious discussion (that some would dismiss as petit bourgeois). Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar.
Another sort of random question:
Why do we always talk about only the British banning the Sati? They were not the first administration to do so.
And who cares if Westerners get the impression that India is backwards. (i) in some ways it is and (ii) why is it relevant what they thing.
Exactly.. Why should anyone care?. If "Deepa Mehta" makes money, it's her business skill.
Like Shiva remarked, there are mainstream Indian movies that deal with "widowhood" and are commercially successful too. K.Vishwanaths "swatimutyam" link is one such movie starring Kamal, Radhika.
You don't get my point. Have you talked to anyone?
Shiva, I still don't understand your point. Why would live interviews with widows be pertinent if the subject is a film about widows in Varanasi in 1938? It would be interesting in its own right to do such interviews, but what you're asking is well beyond the purview of a blog post.
One thing Martha Chen does mention in that interview (I still recommend you download the 10MB mp3) is that her work is strictly confined to *rural* India. No one is implying that any of this is still happening in the metros or even the mid-size towns. She knows her stuff, and she avoids making broad generalizations or oversimplifying the complexity of the issues.
Thanks for all the tips on Tamizh and Telegu films dealing with widowhood. Perhaps it would have been more correct to say these issues haven't been dealt with adequately in Hindi cinema.
And the Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar stuff is interesting, but isn't it true that once the differential civil codes were introduced after the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, the earlier law legalizing remarriage was no longer in effect? As I recall, the first Hindu Marriage Act implemented a much more conservative legal code than had existed up to that point.
And then of course there's this: "For his stand he was virulently attacked by conservative vested interest groups and the shastrakars (cleric) of the day. He often received threats of physical violence and death."
What does that have to do with the price of tea in Tripura? No, I haven't gotten in a time machine and spoken to widows in 1938. No, I haven't gotten in a plane and spoken to modern rural Indian widows today. And I definitely haven't spoken to a statistically significant sampling of them.
There are many things that I haven't done, where I rely upon the scholarship or reporting of others. Are you saying that I can't accept any information unless I've done the primary research myself?
Amardeep,
You are forgetting one of the greatest bollywood movie that somewhat dealt with a widow trying to get back her life (but fate saying no) is: Sholay.
Sure, that was tangential to the story but they have been umpteen movies, like Prem Rog (as shiva mentioned), apart from Choker Bali.
The SM crew needs to put together some sort of media pack. In order to truly be a mutineer you need to have:
-Watched Sholay
-Read A Suitable Boy
-Watched Star Trek
I know I'm missing other essentials.
Another glamorized rehabilitation of widow in Bollywood:
Andaz (1971): Rajesh Khanna, Hema Malini, Shammi Kapoor.
I can dig other examples too.
I am on roll.
We cannot talk about "widow" in Bollywood without discussing: Phool Aur Patthar - a classic by Dharmendra and Meena Kumari. It is quite a decent movie. I saw it in late 70s-80s even though it was made in 1966 and liked it.
India was never a contiguous entity before the mid 1800. Early to mid 1800s was the downfall of the Mughals. Even when the Mughals were reigning supreme in much of North India, there was NO CONCEPT of western style legalizing of marriage (at least for non-Muslims, the majority)
Even as early as 1950s no one give a damn about registering their marriage. And this is in independant India. So having a law on the books that controled Hindu marriage (out of colonial benevolance, or whatever other reason) is irrelevant.
Amardeep (59#)
I don't think that arguement is that there was no opposition.
Rather the argument is that there were enough Hindus who sought to reform the religion and main actors were not british.
I think Arya Samaj movement was also significant in reformation
Regards
http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mp/2004/02/05/stories/2004020500040100.htm
http://203.200.89.68/mad.asp?fodname=20040524&fname=Making&sid=1
Whereas contempory and classical Hinduism is devoid of any such practices at a widespread scale. Linking it to Hinduism, without much references, belittles the fact that even Mahatma Gandhi was a devout Hindu. Most of his ideas and inspiration were rooted in Hinduism.
Steering this conversation away from its serious tone - the current issue of Esquire (with Dave Chappelle on the cover) features Lisa Ray (luminously photographed)in the section "Funny Joke by a Beautiful Lady" and Padme Lakshmi in "10 Things You Don't Know About Women". Unfortunately, there is nothing on their website, so you will have to check it out at a newsstand.
PremRog with Rishi Kapoor and Padmini Kolhapure is the first movie that I saw that dealt with widowhood. Good ol Raj Kapoor had a way of adding the usual masala stuff with important social messages to create enjoyable films.
Good ol Raj Kapoor had a way of adding the usual masala stuff with important social messages to create enjoyable films.
He was an absolute master at that.
I think my list for Bollywood movies with widow-romance theme are: a) Phool Aur Pather, b) Prem Rog, c) Sholay, d) Chokher Bali, e) Hum Tum, and f) Andaz (there are two: one with Shammi Kapoor and another with Akshay Kumar)
If you google, there are more.
Amardeep,
My point of view comes from what I have seen and heard of in India. Instead of discussing an academic work how about talking to people who know about the issue? I am not suggesting that Mehta shd make a documentary. It is not that she is unfamiliar with widows as she has talked about her grandmother (whom she describes as an all powerful matriarch). It is more interesting to compare Water to the many other movies that posters have pointed out on this thread rather than discuss it by itself.
Ishvar Chandra Vidyasagar tried to reform from within while the Brahmo Samaj branched out. But that was a 150 years ago. I hope that we live up to his vision in full measure.
But as long as there are tears and suffering, so long our work will not be over. Is this what inspired Deepa Mehta to make Water?
I shall take the unpopular stand here.
Hinduism or not, fact remains that women's rights have a long way to go in India. And movies such as these won't be made if there were no problems. I, for one, am glad that someone's making these movies in a watchable way and even making some money out of it. If money is being made, at least people are watching it. Far better than making some seriously depressing art film which nobody watches. This is a freakin movie, for God's sake, not a documentary. She has some creative licence.
Growing up in middle-class India, I can tell you the disdain for women's rights is still very very ingrained in India. Have you ever listened to a group of aunties get together and gossip about how some widow in the neighborhood is planning to get married again? And this is in middle-class Bombay. I can only imagine how it must be in more rural areas.
Are you going to gimme all that tripe about how we worship female dieties/rivers etc so we couldn't possibly have disrespect for women's rights? We desis are quite accomplished at the art of restricting others by placing them on a pedestals...(ask anyone here who's grown up trying to meet the 'ideal boy/girl' expectations of their parents). Worship can be a very effective mode of bondage.
Orientalism? Native informants? I just finished reading Said's book last week. It is quite possible to get totally steeped in that idea too, suspecting anyone and everyone of orientalism and related concepts.
Having said that, I do think that the Raj Kapur approach, or that of 'Hum Tum' works better for Indians in India. Sneak in new ideas like they're natural things to do and cloak it with tons of masala.
One instance that I loved was the sneak placement of a gay male couple kissing in 'Kal Ho na Ho'. Didn't hear any protests about that one :)
Technophobicgeek, Thanks. As this comment thread was developing, I came across an article on Sati by a scholar named Francis Jarman. He quotes Soma Wadhwa saying something quite similar to your comment:
The article can be downloaded here (it's a PDF). Soma Wadhwa's original article on Sati was published in Outlook in 1996.
One instance that I loved was the sneak placement of a gay male couple kissing in 'Kal Ho na Ho'. Didn't hear any protests about that one :)
Where was this? I must have missed it entirely (unless you're talking about the faux gay relationship that Saif Ali Khan and Shahrukh Khan had...or the thing with the dog :)
btw, you might dig this fake poster from Fark.
Sure Deepa Mehta may well have been touched by the condition of widows in India, but I suspect that what really motivated her to make "Water" was the knowledge that movies about street kids/'born into brothels' kids/widows/other 'third world' stereotypes tend to get attention in the west especially if they also involve touching stories about the human spirit trying to triumph through it all. Basically feel-good-for-the-west movies leaving the audience feeling (1)oh the horror of the conditions in those third-worldey places...OUR society is not like that and (2)but individuals with certain types of virtues that we value (determination, bravery, perseverance, individuality, 'goodness'...)can sometimes triumph and what's more(3)we've learnt so much about this other culture through this touching bit of cultural-tourism.
As for DM's description for how the idea of the film came to her -- how no-one would speak to the widow on the beach in Bombay (or some such) -- this is to our shame, perhaps, but how often do any of us (including DM) speak to various poor homeless people/'beggars' etc we see around us whether in India or in the US? I always try to at least smile/acknowledge them in some way ... but (she sadly admitted) I also usually quickly walk on both because I'm usually rushing off somewhere, don't want to get too 'involved,' and want that Guilty-I-should-be-doing-more-I-Have-so-much feeling to go away :(
>>I can tell you the disdain for women's rights is still very very ingrained in India. Have you ever listened to a group of aunties get together and gossip about how some widow in the neighborhood is planning to get married again?
Please, listen to yourself. If having an opinion about other's life is synonymous to disdain for their rights, then what would you call your having an opinion about those gossippers? Disdain for their rights?
Women bitch about other women. Everywhere. Whether it is a widow remarrying or a bride getting pregnant within two weeks of marriage. Let's not turn a natural process into a legal issue.
>>Do women want to be worshipped? Or, would they rather have equal rights?
There is no one answer to what all women want. And it's not a binary choice. The above question may generate a different answer from every woman on the planet.
>>fact remains that women's rights have a long way to go in India
Women have all legal rights in India. That's the most important issue. They may be treated like dirt by their husbands in the bedroom or brothers in the kitchen or father in the farm. That's not a rights issue - it's an issue of love, compassion and humanity. It's the job of civic soceity to enforce that.
M. Nam
TPGeek # 74
>>>>I, for one, am glad that someone's making these movies in a watchable way and even making some money out of it. If money is being made, at least people are watching it. Far better than making some seriously depressing art film which nobody watches. This is a freakin movie, for God's sake, not a documentary. She has some creative licence.
Lot of people wouldn't have a problem, if DM and her cohorts just marketed this as just a movie with creative license, instead of how the movie was marketed. DM claims in her interviews that the movie portrays what happened and is continuing to happen in India including her claim of 33 million widows suffering (I am not sure where she came up with this). Out of a billion population, there wil be a lot of widows and not all of them have the same problem. There are a different shades of gray. That is why lot of people have a problem with her. I consider her as a charlatan who hijacks the issues for her own glory. You guys can continue to defend her, but she doesn't really advance the cause.
It is happening slowly in India in a lot of middleclass households, where (atleast in TN, where I come from) widows are not shunned (since they are mothers of somebody). Of course these things are not glamorous. Everybody wants to see change in a jiffy and lot of the folks here are so brainwashed with the feminist and leftist idealogy at the exterme ends of the idealogy as taught in the schools here. Anything in the middle is not ok.For ex, my mom is a widow and she stays with me and my sister some of the time and at other times in India. She is till not comfortable in staying with my sister, even though my brother in law asks her to stay longer as it is a great help to my sister and her family and we can't even broach the subject of remarriage even if we wanted to. That is what she is comfortable with. She doesn't wear white and participates in all functions. I also know a lot of people whose moms are widows and they don't wear white and particpate in all functions (this includes orthodox brahmin families). But according to the extremists, they will be considered oppressed and their freedoms are suppressed.
I am disappointed to see that both technophobicgeek and Amardeep assumed that since I didnt like the colonialist portrayal of Hindu society, I am automatically from the "Women worshipper" camp. You assumed that I am claiming that women in India enjoy the same rights as women in west do. This assumption smells of elitism.
The west has seen women's rights come about in the very very recent past, more importantly it has developed purely organically, from within. The same way Indian women's rights should develop. Not by colonialist portrayals !!! Not by justifying the "civilizing mission" of the Raj. !!!
The inclusion of liberal values in the popular culture is the organic way of bringing about the change.
The west has seen women's rights come about in the very very recent past, more importantly it has developed purely organically, from within. The same way Indian women's rights should develop.
RC: I'd add a slight modifier: women's rights in the US, "developed purely organically, from within"... but from within the white socio-economic stratum. Let's not forget that. There are lots of "feminists" of color and lower socio-economic status who have felt very frustrated during the "Women's Movement" of the 60's, 70's and onwards because it has been largely a white middle class women's movement. One of the reasons as to why this mainstream white middle class female movement has come under criticism is that it does not effectively deal with the issues of race and class, aspects which cannot be omitted since they are factors- along with gender and sex- that define women's position in society. Anything sort of "liberation" deriving from this section of society that then becomes a part of the mainstream is not fundamental "liberation".
Another example: the Vietnam protests. The majority of the Vietnam movement had been composed of white middle class Americans, one of the reasons being that they had been affected by the draft laws (exempting the waiver of college students). This is why one says "bourgeousie (sp?) hippies"-- these were middle class citizens who were disaffected and couldn't bear the thought of being sent to Vietnam to die for an unjust war.
Perhaps we should also think about what "feminism" in its current manifestation actually means in practice, and whether this ideology in practice truly gives women equal rights, equal pay, and just treatment.
To close the circle, if women's rights in India are to take firm root and essentially change the current overriding engendered framework, I'd argue that it's not going to be led by middle class women living in Delhi and Bombay.
Huh, RC, I didn't mention you specifically anywhere! And I don't see the connections in the logic above.
M.Nam, there are a lot of legal things/rights available to people in India which are not enforced. And part of that definitely is because of lack of social pressure. I can see where you're coming from, social change should ideally come from society rather than govt, but someone has to do something to start the process. If everybody in society waits for everyone else to change before changing themselves, of course, nothing ever happens.
Smart argument, that, I must give it to you :) Unfortunately, it doesn't change anything.
This was in the first few scenes of the song 'Kuch to hua hai', which has random shots of lovey-dovey couples: one old couple on a bench, a pair of kids, a harley-riding leather-clad biker pair and these two white dudes.
The faux gay thing was kinda homophobic by American standards, but still I was glad they even brought the topic up for discussion. For my parents and several of my friends, it was quite bewildering at the beginning (what's wrong with two guys sleeping in the same bed?) and I had to explain things to them...hmmmm. Unfortunately it seems that there's no way to introduce a discourse about homosexuality without a corresponding male homosexual panic :( Sad.
Here's the video on Youtube
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1GXVo77WNjk&search=Kuch%20to%20hua%20hai
Watch at time 00:36.
Regarding the historical treatment of widows in India, I remember reading somewhere that, according to colonial census takers, only 15% of Hindu castes forbade widow remarriage. In William Pinch's 'Peasants and Monks in British India,' the author mentioned that certain peasant and artisan castes underwent a move towards 'kshatriya-isation' that involved, among other things, an encouragement of sati among their women and discouragement of widow remarriage. What's often annoying about feminist, 'secular' types is that they often take their own usually high-caste mores as normative, while ignoring the fact that other communities might have had different standards - Mehta's 'there are 33 million widows in India' is a prime example of this.
Even more reason, IMHO, to draw attention to this. Why should the so-called 'higher castes' get away with such reprehensible traditions?
Whether we like it or not, the higher castes are the usual face of India to the outside world (more education, opportunities etc). They should be the ones getting their sh*t together.
I have my share of beef with uber-feminists, to me there's nothing 'feminist' or 'secular' about demanding that these traditions are changed.
Here's the video on Youtube
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1GXVo77WNjk&search=Kuch%20to%20hua%20hai
Watch at time 00:36.
Oooh--good catch, technophobicgeek (apparently not all that technophobic ;)! I can't believe I either missed that or blocked it out somehow.
The faux gay thing was kinda homophobic by American standards, but still I was glad they even brought the topic up for discussion.
I agree. I think it's actually a sensible and funny way to introduce the topic, rather than something heavyhanded that's going to get everyone's panties in a bunch. And I certainly don't look to Bollywood to adhere to American media standards on lgbt issues...yet :)