Earth (1998)

Simply A Masterpiece

Save your money for something good and enjoyable

It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.

It's the kind of movie you'll want to see a second time with someone who hasn't seen it yet, to remember what it was like to watch it for the first time.

A film by an Indian born female director about the communal riots that followed partition is one you desperately want to be great. "Earth" though is merely very good, wonderfully made and accessible to any audience, it tells a very human story of love, jealousy and revenge. It's faults come mainly from trying to integrate the personal with the political, in this it comes perilously close to suggesting that the outrages came down to individual personal grievances (a very unhistorical approach). At times too it is over schematic - the cross religion group of friends for example appears almost as a mechanical device to get the story moving. The strengths though are many - it looks stunning and the acting is very good. Outstanding is Aamir Khan as the tormented Dil Navaz. At times I was reminded of "The Go-Between", both films use similar framing devices and end with a devastating act of innocent betrayal. Overall this a very good film and I look forward to seeing Mehta'a other films.

Good movie but lot is left unsaid probably because it is an autobiographical account of author. The only problem people who do not know history will form wrong impressions e.g. movie gives a feeling that riots started in Lahore after Tara Singh's speech and Sikh procession while low scale rioting was on since many days. Only one scene where fire brigade actually puts petrol in fire shows that administration was partial but there could be many such scenes. One thing is sure that human tragedy is covered in its fullness but child marriage of author's friend is completely out of frame . Child marriage could be shown but that too with an old man !!! I think movie director has something against Hindus. e.g. costume of nandita Das is completely out of sync from those times. A character of Gulshen grover actually subscribes to the stereotype of violent Sikh without looking into their real loss i.e. loss of thei motherland. In all movie is good if just seen as a human tragedy but it would be foolish if viewers try to make judgmental on role of communities based on this limited information

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.

Having seen this few years ago, the first thought was what it had to do with the India-Pakistan partition in 1947. The film neither shed light on the actual circumstances involved nor addressed the social, economic or political ramifications of the massive uprooting of Northwest India into two separate nations.The partition was not about one family, it was about thousands. Nothing in the movie even tries to address this basic fact. Unknown multitudes were left behind. Many lost everything in the shuffle. The politics of why it happened has been brushed aside as inconsequential, when that in fact is why the *historical account* is so riveting. Six decades later, the two countries are still divided over those political and religious issues, ready to go to war at a moment's notice. That this needed to be pointed out shows how out-of-context the movie really is. And then she goes and calls it 'Earth'! Get off your high horse, woman.Mehta is a film-maker who makes stuff for Western consumption. That is fine but she should refrain from taking liberties with Indian/Pakistani audiences who went through the "horror-show" and survived to tell their stories. Mehta should have watched the Hindi TV serial Buniyaad to get SOME clue. Useless side elements filled up the lack of narrative in the film. The characters are totally unempathic and one fails to connect to anyone except the little girl. And what can one say about the direction or technical side of Mehta's "human-interest piece"? Not much.And if this really was Lenny's story, why muddle it all up with a hare-brained depiction of such a monumental calamity??? If you can only deal with a serious subject with the passing curiosity of an outsider, and have no maturity or emotional depth when interpreting its impact on an entire sub-continent, WHY BOTHER TO DELVE INTO IT AT ALL??