movie reviews ... and more
Review - Water: Meaningful story fails to create impact
A wogma DVD review by meetuWater
![[Poster for Water]](http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2509/4117222424_acfcca77cb_m.jpg)
The mere sound of the phrase “plight of widows”, grips your heart. Is it then, that difficult to make a movie on this issue, which stirs you from the inside? Looks like it is. Water, leaves you feeling cheated because you are still waiting for a punch, a hard hit on your sensibilities, even after the movie is done.
The movie starts with a bang. The opening sequence makes your heart go out for little Chuyia (Sarala), the 7-8 year old widow. But, the narrative begins to fizzle out after the first ten minutes and never regains the impact. And the climax seemed very illogical. The only other touching moment comes when the lead pair has its first romantic rendezvous. Though not magical, it is very sweet.
However, you have to give it points for not being preachy or whiny. It just tells a story, and lets the audience answer the unasked question, "Is this the way it should be?"
This movie is worth watching for its performances. Widows of different age groups having varied temperaments, have been portrayed really well. You can almost see how the younger one can be the one in the next age group when she grows older.
Sarala makes you feel for her innocent but rebellious attitude. Lisa Ray, the teen widow, wants to be saved from her loveless life in the widow asylum. Seema Biswas, plays to perfection, the role of a widow in her late 30s who has resigned to her fate, but still understands the desires of the younger widows. You can see the strength she gives them despite her internal struggle to stick to her faith, in both her expressions and her body language.
Manorama, plays the classic pain-in-the-wrong-place-opportunist. Her double standards dare you to defy her. You know she has done her job well, when you feel like giving her one tight slap right across the face! Vidula Javalgekar plays a minor role of a widow (called aunty by the other widows) who is approaching the end of her life. Her mannerisms and love for food reminds you of Chunibala devi who played a very similar role in Pather Panchali.
The problem is that though the individual characterization and performances don’t disappoint, most of the relationships between the individuals is underdeveloped…certainly wanting of more chemistry. Be it the relationship between Narayan (John Abraham) and Kalyani (Lisa) or Madhumati (Manorama) and Chuyia (Sarala), it was difficult to understand the motivations. E.g., Why did Narayan like Kalyani? The movie did not show any reason for Chuyia to obey Madhumati.
The beginning makes you squirm and feel “oh boy! I am really going to be depressed at the end of this movie”. But, fortunately or unfortunately, that does not happen.
- meetu, a part of the audience
Water - Movie Details
- Official Sites: Website
- Director: Deepa Mehta
- Lead Cast: Lisa Ray
![[Has twitter account]](/site_media/images/icons/twitter_small.png)
, Sarala, Seema Biswas - Supporting Cast: Kulbhushan Kharbanda, John Abraham, Waheeda Rehman
- Story: Deepa Mehta
- Music Director: A R Rahman
- Running time: 120 minutes
- Reviewer: meetu
- Categories: Hindi Movies
- Genres: Social
Water - Trailer
Water - All reviews summary
External Reviews
20 reviewers have given Water an average rating of 4/5.0. 15 yays, 3 nays, 2 so-so. See all external reviews »
Comments (3)
I think that the movie was pathetic... A very important and sensitive issue was not handed well.. The story line was jerky and some of the characters crass.. There were also issues related to appropriateness (south Indian style flowers in the hair and dress in Benares is difficult to swallow... ) References to Gandhi were sad, disjointed, inappropriate and irrelevant... All in all I don't think that Deepa Mehta has understood India. She has tried to pick a sensitive issue and make it sensational... reading the brief on the jacket you will know what I mean... The Bajrang Dal raising objections just proves that they too are ignorant and operating on misinformation... they just managed to hype up the film..
having said all that... the issue is important.. I have something to say on that as well...
The verses of Manu referenced in the film do talk badly of widows but they must be read in context of the time that they were written.. {Tukaram the great Maharashtrian saint and social reformer said 'be kind to slaves'... we cannot turn back 450 years later and say that Tukaram was evil because he condoned slavery! all he was doing was being realistic and HUMANE at that time}... Manu's laws are around 1500 BC... 3500 years ago... They may appear to be wrong today but may not have been wrong in the context of the time then... What was the position of women then? ... they had no rights to property, profession or even name (let alone identity).. Their identity and status came from the man in their life (father / brother or husband)... what happens to a young widow then? she has been married off and hence her father would have nothing to do with her... for her in laws she was a burden... she had no skill / no property and no means of supporting herself... what could she do? just what thousands of women are doing now... commercial sex work! (while saying this one must not forget that not all women had to do it... Those who had grown up sons were cared for... only a small portion ended up in Benares... that too was 'just a financial matter of not spending on her upkeep and not tradition / religion' as John Abraham says to Seema Biswas.. I am not condoning Manu... I just think that the laws are not relevant NOW... perhaps they were then... did you know that the first three US Presidents were slave owners?
The reference to the 34 million widows figure in the census of 2001 in context of the film and the situation there is just humbug.. Yes there are 34 million widows (probably an equal number of deserted / destitute and bigamous wives)... but their situation is not that of the widows shown in the movie... Times have changed and well... The statement is clever... It is not untrue... but it is not the whole truth as well.. After all the moment we don't allow widows to participate in haldi kumkum, do kanyadaan and perform other religious functions we are oppressing them socially and culturally. ... in reality the situation of widows is BAD but not as bad as the film (for instance only in some remote pockets of karnataka will you still find widows, all of them very old, with shaven heads)... They do have much more rights and awareness.. also society is changing and we will be where the Western world is in a few decades...
Deepa Mehta is posturing as a 'film maker with a social conscience and a votary of women's rights'... I think that she is just a shrewd film maker but not a good one at that... if she wanted to talk of the issue, she would have set in today's time and referenced back to the 1930s and earlier... The movie contributes nothing to social debate.. FIRE did that to a certain extent... FIRE ultimately did well more for its salacious content than debate... I hope that the movie does not get an Oscar.. it will be shameful..
Thank you, Makarand! One of the main questions that I had at the end of the movie was, "Is it really that bad?", not from what I know or have seen. Is it really true that 34 million widows in India are treated the way it has been shown in the movie.
I have very intentionally left discussing the social aspect and the controversy out of my review. I feel the movie has received enough attention due to those causes. I chose to not contribute to the hype!
Yes meeta... it is bad for widows in India..they are not allowed to take part / perform the simplest of religious ceremonies... no such restrictions for widowers..BUT it is not as bad as the situation they are showing in the movie... the country has progressed beyond that.. the reference to 34 million is therefore not untrue but could be misleading...
Leave a new comment