In Water, writer/director Deepa Mehta finishes off the third part of a trilogy (with Fire and Earth) that examines issues of love, family, religion, and political upheaval in India. The backstory of Water is at times more interesting than the movie itself, so I will spend some time on the topic before getting to the film as an independent entertainment piece. The more you know going in, the more you can appreciate surprising aspects of the finished work.
Water examines a little-known (at least in America) aspect of strict Hindu religious observance. Widows have three options after their husbands die, according to the religious texts. They may be cremated along with the dear departed, they may marry their husband's younger brother (if available), or they may lead a life of strict asceticism, separated from and shunned by the rest of mainstream society.
Mehta is not particularly supportive of this traditional practice (although of Indian background herself, she now lives in the Toronto area). But she is quick to point out in one of her commentaries that the women who follow this life of religious observation and self-denial do not see themselves as oppressed and disadvantaged. They simply see it as the way things are.
A Hindu philosophy of Maya says that any perception of ourselves as separate from the whole is an illusion, so that a sense of self as separated and somehow worse off than others is an error in perception. Mehta shows that the ideal of this concept is not necessarily embraced by all and that a subjective view of the conditions imposed upon the widows can be damning.
Because of her willingness to examine the "widow's plight" from a modern perspective and to have some of the movie's characters condemn these practices and flaunt the orthodox religious teachings, Mehta ran into serious trouble from Hindu extremists. As she began shooting the film in India in 2000, she received death threats, had her effigy burned in public, and eventually was forced to shut down the production due to mob protests around her locations.
It took another four years to remount the production, this time shooting in predominantly Buddhist Sri Lanka as a stand-in for India. She had to recast several roles and made some updates to her script. Because Sri Lanka does not have the same architecture and cultural background as India, the company created a massive full size set along a river, with temples, walkways, statues, and the like stretching on for nearly a mile. The scale of the construction is impressive and you never get a sense while watching the film that anything is artificial.
.jpg?t=20120527181101)
Article comments
1 - Mayank Austen Soofi
Nice review. This film, as was expected, has a history of controversy behind it here in India. ‘Water’ was originally planned to be made in the holy city of Benares, on the ghats of the river Ganges, where there are several old mansions that houses the real widows (Benares widow houses had also found a evocative description in Salman Rushdie’s ‘Midnight’s Children’). But Hindu conservative parties accused the director Deepa Mehta of causing religious offense and complained of portraying the religion in bad light. The demonstrations had turned violent forcing Ms Mehta to wrap up her team. She called it an off.
She later went on to make ‘Earth’ (about Indian partition; the film was based on Pakistani author Bapsi Sidhwa’s classic novel ‘Cracking India) in Delhi. ‘Water’ was made, as the reviewer mentioned, in Sri Lanka - away from the spotlight of those who believe (mistakenly) that by raising questions about the bad practices of a religion is akin to spoiling its reputation.
2 - Apollo
The dumbness of westerners whenever u speak of India or Hinduism never ceases to amuse me :). I simply don't understand why u need to take a marxist with a "Hindu" name so seriously?
Do u know what the likes of mehta will say about u Americans behind ur backs? They call u capitalist pigs and ur women as whores.
And turning towards u they call Indians as "Hindu extremists".
I'am not going to waste my time pointing to the factual inaccuracies in ur article except one to show where u stand.
"Chuyia one day is outside the ashram on the main city streets and runs into Narayan, a man also in his mid-20's and a progressive follower of Gandhi (who is just becoming publicly prominent and starting to promote nationalism to take the country out of British rule)."
If the movie is set in 1938. then Gandhi has been "prominent" in India for nearly 22 years already.
sorry for being harsh. but just for a moment think Why did u Americans own Slaves a 100 years ago?
DO u think it was a social evil or ur "religious scriptures" demanded that a good American should own slaves and whip them regularly?