Water delivers an important and dramatic story and message. It is visually sumptuous. Production values are of highest quality throughout. The acting is excellent. Thinking back on each aspect of the film, I find myself impressed with each component. And yet I found myself fidgeting at several points during the movie and looking at my watch. There is just something about the overall pacing that didn't work for me.
I think it may be the way each sequence in the movie showcases exactly one small relationship or interaction or plot point as an independent concept. I felt like I was watching Mehta laying out the movie as a series of bullet points. The interplay between the various people and events is left as an intellectual exercise for the viewer rather than showing on screen as a cohesive whole. Still, the movie made me want to catch up with Mehta's earlier work. And that is the highest praise you can give a director.
The DVD transfer is very good. Subtitles are clear and easy to read. The English translation is never unintentionally humorous or mixed up. Sound quality is good, but not showy. The surround soundtrack is mainly used for atmosphere rather than effects (there is one thunderstorm with some good booms). Special features include a director's commentary, a four-minute short on the troubles of making the film, and a 20-minute featurette talking more about the production, with comments from several of the actors.
Parents should have no worries about any imagery shown in the film. There is no nudity or violence. But the subject matter is adult in nature and covers issues of sex and death.
.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?