Umm…if conflicts root out stories that can be told to some artsy crowd in New York about the plight of widows in India—a practice that is ancient yet provide a fancy topic of discussion over cocktails in parties then, of course, the likes of Mehta and their productions find plenty of criticism. Yes, let us feel morally superior in dishing out our interpretation of rituals, for we are the artists and god forbid if creatures like us should be held to equal/greater scrutiny as common people.

The creative freedom that the west so readily grants those who think they have an innate ability to spin ‘home stories’ is truly remarkable. After all, when or how do artists and their congregation realize what theme or genre to present to the public and what not? The discretion solely rests on artist’s interpretation of his or her world which may very well be devoid of any factual merit. ‘But that’s what art is’, you say, fine, but why is there an attempt to package it with social message, as if to make it (art) serve greater purpose than the subject of art itself?

The essence of criticism stems not from telling artists of all colors to produce or not, but scrutinizing the hell out of them for not exploring the depth of their own production, or, in Ms. Mehta’s case, reserving the rights of non-residents to equally lambaste any other non-resident that look into their own native culture with ‘the bluest eyes’ just so that the wider audience is able to interpret in the language ‘they’ know or the context ‘they’ seem to understand in. Poor Ms. Mehta, we know exactly how you feel; the burden of having to explain where you are coming from. ‘Limited art’ smells like fart to me.

First of all, who took my alias “RealityCheck”?

And to comment on this issue:

M’hacker bro, chill with the usual over analysis…

Ms. Mehta has the same right to make whatever movie she pleases — with the plot and story line of her desire, and the message she wishes to portray — as any director has the right to make superman or a porn flick. We, the audience, are smart enough to grasp the story and decide for ourselves whether the ‘social commentary’ is pretentious or preachy.

Your impression that “creative freedom that the west so readily grants…” is dubious. No one grants these freedoms, they just exist in a free society. If someone like Mehta wants to make ‘home-grown’ films then more power to them. It is the artists’ preference what he/she expresses as art, and it inherently has a personal touch or message; as an audience we can criticize the art and disagree with the message, but why the need to berate the artist for having an artistic expression?

,mn,mn

Oye hoye, some demand for alias ‘RealityCheck’ these days, but the admin should take heed that it should be reserved for the original—the dude that most urgently needs one, a reality check that is.

Now to your ‘jeri pakako argument’, no one is disputing Ms. Mehta’s ‘right’ to produce the kind of movie she pleases, whether a sultry lesbo flick or a deep rooted soulful romance between two pansies which, from my previous post should have been evident by the following:

The essence of criticism stems not from telling artists of all colors to produce or not, but scrutinizing the hell out of them for not exploring the depth of their own production, or, in Ms. Mehta’s case, reserving the rights of non-residents to equally lambaste any other non-resident that look into their own native culture with ‘the bluest eyes’ just so that the wider audience is able to interpret in the language ‘they’ know or the context ‘they’ seem to understand in.

First, the movies that explore societal misfortune or miscarriages usually explore several different dimensions of the same problem which, from above review I find as lacking in the movie. Second, as far as freedom to express is concerned, how does Ms. Mehta exploring that facet of hers limit the likes of mine or any other reviewer to criticize her work where, I am simply exercising MY expression, no matter how un-artistic in comparison? Just in case you didn’t know, it simply doesn’t! Simple response to your simple claim/observation. ‘Berating the artist’, oh grow up!

M’hacker and R-check,

..the war of words continues unabated eh?…this love-hate relationship (oh..come now, no need to squirm :-)) the two of you have going!

All I want is say is Kudos to Deepa Mehta for having the temerity to continue to make the movie inspite of numerous chllaneges posed by the likes of the fanatic Sadhu’s, Mahatma’s and their ilk ..the Shiv Sainiks. Having said that, could she have delved more into the mores of society pertaining to widows and their treatment in India-sure, but, would the movie have reached as wide an audience? perhaps not. My personal belief is that having a movie that delves into the depths of an issue from their native ethos may make it much too hard for “them” to relate to.
Is it better to address an issue in a cursory manner than a full blown dissection of the same? perhaps, if it means that an issue that would have been completely ignored, at the very least, has the chance of generating some awareness….

I feel that Desi artists/directors/writers have a higher bar to scale in their potrayals of the life back home. They face the dual challenge of on the one hand, making creative works that appeal to a majority of the world audience whilst simultaneously meeting the standards that “activists”/local folks back home would like them to meet in terms of a stronger/hard hitting examination of societies beliefs/practices (Meera Nair faced similar criticism for her mere mention with no probing of the issue of incest in “Monsoon Wedding”)…It’s a difficult balancing act to muster-even for one with the prodigious talent of the likes of Deepa Mehta or Meera Nair.

With that said, I look forward to more of the banters between you two stalwarts :-)

Post 1

“Umm…if conflicts root out stories that can be told to some artsy crowd in New York about the plight of widows in India—a practice that is ancient yet provide a fancy topic of discussion over cocktails in parties then, of course, the likes of Mehta and their productions find plenty of criticism.”

It’s not a question of western “criticism”,my friend. It is ground reality.

It’s a good film.

Now that fucking fun and frolicking is over, Italianos ogling over 11-pound of gold-trophy having faded in our memory—replaced by everyday reality—the rat-race of mediocre jobs and unfriendly dealings, let’s get back to ‘our’ business—to the old ways of doing business here on Samudaya, and you pansies who are ‘afraid’ to register and scrutinize me or any other aspect of Samudaya should feel especially ‘liberated’ cause I have naturally resorted to verbally restricting my otherwise confrontational demeanor which should now allow you to officially lead comments to your desired destination, for instance, even the dumbest and simplest remark made at my expense above, ‘It’s not a question of western “criticism”, my friend. It is ground reality…It’s a good film’, finds itself sufficiently safe in our newfound collective, without any fear of backlash on my part, hence, fear not and critique away fellas!

Kripa, in all sincerety, I think you are misguided in many ways. Call me, I can straighten that out for you quite easily. Desperately impatient.

RC, too bad we couldn’t meet in NY ‘bro’. Nonetheless, I look forward to your usual diluted sense of perspective which, in all honesty could be very refreshing at times.

Mehta pehenji di fillum che mahan Bharat nu Thirld world nahin, Fourth world che peacchadiya!

Mehta pehenji, tusi Panjab di sahri kudiya nu mehsoos di kara diyan

Sat Sri Akal!

Twada vazir e alam Shri Sher Bahadur Khatmandu che vich rawana ho lange.

Te viche, twada Khatmandu di seher vaddhi changha he!

With all due respect to you M’hacker,
“Misguided in many ways” you say..well, there goes my reason for living — having been so brutually quashed by one with your intellect and prowess for the English language :-)

Why would I waste the time of one so steeped in all things intellectual and be so presumptious as to inflict on you the horrors of having to mend my misguided notions…no sire, I think I’ll continue to labour under these “misguided” notions..they’ve served me well thus far! :-)

Kripaji,

Just so that we are on same footing, ‘misguided in many ways’ while seemingly accusatory at glance, in contrary, has quite a complimentary essence/character to it. Allow me to demonstrate:

You see, the phrase in itself is so vague and devoid of any sustentative follow-through that the only purpose it really serves is in pointing the opposite — to be ‘truer’, or more acceptable in some sense. Thus, while the phrase is read literally, the intent is in fact to understand, if you allow, metaphorically, which you seem to have done quite effortlessly.

Exactly! All the above mumbo-jumbo just for being so hard on yourself. Don’t be ridiculous, it’s no horror at all to ‘mend your misguided notions’. Feel free to knock when certain ‘intellectual’ urges arise. Ciao!

Babburam da guruji SD Muni te twada vazir e alam che kal Khatmandu te pet baarta huwa si te sadha videsh sachib Shyamsharan shanibbaar nu Khatmandu ramana ho rhya.

say whaaa?

Yo, speak nepali — or at least english!

damn foreigners :-D

How about Newari? or Nepal Bhasa, to be exact?

all indian males have big issues. This indian widow thing only hilights how out of touch they are with the modern world. Indians are like the niggers of the moddern world.

They are shit scared of western women and western ideals. The right for women to vote, to have a say, and simply to even be heard scares the hell out of them.

Yeah, yea, yeah, I guess the Indians have big d….

I am back.

Nice to see that Mystichacker has not lost his dictionary.

Seriously, is this website dead?

When someone says “all over the production of an indie flick” it cannot quite serve as a dismissal does it? Considering the response it provokes from certain people, and the disruption they are able to cause. Besides, if art has to have functions in society beyond pleasing someone’s notion of aesthetics, wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect a social response? It’s not so much that I am in support of these people, but where do we go from here? If it comes down to the same old opposition between aesthetics and politics, I have to say aesthetics seems generally to win. We (possessors of cultural capital, privileged in terms of class) are all invested in the idea of artistic freedom, less so than we are in any concrete form of social change. To me this is unresolvable if we choose to keep debating it, on some deeper level of emotion I don’t really care about this issue at all, but it seems that whenever the “east” and the West communicate there are all these dead ends and ultimately all things east has to get translated into the easy language that the West can understand. The conflict between the Hindu right and Deepa Mehta’s production team for instance, isn’t that kind of simplistic, it is simplistic if we talk about it as an opposition of western artistic freedom and eastern traditionalism, intolerance, idiocy, violence etc. But the idea of artistic freedom has its local forms in places not in the West too, it need not be exactly the same problem we encounter in western countries when for instance some neo nazi group wants to publish hate messages, or in a different context, some radical group wants to burn a flag. I hope this has been intelligible to some if not all.
As for the film itself, I agreed with Sarahana’s article, in that it just does not delve deeply enough into the issue its supposed to be exploring, except for a a couple the characters just fall flat. And what’s with John Abraham being in it, he just didn’t have any kind of political intensity. In the end the film was thrown over to Gandhi. It could have shown the concrete ways he might have influenced people’s lives, as a symbol, a figure, a speaker. It chose rather to show Gandhi’s physical being as redemptive, even this could have been explored with more nuance and subtlety. As for whether a film like that should have mass appeal among the cultured (but generally ignorant about the world outside their “civilization”) of the west, couldn’t care any less than I have laboriously come to.