Art vs. History / Perspective vs. Fact

Every human being’s point of view is restricted by certain aspects of upbringing and experience that differ fundamentally from the aspects of upbringing and experience that inform the perspectives of others. This fact is an inescapable characteristic of the human experience and is part of the reason why members of the human race will always fall victim to violence caused by conflicting misinterpretations of reality. What’s worse, any attempt to transcend the barriers of misunderstanding through personal expression is usually met with venom and accusations where there should be dialogue and simple disagreement. As a result, no matter how hard a filmmaker tries to remain neutral, any movie that attempts to examine a violent breakdown of relations between two or more groups is bound to be attacked and criticized by any party portrayed in the film or, more likely, any person that feels he or she can benefit by convincing a group that it has been misrepresented. This effect is only amplified when the groups in question align themselves by virtue of ethnicity or religion. I will always prefer dialogue to outraged accusation, which is why I agreed more with Ansari than with Wallia in their conflicting reviews of Earth, a 1998 film written and directed by Deepa Mehta.

Wallia is too hung up on the historical accuracy of the film and, because of this fact, misses the point of the movie almost entirely. He is, however, a better writer than Ansari and raises a few excellent criticisms that I must address. For example, I agree wholeheartedly with his assertion that “Mehta’s rendering of the horrendous tragedy of the partition of India in ‘Earth’ is simplistic.” This observation is correct, but the simplicity is fitting because the story is told from the point of view of a nine-year-old girl, Lenny, whom we might expect to see complex events in overly-simplistic terms because she is a child. Also, Wallia criticizes Ms. Mehta’s writing and character development. I concede these were only acceptable and definitely not first-rate; however, I am disappointed that Wallia, a professor with a PhD in Communications, expends so much energy criticizing Mehta’s writing without commenting at all on her excellent direction, which I felt made a creative use of color and angles, often giving the camera the personality of a child fitting into tight spots or peeking around corners for clandestine observation. Wallia does speak of the “impressive” cast, but fails to give Mehta any credit for the skillful performances she brings out of them, performances that often smooth out the rougher parts of her script. The worst flaw in Wallia’s analysis comes when he says that Earth “fails as a film.” It is true that it may fail as an accurate account of historical events, but as a film, a piece of art incorporating plot, music, and acting in a visual medium, it is a success.

By contrast, Ansari’s review is less developed but more accurate than Wallia’s. At least she sees the film as a work of art and understands that the plot is not supposed to be historically accurate but “a story of a child’s confusion about the partition, which embodies the confusion of the millions who are eventually affected by it.” Also, Ansari mentions the aspects of the film that make it so great: the direction, the music, the cast. She echoes my opinion about Mehta’s angles when she dubs her ability to give the camera a childlike point of view a “voyeuristic quality.” Perhaps I was most impressed with her observation that Earth walks a fine line between accessible Bollywood entertainment and deep art-house craft, a characteristic I feel some of the best films share.

Earth was a very rewarding film, I thought, a piece that was greater than the sum of its parts. It was historically simplistic, but it was emotionally pure as well, two fitting characteristics for a film with a child’s perspective. Plus, Mehta’s skillful direction and the excellent acting were a pleasure. The movie was a little short, but held my attention from beginning to end, which is more than I can say for most films with half its depth. Ultimately, the film’s experience as a whole is much like the final scene. There is nothing unexpected; the viewers see the tragedy coming from a mile away, yet, when the moment finally arrives, the plot’s transparency takes nothing from its emotive power.