Earth (1998) User Reviews

Deeply disturbing

[tupperi · 9/10 · 29 May 2000]

Deepa Mehta lets us in the opening scene the theme of her film as a small girl smashes a plate on the floor and asks her puzzled mother, "Can you break a country?" The film shows exactly how that happens. The first half of the film depicts an idyllic society. The scenes in the park are reminiscent of Eden, as the nurse Shanta holds court amongst her Hindu, Muslim and Sikh suitors. The kite-flying scene is probably the lightest-hearted in the picture. But gradually the cracks start to appear, driving apart friends and lovers. The hatred which spreads as partition of the country approaches is shown to be a madness coming from deep within the human heart, which twists and deforms relationships. The worst betrayal in this film results from an irreconcilable confusion of loyalties in a trusting heart. This film presents a disturbing but authentic picture of human nature.

The score by A.R. Rahman is a powerful blend of Indian and western film music, lightening the joyous moments (such as the kite-flying scene) and deepening the foreboding in other scenes (such as the train of death).

See it. Watch for the symbolism. Watch out for the critics' cynicism.

[nz man · 9/10 · 25 October 1999]

Go see this film. It is wonderful. But it is not for everyone.

Most of the comments here on IMDb are positive and I agree with these reviews. However, for me the cynicism of the critics was unfounded because I was not expecting the usual Hollywood movie. If you cannot relate to this film in a positive way then I suppose that you have not traveled much and have not lived in other cultures, at least not in Asia. This is not an American film made for an American audience.

This is very much an adult film for a sensitive and mature audience. It is certainly not for those seeking the usual thrills and spills and formula love stories. We are given a look at a very important and prominent country being split up by a colonial power, and how this political decision affects millions of people in some of the most awful manners. A million lost their lives! The tension between India and Pakistan still haunts us all ! So don't expect a nice and sweet film, although there were some beautiful scenes of childhood innocence and the romance of young lovers.

The symbolism is rich. At the start we see a dinner table with the main groups of people represented in the formation of Pakistan: English, Sikh, Muslim, Hindu, Parsee. Throughout the film Lenny Baby represents the innocence and naivety which so many people remain in during geopolitical processes. When it is this young girl's birthday, she can find no one who cares. Her birthday is the same day of the Pakistan-India split, and the symbolism is obvious. She then finds a Muslim refugee boy whose mother was brutally killed by Hindus. He asks her if she is a Hindu and when she replies "no" she also asks if he wants some cake. "Cake? What is cake?" Lenny-the-Naive is baffled, and again the symbolism is obvious. So many of us cannot really relate to the plight of refugees. What happens to this innocent and naive position at the end? We are stunned to see the results. Naivety leads Beauty and Love to a terrible fate. Innocence is tragically deceived. It wasn't until my second viewing of this film that I saw the many symbolic references. Watch the film with this perspective and you will see through the cynicism such as writer "Pass the pappadom" makes elsewhere on this page.

One symbolic reference that I am not sure if I understand was that of the Sikh man and his family, hiding from the Muslim killer mob. He was such a sincere and gentle man, and even his dagger raised in defense did not detract from his positive qualities. Was he portrayed in this way because the Sikhs had too much 'bad press' about their warrior ways? Were the Sikhs ineffective in protecting themselves during the division?

A friend of mine told me that he cried all the way home after seeing this film. He is 46 years old and not a weak and overly sensitive person. My wife and I were quite emotionally moved by this film, and we cannot relate to the film critics that say otherwise. By the way, my wife lived in India for a year and she loved seeing the various scenes of everyday Indian life, so you may enjoy the film just for the sake of seeing people living life outside of Hollywood America.

One last symbolic reference to ponder was the touching romantic scene between the two lovers amidst the ancient ruins. Here we see a Muslim man saying that he would convert to Hinduism so that the marriage would be possible. All they needed to do is to leave to live in the newly divided India. The ancient ruins indicate the past, but unfortunately the lovers return to the present.

This is a film that I will remember for a long time. I highly recommend that you see it, if you don't mind a serious film about major issues, seen from a non-American perspective.

Director - writer Deepa Mehta deserves much credit for depicting the complexities of one of the world's worst tragedies with diplomatic balance, not placing blame on any one group but yet revealing the errors and brutality that each group made.

Sensual, harrowing melodrama.

[alice liddell · 7/10 · 4 July 2000]

EARTH will seem familiar to anyone who has ever seen a historical epic. Its tale of political and national disjunction and horror is filtered through a precariously neutral upper-middle class family, in particular through the eyes of a young child, a scenario not dissimilar to, say, EMPIRE OF THE SUN. Further, this child, beautiful but lame, is somehow a figure for India itself, its scar of partition masked by her disability, or an embodiment of this soon-to-be-lost, dangerously naive innocence, scenes of great personal intimacy contrast with scenes of mass violence, until the two collide in the gut-wrenching climax. As with any historical epics, the film's sweeping smoothness conceals formal ruptures, as the film moves registers from the 'naturalistic' or narratively, psychologically plausible to Expressionism, to blatant allegory. This internal conflict may mirror the struggle over boundaries the film narrates.

If the film is conventional is outline, it is also intelligent, beautiful and economical in a way most stodgy historical epics are not. Its predominantly Western structure is filtered through with a restrained Bollywood sensuality, and, in the first half especially, after one has gotten used to the rather stilted dialogue and stylised situations, one is astounded by the caressing fluidity of the camerawork; the uncommon beauty of compositions, especially indoors, where the essentially muted 'earth' colours of the decor are pierced by unearthly shards of light; the profusion of dazzling colours, in costumes, and especially in the horrific marriage sequence, undermining the strained sobriety of most historical epics; the unforced breaks into song and dance, the accumulation of vignettes, some comic, some full of joy and promise, some bursting with foreboding, that give a sense of life being lived, a life already fragile in status, waiting to be destroyed; the unabashed use of melodrama, its critical framing device (in one horrible scene, the protagonists watch helplessly from a balcony the strangely beautiful conflict, passive like us the audience), and its emotional demands on the audience I realise that much of my pleasure comes from a racist 'Orientalism', a projection of my desires of exoticism and Otherness on the East, but my own country has a traumatic history of British Imperialism and partitions, so I don't feel too guilty.

The first half is as good as anything in cinema this year, once one has got used to the shifts in register. It is full of the autumnal sadness of a Chekhov play, or Ray's CHARULATA, or LE REGLE DU JEU, where we observe people living life, being friends, making love playing games, while we know history is sadistically poised on the brink, waiting to crush everything. Mehta never falls into nostalgia for this doomed idyll - she records the legacy of the British Empire; the horrors of the caste system; the emotional repression, the arranged marriages between senile paedophiles and pre-pubescent girls. But this section is also full of epiphany, the thrill of the sexual chase, friendship, poetry and, above all, comedy, all the things about to be distorted and destroyed by history as it performs a body snatching operation onto people we have come to love and turns them into vicious murderers.

The second half is an unrelenting catalogue of jolting spasms of violence. Day gives way to night, earthy browns and sun to blackness, friendship and love to death and hate. The film is also a bildungsroman, the tale of the development of a young girl as she learns about life, love, family, gender, language, society, history, culture, politics a development cruelly cut short, distorted, vandalised - when we see the charming dew-eyed narrator half a century later, emotionally in ruins as she stands self-effacingly in the ruins of Imperial pomp (an amazing shot, the film's sparing use of ruined architecture gives the film on occasion a ghostly feel), we sense irreperable loss.

Be prepared to have your guts ripped out

[neelvk · 10/10 · 31 October 1999]

This movie has attempted and succeeded at trying to get a handle on the brutal days of 1947 when British India was separated into independent India and Pakistan. I would suggest that this movie be a required viewing for anyone studying the past and present of these two countries. Lahore of 1947 is not very different from Sarajevo of the 90s. And this too is no fiction. Mayhem depicted in the movie is *very* tame compared to what actually happened. It is my ferevent hope that the people of India and Pakistan view this movie and hope "Never Again".

Beautiful evocation of some unpleasant history

[Philby-3 · 6 November 1999]

A beautiful and haunting film, "Earth" is set in India during 1947, which saw independence granted and the Indian sub-continent divided between Muslim Pakistan and (largely) Hindu India. History is seen through the eyes of Lenny, an eight-year-old girl from the numerically tiny Parsee sect, the members of which are professedly "neutral" in the conflict between Hindu and Muslim. The action takes place in Lahore, in the Punjab, an ancient cosmopolitan city where Muslim, Hindu, Sikh and Parsee lived side by side in reasonable harmony until partition, when unspeakable violence broke out, as it did in many other parts of India. Over a million people died in the sub-continent and perhaps 12 million people fled their homes.

The film, based on the autobiographical novel "Cracking India" by Bapsi Sidhwa, concentrates on the effect the civil turmoil has on personal relationships. Somehow, politics brings out the worst in everyone; submerged resentments and trivial jealousies fuel shocking atrocities. Even innocent little Lenny manages to act badly, despite her "neutral" status.

Despite the presence of at least one "Bollywood" star (Aamir Khan) the director, Deepa Mehta, has not made a crowd-pleaser here. There are survivors, but no surviving heroes. The story unfolds first at a leisurely pace, gaining speed as independence day approaches and ends in a montage of mobs, destruction and violence. Every scene is beautifully composed and almost every part sensitively played. Maia Sethna as Lenny, Nandita Das as her beautiful young nanny Shasta , Rahul Khanna as Hasan, Shastas' lover and Aamir Khan as Dil Navaz the 'ice candy man" are all stand-outs. While not actually filmed in Lahore (the authorities there were not keen, it seems) the film evokes superbly a hot, ancient and troubled land. The whole style of the film is quite different from anything to emerge out of Hollywood and that alone makes it worth seeing.

It is suggested in the film that perhaps the villain here was that old standby, human nature. It does seem, though, that the British India administration (represented here only by one drunken official at a dinner party) and particularly the British government, had a lot to answer for. The twenty-five years or so leading up to independence were marked by the failure of successive conservative British governments to allow a truly responsible democracy to emerge in India when it was quite clear by the end of World War One that independence was inevitable. (The white Dominions on the other hand were practically pushed into independence.) Then, when the post-war Labour government decided to grant independence it did so with unseemly and disastrous haste. No, the chief villain was perfidious Albion, or rather British "muddling through". Here we get a beautiful, moving, elegiac account of the victims of bad colonial policy driven by racism and unenlightened self-interest.

A Seeringly Poignant Examination of Religious Factions of India

[gradyharp · 10/10 · 18 September 2006]

Deepa Mehta has such a commanding presence in her films that she is able to leave her audience both educated and devastated by her stories and by the ingenious ways in which she tells them. EARTH is a magnificent example of her gifts and while it may not be as visually luxurious or as touching as her subsequent WATER, it is a fine film that not only depicts a troubled time in India's history, but also informs us of the intricacies of how people relate to each other - first as humans, second as religious sects.

The film has at its heart the year 1947 when India was given its independence from Great Britain and at the same time bifurcated into two countries - India and Pakistan. The story opens with a tranquil park picnic in Lahore where friends - Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Parsee - while away the afternoon in camaraderie. Only slight overtones of edgy topics about religion mar the conversation until the topic focuses on the incipient split of the country into two countries. Each of the friends represents each of the religious sects and it is how these differences, at once unimportant to friendship, end up in separating the friends under the influence of the devastation of bloodshed that follows the division of the country and the displacement of millions of people, all under the guise of independence.

There is a strong love story, a committed crippled child who experiences all of the happiness and subsequent tragedy that is to follow and the story ends with some words of wisdom by the grown little girl reflecting on choices made, and other sidebars that maintain interest at every frame.

The acting is first rate from a beautiful cast and Mehta's direction makes this tale of change whir by the viewer. For those not educated in the differences of the four religious sects of Hindu, Parsee, Muslim, and Sikh the tale can become confusing: would that Mehta would have included a discussion about the film in an added feature the way she helped us understand the plight of widows in WATER. And the subtitles unfortunately do not translate the English spoken portions of the film, portions that while very important to the story are nearly indecipherable due to the accents of the characters speaking.

But these are minor quibbles in a film that pleads for repeated viewings, so beautiful is the movie and so very important is the message. Highly Recommended.

The Partition of "Earth"

[swatso · 7/10 · 28 October 2005]

In 1947, after centuries of colonial rule and 89 years of the British Raj, the Indian subcontinent was finally given long overdue independence. The quest for independence, as lead most famously by Mahatma Ghandi, gave rise to the issue of how to grant it. In the end, sectarian agitations led to the bloody partitioning of India. From British India emerged the Hindu majority India and the Muslim majority Pakistan, accompanied by massacres, riots and "the largest, most terrible exchange of population known to history." It is during this most horrific of schisms that "Earth", directed and part-written by Deepa Mehta, takes place. "Earth" is set in the large cosmopolitan city of Lahore, as it transfers from Indian to Pakistani rule, and is shown from the perspective of a young, lame Parsee girl, called Lenny (Maia Sethna), and her group of friends. This group is a relative microcosm of Indian society, with Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Parsees all represented. As the film progresses, Mehta uses the tensions that surface and eventually destroy the group as a parallel to the hostilities of the Partition.

As Parsees, India's "invisible" people, Lenny's wealthy family is supposedly sheltered from the growing conflict by an ever-fragile 'neutrality'. Lenny's naïvety is used quite effectively to endear her to the viewer. Her innocence makes the tragedy of Partition even more profound. The events occurring are incomprehensible to Lenny; her naïvety is best illustrated in the opening scene, in which she breaks a plate and, utterly perplexed, enquires "Can one break a country?" The story, though narrated by Lenny at beginning and end, does not always seem to be from her viewpoint and one doubts if she could accurately be described as the protagonist.

Lenny's Hindu ayah, or nanny, appears to be more of a focus. Shanta (Nandita Das) is beautiful, and is surrounded by a circle of male admirers, and, in particular, two Muslims suitors who vie for her affection. One is the poetic Dil Navaz (Aamir Khan), or as Lenny calls him, Ice Candy Man, and the other is a masseuse, Hassan (Rahul Khanna). Although it initially seems that it is with Dil Navaz that her affections lie, Hassan proves to be her true love, much to the surprise of the viewer. Whilst it is never really shown why Dil Navaz's courtship fails, the viewer could infer that it he lacked a certain gentlemanliness and that he possessed a certain darkness. What is clear is the love that Hassan has for Shanta; a love that is realised in a beautifully handled love-scene. Shanta is a woman for which he would convert to Hinduism and risk his life.

Mehta does not shy away from depicting the savagery of the conflict and the film possesses some extremely powerful moments. One in particular is the debilitating and horrifically gruesome 'de-limbing' of a man caught in the fury of a mob. Another, arguably most powerful, scene is the discovery of a trainload of massacre victims by Dil Navaz, among them his sisters, and sacks of severed breasts. The climax of the movie is a devastating illustration of the consequences of unrequited love. In the scene, we see the supposed protection of the Parsees crumble as an enraged Muslim mob arrives seeking Hindus and Sikhs. Shanta, a Hindu, is hidden in the house, as the mob questions workers who have converted from Hindu and Sikh to Muslim and Christian and then demands Shanta. Dil Navaz, played deftly by Aamir Khan, appears from the crowd, and appearing a "hero", deceives Lenny into revealing Shanta's whereabouts who is then dragged away screaming, and presumably murdered.

Based on the novel "Cracking India", by Bapsi Sidhwa (who co-adapted the script), the film translate to screen in a rich, flowing melodrama. It is strong in symbolism and the obvious motif of 'breaking' (plates, persons, dolls and relationships) works to keep the Partition in frame-of-mind. Mehta has created a sensual piece of dazzling colours that correspond with the moment in time – in the first half it is joyful and organic, in the second it is dark and ominous. The accompanying soundtrack, by A.R. Rahman, is effective and appropriate. However, the film sits awkwardly betwixt the style of 'Bollywood' and that of Hollywood. It has, one could argue, obviously been made with a Western audience in mind, and consequently, does not set to be historically informative. Nevertheless, it is an effective piece that does not befuddle the viewer, and provides insight into how people were directly affected by the Partition, an event that still reverberates today.

(S. R. Watson, Flinders University, Adelaide)

How far have we come in 50 years?

[Akira-29 · 9/10 · 5 April 2000]

This question resonated in my mind as the credits rolled. The release of this movie came at a high point in India's history - 50 years after independence from the British.

As an Indian-born American this film had an intense emotional impact on me, as it did with my best friends sitting to my right and left - a Muslim and a Sikh. It seems melodramatic but we sat in our seats, tears in our eyes, stunned.

One of the things I look forward to after every movie going experience is the inevitable discussion that follows. All three of us were silent for almost half an hour. It dawned on us that we could have been the group of friends who were so close at the beginning only to be divided by our demons in the name of religion at the end.

As an aspiring film-maker, I would like to congratulate Deepa Mehta for her courage and determination in presenting such amazing human stories. In an industry where Bollywood sachharine seems to prevail, it is reassuring to see a true artistic voice strike a lyrical chord with the world.

She makes me proud to be Indian first and foremost.

textfilm

[maerte · 7/10 · 25 May 2000]

Mehta shows us the partition of India as if it was a sudden catastrophe that broke into a world which was free of any conflicts before.

In Sidhwa's novel were the perspective of the child this is no problem, but in the film this gains the quality of objective truth. But everybody studying the history of the Punjab cannot look over the fact that except for a short intermezzo in the 1920's the relations between the communities were generally strained. The jolly community of friends would thus have been rather an exception than a symbol for Lahori society as a whole.

Partition between 2 countries; destroying love, friendship, and innocence

[Sadies · 10/10 · 16 October 1999]

I find it quite ironic how 2 countries who separate due to their religion status; deals with it thru defying their religion (killing people, torturing people, etc). But it happened, and the people living at this time amongst this chaos, has stories that they need to tell. Like an anecdote from some animosity or experience that they need to alleviate themselves from by writing books.

This movie is based on the fiction novel "Cracking India," by Bapsi Sidhwa. And although this book is fiction, it is based upon Sidhwa's life experience. The adaptation of this book, "Earth," is very much alike this book.

The movie is about a young girl, Lenny, who has polio. She cannot play with and like other children, so she spends all her time with Shanta (Ayah), who takes care of her like her own mother. Lenny, is from a Parsee family. Parsees in India, have always been invisible within the time of the Muslim and Hindu uproar. They do not get effected by the war; Parsees are very wealthy. Yet, Shanta is Hindu; and during the division of Pakistan and India, Lahore remains on the Pakistan side. Yet Shanta doesn't want to leave Lahore, because she had been w/Lenny's family for a long time; and she felt safe within a Parsee household. Yet she is beautiful and is loved by many men; most importantly, by 2 Muslim men. Yet, before Partition really causes problems, Lenny, Shanta, and the two men who love Shanta, are all together as friends. They did not see or predict how the environment at that time would change them all; and destroy their friendship. But it did.

"Earth" has very graphical images of the horrors during Muslim and Hindu riots. It made people angry, it made people want revenge. There were children who were lost, because their parents were killed by a Muslim or a Hindu. Is this justice? The movie seperates revenge from justice. Justice isn't revenge, because the actions taken aren't just.

A very good metaphor that keeps me thinking and thinking in the movie. This is when Ice Candy man tells Lenny why she is afraid of the lion in the cage; Its because the lion wants to come out it wants revenge, it wants to be free, but once the cage is open, what would happen? Lenny in the end of the movie asks, "who's guarding the lions?" Ice Candy Man answers "nobody." This is symbolic to how no one was controlling this bloodshed between the Hindus and Muslims. Once the cage is open, revenge and hatred comes out; this is the price for their freedom.

I liked how the narrator was Lenny, why? (Besides the fact this is based on Sidhwa's book).Because she is a young girl, she just turns 9 years old. What she experiences in this movie is not supposed to happen to an 9 year old. She is young, but in the end; she becomes an adult; she has seen and gone thru what innocence isn't supposed to see.

The anecdote? Well if u see the movie, you'll see why this time and the politics at this time affected this girl at her stage in life. The everlasting regret and feeling that you have betrayed someone so close to you, because of a tragedy effected by the actions and response by people about the Partition of Pakistan and India.

Awesome

[silvan-desouza · 7/10 · 20 June 2014]

Aamir Khan in 90s did more commercial films, except some offbeat films 1947 Earth is one of them, it's based upon Bapsi Sidhwa's novel, Cracking India, (1991, U.S.; 1992, India; originally published as Ice Candy Man, 1988, England). The film was another memorable film by Deepa Mehta It tells the hardships that Indians and Pakistanis faced during partition and it's well handled by Mehta, The manner in which the friends turn foes and the end is well handled. Aamir's transformation is brilliantly handled and well shown At 1 hour 50 minutes long it's taut and engaging, only it does get slow at times Direction is amazing Music is amazing, Rut Aa Gayi is good song and most songs are kept in background. The film is shot in sync sound and half the film is English and Hindi which suits it

Aamir Khan is perfect in his part, he underplays his part well and his expressions are topnotch, this was his first negative role Nandita Das is amazing in her role, Rahul Khanna makes an effective debut, sadly this people are not seen much in films now Khulbushan Kharbanda is topnotch, Raghuvir Yadav,Pawan Malhotra are all superb, Kitu Gidwani is good, Mala Sethna as young Lenny is amazing, Shabana Azmi has 1 scene in the end

Artistic, Emotional, Magnificent and Brilliant Cinema!!!!!!

[MisterAugust · 10/10 · 10 January 2014]

Watching Earth was not easy but i have to admit what i watched in those 100 minutes was sheer magic of true cinema. Each and every dialogue had a very deep meaning, every scene was excellent. Probably it's one of the best cinematic experiences, credit goes to Deepa Mehta. What a class direction-truly artistic!

Music score was equally good and the lyrics were awesome. Performances of the lead actors as well as supporting cast was very good, especially Nandita Das. Some people may complain about the movie as it is not showing the partition as they wanted it, in actual Deepa Mehta moves this film onto a very different level where the emotions continue the story. Weather it's jealousy or love or betrayal, every time you feel these emotions. True Magic of cinema.

I am very much confident to say Earth is one of the most powerful movie ever made in India and it will remain in my heart for a very long time.

10 out of 10- Magnificent and Artistic Cinema!!!

not effective is representing the partition era

[iamricky · 6/10 · 13 December 1999]

I have to say that I disagree with most of my friends who liked this movie. The fact is that there is so much trash in Indian Cinema that something mediocre is hailed as a masterpiece. Deepa Mehta is quite over-hyped yet again.

The movie is very well shot, and some good performances. But the dialogues display the same melodrama of other Indian movies. The script does not do any justice to the pain and devastation of the partition era. The scenes intended to elicit horror and sadness are diluted by frequent jokes that have a disgustingly feel-good quality. A lot of the story telling is naive, predictable and manipulative.

Looking at the movie, the partition period of India seems like just another riot, and nothing more. The partition is as painful a memory to indians as the holocaust is to jews. You wouldn't think so after watching this movie.

Art and politics please, not drab archetypes.

[James Brown · 4/10 · 13 January 2000]

Deepa Mehta's historical account of the bitter upheaval in just post-colonial rule India is like an entry in an encyclopedia for children: simplistic, naive, superficial. If you're totally unaware of the religious environment of the era you'll have worked it out within five minutes. And after the next five minutes you'll get a second chance. Then, five minutes later, just in case you're really slow Mehta will give you one more chance. Only, five minutes later she's at it again. But wait (just five minutes, now), and, oh, yes: Muslims don't like the Hindus taking policital power nor do they think much of their murderous Sikh lackeys (my apologies: how the film puts it, not I).

Mehta fails to treat the issue with the rich complexity it deserves. There is no mention of the past, of why India's folk cannot get along with one another and politics plays an unreasonable second fiddle to the march of the religious solo act. Attenborough did more just with sub-plots in Gandhi. Perhaps even more offensive than this lowly, moronic form of snobbery, Mehta tries to win us over with the idea of sheer beauty being confronted with tragedy. Yes, Earth is often a striking film to look at: the colours of clothes are particularly vibrant, much of the lighting is foggily ethereal. But after a time (like about five minutes) the postcard beauty wears thin. The world is ludicrously pretty: perfect flowers poke into many frames, dirt must glide off all the fabric here, even the sight of butchery is oddly, disturbingly exhilarating to look upon (doubtfully intentional considering this moment is supposed to provide sufficient reason for the climactic act of cruelty). Disgustingly, the heroine falls for a man because he is better looking than another (my interpretation, there is no actual reason given). In a horrid musical interlude, her supposedly diegetic singing voice sounds like it's straight from the studio - equalised to its full potential.

Oh dear, it is so sad such a beautiful group of people, such a wonderful land had to be divided.

Yeah, thanks Deepa, now how about a film with characters who have real emotions involved in a story with dramatic weight so we can take you more seriously, hmm?

A very honest attempt without much fanfare

[satya-3 · 22 October 1999]

Deepa Mehta's second element, "Earth" clearly shows her maturity as a director. She has really worked on the overall aspects of film-making and make it more presentable to a wider audience, as compared to "Fire". Like music, for instance. A R Rahman is clearly the best performer in this film with excellent scores like "Rut aa gayi re" and "Banno".

I felt, this film mainly focuses on the character of Dil Navaz (brilliantly enacted by Aamir Khan) ... a person who turns from a cheerful, romantic and simple common man to a person who becomes violent and villanious in his hatred for a sect of people. The 1947 partition riots is an example of a social upheaval that can trigger such a change in a person. As the character says, we all have a lion encaged within us and the day the cage breaks open, God only can save us from the aftermath.

Aamir Khan is astonishing in his performance. He is gaining considerable mileage as a class actor ( a rarity in Hindi commercial film industry ) because of his recent pick of movies and definitely "Earth" marks a high point in his career graph. The different shades of emotion Dil Navaz undergoes through the film are effectively communicated through his face, articulation and body language. The climax scene is particularly memorable. Nandita Das and Rahul Khanna have given able support. The little girl Maia Sethna as "lenny" is also very promising. The direction has been very controlled and Deepa handles the events beautifully with excellent cinematographic support.

To sum it up, Earth offers an excellent viewing experience to all and makes the audience really "feel" for the victims ( both physical and mental ) of such events in World history as the India-Pakistan partition.

Powerful and Brilliant

[indianature · 10/10 · 10 August 2015]

This is effectively about the horrific beast that lies within us. All of us. Waiting to disclose itself when the opportunity is right.

1947 Earth is a brilliant watch, set in the time of the partition of India and Pakistan. In reality, worse must have taken place during that time than what is depicted in the movie.

The settings are superb, the script is superb and the acting superlative. The most powerful aspect of this movie is the terrifying realisation of the beast that lies dormant within each and everyone of us, just waiting to be unleashed if the circumstances are ripe. That is indeed horrifying.

This is the third in Deepa Mehta's portfolio of Water, Fire, Earth. In a word, this is superb as are all her movies.

Brilliant!!

[abhaybhargav · 9/10 · 15 August 2005]

This movie is a class apart. The true picture of the partition is presented here in this masterpiece by Deepa Mehta. The viewers don't see the glory of Independence but the heart wrenching drama of the Partiton of India and Pakistan. The story starts off very well with Aamir Khan and Nandita Das. The little girl, who plays Leeny Baby has done a brilliant job. Her role as a physically challenged 10 year old Parsi girl is just superb. Nandita Das brings great credibility to the character of ShantaBibi. Her emotions towards Aamir and Rahul Khanna are shown on screen very well. Her devotion to Lenny and the Parsi Family are all brilliantly done. The other actors like the Parsi Family are well cast and they have good roles to play in the film. But the movie, like so many others before it, belongs to Aamir Khan. His metamorphosis in the movie is beautifully shown. His easygoing charm and his way with words captures the audience as they feel that he is really Dil Nawaz, The Ice-Candy Man. His lust for ShantaBibi is shown beautifully. His reaction at the death of his sister, in the train from India is stupendous. He begins to change from the easy going Ice Candy Man to the silent religious fanatic. He finally releases one final stroke which completes the movie and leaves the audience shocked. Rahul Khanna tries very hard but find himself seriously out classed by Aamir and Nandita. His character should have been given to a better actor. He was one of the few flaws of the movie. The other actors like Raghuveer Yadav who converts from Brahmin to Muslim is also a very good character. He does a fine job of his cameo role. Khulbhushan Kharbanda also performs his role authenticity.

The movie is a little slow at times, but on the whole it is just brilliant. It shakes the viewers into the horror, that was the Indian Partition. We should all be thankful for having good lives after watching this movie.

Earth - did Deepa do it again?

[HeadleyLamarr · 7/10 · 4 March 2007]

1947 Earth is a story about the partition of India told from the perspective of a little Parsee girl living in Lahore. The little girl has a beautiful Nanny (Nandita Das) who takes her for many walks in the various Lahore parks. There she hangs out with men of various ethnicities - Sikh, Muslim, Hindu and various lowly occupations like masseur, ice-candy seller, lion keeper etc. Nary a woman is seen to venture anywhere near this crowd. The Parsee parents are genteel, rich and also mingle with upper crust people of various ethnicities. Talks of partition are in the air, there is chaos in the streets yet the nanny continues to take the kid out on walks and into the bustling inner city streets. The parents seem to have abdicated all responsibilities toward their child. The Ice Candy man (very well played by Aamir Khan) is secretly in love with the nanny, but she loves the Masseur (very well played by newcomer Rahul Khanna). Ms. Mehta wants to show us all the bad aspects of human nature in the Indian subcontinent, an entire trainload of Muslims butchered, talk of rape between little children, untouchables, conversion, religious bigotry, child marriage, husband worship (the Parsee wife taking off husband's shoes and then getting close, very close to his feet - do the Parsees have a thing about revering by touching feet too?) etc. But in the end she does not manage to touch my heart because of these sidelines of dramatic moments. The movie comes across as unduly sensationalist and dramatic.

What redeems the film to a great extent is the excellent camera work, the divine music nd above all some great performances. This is some of Aamir's finest work (barring a few moments of insanity as a fakir) he is able to portray the dark character well. A little more expression of conflict as he turns from friend to enemy would have made this an exceptional performance. The new comer Rahul Khanna has a less complex role and does a wonderful job. Nandita Das in luminous, vulnerable, lovable. But the movie belongs to Maia Sethna - her Lenny is magical - child, adult, mixed-up, confused and every bit of it excellent.

Earth tries but cannot achieve what Garam Hawa was able to do - it makes a statement of sorts but does not touch the emotions.

A haunting and beautiful movie

[abhishek-saha · 8/10 · 9 March 2005]

Earth is one of those movies that, despite not being a masterpiece, still manages to 'affect' you in a deep, almost undefinable way. There is something harrowingly beautiful about this intense story of love and betrayal set in the backdrop of the partition of India.

Based on Bapsi Sidhwa's novel, 'Cracking India', Earth tells the story of the partitioning of India seen through the eyes of a eight year old girl. Yet Earth is best viewed not as a historical drama, nor a political fable. Certainly the historical elements are there-the communal violence, the British snobbery, the flight across the border for the millions who were rendered homeless by the events of 1947. But above and beyond that Earth is a story about love and the destruction of innocence. Too many movies that depict historical events either err on the side of showing too much historical detail or relegate the history to a mere footnote. Earth steers clear of being a movie about the events of partition; rather, by concentrating on its effects upon a small group of friends and how it affects their friendships and relationships, it shows the soul of partition.

Earth is shattering, stunning...and eerily beautiful. There are jarring moments, like ones that stretch symbolisms too far, yet they pale in comparison to the beauty that Deepa Mehta portrays.

Earth takes you on a ride of tenderness, poignancy, shock and ultimately leaves you with a feeling of numbness. The climax, especially, contains an emotional punch as powerful as any I have witnessed. All the actors give excellent performances, especially Aamir Khan, the 'ice-candy man', who is astonishing in the last scene. And the music by A.R. Rehman is wonderful, even by his lofty standards.

How to make a historical drama:

[sissypower · 7/10 · 10 October 1999]

Begin with a snazzy opening title sequence, rinse using plenty of amber honeyed hues in the production design, flood interiors with low golden light at filtered angels, cast beautiful actors in the lead roles, set in touchy historical political context sure to illicit controversy, fold in romance, simple dialog, a pinch of sex, sprinkle with an all-purpose rhythmic score, serve with a child's perspective.

Pass the papadam.

Earth

[Spleen · 8/10 · 28 November 2001]

I like the way things look. The town of Lahore (or its stand-in), is not just gorgeous, but gorgeous in the right way: it isn't shot so as to look exotic, and we're not overwhelmed by scenery or architecture. It's beautiful in the way home is beautiful.

And Shanta (Nandita Das), also looks gorgeous - sexy in a way that eludes Hollywood actresses. The sex scene is not, in terms of the emotions of its participants, intense, and it's distinctly PG-rated; it's also convincing.

No doubt it's hard to make a film that is really and truly, at its core, ABOUT the partition of India (unless, of course, you throw in the towel and simply make a documentary). The only way to do so would be to concentrate on people whose lives are thoroughly political - politicians or professional agitators, or ground-level people who happen to have no concerns other than nationalistic ones. Mehta hasn't done this. All her characters have private lives - which means that there's always the danger that, however much effect the national tragedy has on these private lives, it will in the end come out as no more than an irrelevant distraction, like a toothache during a love affair, or the bombing in the recent "Pearl Harbor". This isn't the case here: private lives and national tragedy connect in an unforced and illuminating way.

A compatriot of mine complains that we're never told why Shanta chooses Hassan over Navaz. (He suggests it's because Hassan is the better looking, which clearly CAN'T be the reason, because, unless your sexual preferences tend towards men, and I suspect in some cases even if they do, we can only infer that Hassan IS more attractive from the fact that Shanta chooses him. It's not as if the other one has a hump.) In fact we're given ample reason for the choice: she loves one man and not the other. What more reason do you need?

Her feelings in any direction are at first so slight that they need no explanation. They amplify because they're subject to the same unchecked positive feedback loops that govern interactions between individual characters and between the various religious groups as a whole. Shanta is just ever so wary of Navaz, because he is just ever so slightly pursuing her; this wariness makes him pursue more which in turn makes her more suspicious, and so on. All hatreds and loves develop, by and large, in the same way. Most of the time there's something to check the process before we're carried very far by it; in times of uncertainty like this, there isn't.

Intelligent Historical Drama

[cwarne_uk · 7/10 · 7 August 2008]

A film by an Indian born female director about the communal riots that followed partition is one you desperately want to be great. "Earth" though is merely very good, wonderfully made and accessible to any audience, it tells a very human story of love, jealousy and revenge. It's faults come mainly from trying to integrate the personal with the political, in this it comes perilously close to suggesting that the outrages came down to individual personal grievances (a very unhistorical approach). At times too it is over schematic - the cross religion group of friends for example appears almost as a mechanical device to get the story moving. The strengths though are many - it looks stunning and the acting is very good. Outstanding is Aamir Khan as the tormented Dil Navaz. At times I was reminded of "The Go-Between", both films use similar framing devices and end with a devastating act of innocent betrayal. Overall this a very good film and I look forward to seeing Mehta'a other films.

Excellently depicted Unpleasant truth-the all-consuming nature of hate

[Pgoel · 10/10 · 27 February 2006]

Partition films are inherently political as is shown by the fact that this utterly fair movie was banned in BOTH countries. The fact that it was banned in both countries indicates how unbiased this film is. This film is one about how hatred consumes all. Dilnawaz (Aamir Khan) is a happy-go-lucky guy who gets consumed by a desire for vengeance when he sees his sisters' bodies mutilated. Dilnawaz had told his Hindu and Sikh friends that he would stand up for them if the partition violence came to fighting. Yet, when it came down to it-he reveled in his Hindu and Sikh friends' misery and even advocated their leaving Lahore. The only heroine in this film is the protagonist's (Lenny, Lenny-Baby) mother, who by virtue of being Parsi is protected but does everything to shield the Hindu Aaya (Nanny) of Lenny.

Definitely worth seeing, particularly for westerners

[Knack · 7/10 · 20 October 1999]

Nothing too surprising about the story line, which is the typical murder and mayhem between religions/ethnicities that breaks out as war erupts. The balance between love/hate and the interdenominational friendships is well played out though, with the Partition being the primary antagonist. The acting is very good, but the original music score steals the show.

Fails to elevate -- strictly for Western art-house crowd

[Aam_Aadmi · 3/10 · 4 January 2006]

Having seen this few years ago, the first thought was what it had to do with the India-Pakistan partition in 1947. The film neither shed light on the actual circumstances involved nor addressed the social, economic or political ramifications of the massive uprooting of Northwest India into two separate nations.

The partition was not about one family, it was about thousands. Nothing in the movie even tries to address this basic fact. Unknown multitudes were left behind. Many lost everything in the shuffle. The politics of why it happened has been brushed aside as inconsequential, when that in fact is why the *historical account* is so riveting. Six decades later, the two countries are still divided over those political and religious issues, ready to go to war at a moment's notice. That this needed to be pointed out shows how out-of-context the movie really is. And then she goes and calls it 'Earth'! Get off your high horse, woman.

Mehta is a film-maker who makes stuff for Western consumption. That is fine but she should refrain from taking liberties with Indian/Pakistani audiences who went through the "horror-show" and survived to tell their stories. Mehta should have watched the Hindi TV serial Buniyaad to get SOME clue. Useless side elements filled up the lack of narrative in the film. The characters are totally unempathic and one fails to connect to anyone except the little girl. And what can one say about the direction or technical side of Mehta's "human-interest piece"? Not much.

And if this really was Lenny's story, why muddle it all up with a hare-brained depiction of such a monumental calamity??? If you can only deal with a serious subject with the passing curiosity of an outsider, and have no maturity or emotional depth when interpreting its impact on an entire sub-continent, WHY BOTHER TO DELVE INTO IT AT ALL??