reviews on Earth

On certain aspects, I agree with both of the reviewers. Amsari’s Earth: Unforgettable is a very positive review, relaying the many upsides of the film; the reviewer seems to find the good in many of the elements portrayed in the work and touts it as one that will provoke discussion among its viewers.

One particular section I take issue with is the supposed “tender” scene that features the “mother taking off her [Lenny-baby’s] father’s socks.” This is not a scene I found particularly tender myself; rather, it seemed to be a pointed portrayal of the patriarchal nature of Indian society—the husband was expectant, prone with eyes closed, and the wife obeyed his wordless need for shoe removal and foot-cooling without question. Since other gender disparities were portrayed in the film, (such as the child marriage of Papoo, and the frequent, direct sexual advances towards Shanta,) I did not question my response to this scene as being a depiction of this issue until I read Amsari’s account.

Overall, I felt as though this particular review came off as fairly candy-coated in its discussion of the film: its offerings were taken at face value, and it seemed as though there was really nothing Amsari could find missing or less-developed about the work.

However on the flip side, I felt that Wallia’s review seemed more concerned with clearing up some historical facts than it did with comprehensively reviewing the film. I appreciated Wallia’s critical investigation into the discrepancies of the film’s account, particularly on the topic of the Sikhs, however this review stands in stark contrast with Amsari’s positive account. Wallia seems particularly focused on Mehta’s choice to tell the story from the perspective of Lenny-baby, saying “the viewpoint chosen is too limiting for the subject,” and it is a “simplistic treatment of a complex history.” I felt as though Mehta’s choice was more purposeful than this particular reviewer seems willing to credit to her; though it does somewhat simplify the account of this catastrophic point in India’s history, I felt that this choice aided in an accessible portrayal of the conflicts. Wallia also felt as though the characters were not well developed, noting that the supporting actors, the “zoo-man, the gardener, the barber,” were simplified into types and therefore lacked any depth as people in the film. I felt as though this was also a purposeful choice on the director’s part—since the film is from the viewpoint of an 8 year old girl, the sense of typifying people is forgivable, and even somewhat expected from a child. My take was that Mehta’s use of this childish classification system paralleled exactly what many people (adults) do to one another in the context of religious or ethnic conflict—they type one another in order to justify the discord, they lump people into a category of difference.