User reviews

This beautiful and poignant film also packs quite a punch; the sorry plight of Hindu widows in traditional Indian society is made evident. Deepa Mehta has clearly set out to make a film with a message but she lets the story carry the message and she does not demonize the supporters of ancient oppressive practices, some of whom are motivated by faith rather than self-interest. Strangely the film's beauty undercuts to some extent the political message: I can imagine a devout Hindu seeing it as supporting the traditional view.

As explained in the film, according to ancient texts a Hindu widow had three choices; she could join her husband on his funeral pyre, she could marry his younger brother (if available) or she could go into an Ashram (refuge) with other widows and live a life of self-denial to atone for the sin of having lost her husband.. It is the third option Chuyia (Sarala) takes on the death of her husband in 1938. Chuyia however is only nine years old and scarcely remembers getting married.

The Ashram is a poor place, self-supported by the proceeds of begging and prostitution, but there is camaraderie amongst the women (who are of all ages) and Chuyia, initially, is not badly treated. The focus shifts to Kalyani (Lisa Ray) the Ashram's "jewel" who becomes involved with a young political activist Narayana (John Abraham), a supporter of Gandhi.

The film is not so much an attack on religion as on particular beliefs. I've no doubt one could live the life of a devout Hindu without believing that widows are responsible for their husband's deaths just as one can be a devout Christian without believing in slavery, or that the earth is flat, or was created in 4004BC. Although the film is set just prior to World War 2 there are undoubtedly many supporters of the ancient texts still out there – Mehta was prevented from filming in India by some of them and "Water" was eventually filmed in Sri Lanka. I find it impossible to have any sympathy for their position because it really amounts to using the practices of a society which has long passed away to defend an economic interest, or rather to excuse the abandonment by her family of a woman who has had the ill-luck to lose her husband. As Chuyia asks, where is the Ashram for the widowers? Also, whatever could be said for child marriage on social or economic grounds 2000 years ago, there is no possible justification for it now.

It's a great pity the film was banned in India and Pakistan – it is a film for the citizens of those countries rather than me, but it is striking to watch and I suspect, not easy to forget.

I saw this film on a Saturday afternoon in a theater with about 40 other people, split about 60/40, females to males. All ages although the younger viewers were mainly female. (late teens) Towards the end, as I was choking back tears and grabbing at Kleenex's, I looked around as there was total silence from the audience. It was AWED SILENCE, people! Every woman was bawling her eyes out and the men, without exception, were scrunched down into their collars, staring intently, holding back tears. This is Deepa's finest hour. She can retire now knowing she has made a worthy film. I would have voted 10 but there were a few technical glitches such as one moment were the color/lighting changed for about 3 seconds in an important scene and then snapped back. No blame to Deepa, though. I have sent several to see the film and all have raved about it, Can hardly wait to buy the DVD and see it again. The criticisms were political and should not be considered. Any film that criticizes aspects of a religion gets blasted from fundamentalists. This film is NOT a political statement. It is entertainment based on a political statement. It should not be missed. Brava!!!

I just saw this last night at the TIFF with no expectations (originally didn't even want to see it). But what an enjoyable film this was!!! The dialogue was quite witty, the stars were attractive and gave very believable performances (my friend said that she was so drawn into it that she forgot those people were just acting and weren't really living the life of the characters). The story had the audience empathize with the situation and all those involved, with lightened bits of humour intermixed with sad/dramatic parts throughout.

What captivated me the most was how beautifully filmed each scene was (in that respect, it reminded me of House of Flying Daggers). The stunning cinematography, vivid colours were all so carefully planned. In every frame, I can envision a beautiful photograph which can be composed from it.

The score was also very good and added to the mood of the film.

Go see it if you have the opportunity, you will not be disappointed (oh, might want to bring some Kleenex tho').

oh, and since it was at TIFF, Deepa spoke a few words (she appears to be very down to earth and sincere) and the cast was also present (John Abraham and Lisa Ray are absolutely gorgeous but very modest and subtle). These people did such a fabulous job, but remain so approachable and true. Am so proud of them!!!!

This is perhaps one of the most gripping films I have ever seen. The theme of water is so beautifully intertwined with the story in the location shots, boats across a lake/river and the ever falling rain to deliver an impact upon the characters and their journey.

The treatment of these widows, and the intense life that these women are forced to live was eye opening.

John Abraham gave a good performance. Lisa Ray was decent. Chuiya was great. With its top-notch acting, cinematography and music, Water is definitely worth the watch. Excellent effort by Deepa Mehta. Awesome cinematography Giles Nuttgens. Nicely edited by Colin Monie. Screenplay by Anurag Kashyap was awesome so were his dialogues. Set decoration by Rumana hamied n Lal harindranath was brilliant. Good music by Mychael Danna n A.R Rehman. Roger Ebert of Chicago Sun-Times @ The film is lovely in the way Satyajit Ray's films are lovely and the best elements of Water involve the young girl and the experiences seen through her eyes.

WATER is delivered likened to a fable, yet the story told is not at all a fantasy. In fact, another film, "White Rainbow" by w-d Dharan Mandrayar, delivers a tale of four women with similar subject matter in a modern day setting vs. the 1930's Colonial India of Mehta's "Water." The deplorable deprivation situation of the widows of India with powerless means is real.

Check out the production notes on WATER, you'd learn of the travails and hurdles filmmaker Mehta has to go through, determined and dauntlessly she forged on. We are fortunate to be able to see the result (thanks to Fox Searchlight Pictures distribution). Perhaps the casting ten years after could very well meant to be: Seema Biswas as Shakuntula - the protective, courageous Didi with unyielding faith; Lisa Ray as Kalyani, the beautiful 'sole bread-winner' with lovely hair and a tender companion to young Chuyia; John Abraham as Narayan, the idealistic young man returning to the village after his law exam and smitten by Kalyani; introducing the talented 8 year old Sarala from a village near Galle, Sri Lanka playing Chuyia, the 'girl widow'- she sure captures the spirit of the story/film.

Seeing what these women had to endure/endured all these years, prompts us to think how lucky we are - not to assume/take for granted the goodness and abundance we so readily have. The struggles/problems we may have compared to their grievous hardship sure makes one rethink - putting things in perspective. The film is not preachy at all, in fact, it's dramatic with mystery and secrets, not depressive in spite of the storyline but contains dashes of hope, laughter and tender moments. An impressive production all round, with cinematography by Giles Nuttgens, who collaborated with w-d Mehta on her trilogy installments: FIRE 1996 and EARTH 1998; music complements from Mychael Danna, who participated with w-d Mira Nair in "Monsoon Wedding" and "Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love" and on fellow Canadian filmmaker Atom Egoyan's ventures.

The film, with its controversial political ripples 'at home', is a human story with much kindness at heart. It's intriguing and a tear-jerker for me - it's naturally emotional. Somehow WATER also reminds me of director Jag Mundhra's "Bavandar" (2000, India: Hindi title aka "The Sand Storm") - another worthwhile film from India.

In 2001, well-regarded Iranian director Majid Majidi came out with Baran, a film about a young girl forced to pretend to be a boy in order to bring money to her immigrant Afghani family, living illegally in Iran and not permitted to work. Baran means 'rain' in Farsi, and the allegory of water was a very important one thematically within the film.

Baran was later thematically pilfered by a less successful film, Osama, which dealt with the harsh reality of an anti-feminist Taliban in Afghanistan, where a girl is caught pretending to be a boy by the Taliban regime, and the horrible consequences of her actions - only committed for the purpose of survival.

Water is similar to both of these films on several thematic levels. Deepa Mehta finishes he trilogy on a powerful note. She gives us the story of two women, each trying to discover a sense of self-worth and purpose while trapped in a seemingly endless life of forced confinement. she also gives us the story of a woman who is not only trying to keep her faith but understand it, and a man who is looking for change in a world of stagnation and traditionalism.

The feminist ideal is a prominent one, as is survival against the harshest of odds. Inhumanity on one level contrasted against the theme of renewal, both physically and spiritually - the essence of water, the ever-moving, indispersable, and essential aspect of life itself. But Water succeeds on the level of Baran - unlike Osama, which preaches incessantly, hitting you over the head with its point until your concussed with what the director has to say. Water, like Baran, is subtle, preferring to let the human side of the story tell you what you need to know, and showing us the necessity for change, for hope, for unbroken faith, without holding our hands through the process.

Mehta has given us a very successful film. What struck me most about this film was that the subject matter is one that the Western world would likely exclaim as being incomprehensible - that of widows being thought of as untouchable, and spiritual pollution (as though it was their will that their husbands die on them...) - and yet so much of the Western World exists in this film. This is not merely an Eastern film that we should look at and cluck our tongues, saying 'those crazy Indians!' These issues exist in our back yards - the ill treatment of foreigners, of neighbours, of our own peoples.

This film is very heavy, but there is a light side to it - the message of Ghandi, and the promise of renewal of spirit. That faith is not something to twist to your own beliefs, but something for your beliefs to be twisted to. We are constantly reminded of Ghandi's teachings - but we are never preached to. Instead, Ghandi could almost be an absent narrator - his voice is only heard for a brief instant near the end of the film - instead we hear his voice through the voice of Narayan, who is the avatar of Ghandi in the film, and the avatar of change.

Water teaches us that problems exist, and that many are rooted in our own traditions and beliefs - often misinterpreted or twisted by us to fit our agendas. The British can't be scapegoats for THIS set of issues (though they were responsible for plenty of others). Change is hard to come by, but the one thing that is eternal is Water. Sure, there are a few moments of unsubtle prodding in the film, but the fine acting and smart writing overcame any moments of forced drama. And the heart-wrenching twists within the story were surprising in their finality, and not Disneyesque tear-jerking moments. Our faith (and not necessarily religious faith) must be like water - for without either, we cannot hope to survive. 9.5/10.

It was on a lark that four of us attended the movie 'Water'. We ranged in age from 24 to 41 and we're all still talking about it two weeks later, in fact we're planning to go see it again before it's out of the theater. The movie entertained and educated, while giving at once an insight into the beauty of the country and the viciousness of some cultural norms. It seems impossible to believe that some of the things in this movie could have actually happened, and that perhaps today there are women (widows) living in similar circumstances. The characters in this movie are easy to identify with, to love and to despise. Despite the bleak conditions portrayed in the movie, there are moments of wonder and comedy and great love. The vistas are stunning, as are the character portrayals. Enjoy this movie on the big screen and then rush out to buy your own copy as soon as it's available. I too now 'want a ladoo'.

According to the ancient Hindu Laws of Manu: a wife has only three options upon the death of her husband: She must burn with his remains, remarry his younger brother, or live the remainder of her life in self-denial. The third film in a trilogy that explores religious hypocrisy, Canadian filmmaker Deepak Mehta's Water is an eloquent protest against the maltreatment of Indian widows, some as young as seven years old, who are condemned to live a life of penitence and deprivation. The shooting of Water in India was interrupted in 2000 by Hindu fundamentalists who staged protests, destroyed sets, and forced the production to shut down and move to Sri Lanka.

Set in India in 1938 along the River Ganges, Water chronicles the lives of several widows against the backdrop of the rise to prominence of Mahatma Gandhi and his non-violent campaign for liberation. Recently widowed 8-year old Chuyia, played by the outstanding Sri Lankan actress Sarala, is sent by her family to a house for widows where her head is shaved and she must wear a white sari to let others know of her status. Chuyia meets the overbearing Madhumati (Manorma), the "mother" figure who raises money for the ashram by sending young girls across the River Ganges to be prostitutes. She is gently opposed by Shakuntala (Seema Biswas) who tries to protect the girls without openly denying the traditions.

Kalyani (Lisa Ray) is one of the girls used by Madhumati but she still manages to maintain a youthful innocence and beauty. Chuyia and Kalyani become friends and while walking in the village, accidentally meet Narayana, a young law student (John Abraham) who is active in the movement for Indian liberation. He fiercely opposes the hypocrisy involved in isolating widows and condemning them as untouchables. He tells Kalyani that the issue is one not of religion but of money: "One less mouth to feed", he says, "four less saris, and a free corner in the house. Disguised as religion, it's just about money," Narayana and Kalyani fall in love and he asks her to marry him in spite of the opposition of his family and society, a situation that leads to unfortunate consequences.

In Water, Mehta employs the humanist tradition of Satyajit Ray with expressive Indian music enhancing the emotions of the characters, but also bodily lifts the character of Auntie from Pather Panchali and the movie struggles for an original style. While Water is beautiful to look at and embodies an important message, it is ultimately defeated by a very conventional style, a clichéd and manipulative plot, and some larger than life characters who never come alive as real human beings.

One of the most powerful movies I have ever seen! The actors were fearless. The story was honest, raw and moving. I feel changed by it. Deepa Mehta' created something out of love, vision and fearlessness and it shows. I was brought to tears by the end of the film, not because of pity for the characters but rather out of pride. Though the film deals with heavy issues the actors carried it with dignity. The script articulates the tragedy and hypocrisy these women must bare but it also illustrates the quiet revolution we must all experience in order to grow, in order to change. I have seen Earth, Fire and now Water and Mehta has done justice to all of them.

There's an affected grandeur to this which comes from its stagey feel, like a David Lean film, or rather those of Merchant-Ivory (themselves scions of Lean). There is also more than a touch of Asian "aesthetic cinema" (such as Tran's "Vertical Ray of the Sun") in which every scene has to be ridiculously picturesque (for goodness' sake, must we have those garlands framing every shot?).

It purports to be an issues film - the issue being the lives of Indian widows who have to retire from society into a refuge for the rest of their lives - even in the case of toddlers who were betrothed and widowed in their minority. Heavy possibilities here, but any potential for serious treatment is quickly abandoned in favour of a romantic mushiness of quite cosmic banality.

Water appears in many guises throughout, but there's no meaning to it, just empty imagery. I could start this review again and rejudge the film according to a lower set of intellectual standards, but then I would just say that it is nice to look at and is engagingly told, when it could have been so much more.

In the trilogy, Earth/Fire/Water, Water seems to be the weakest. It lacks the solidity and primal emotions of Earth. It lacks the pizazz and snappiness of Fire. The movie has some great scenes and themes but it appeared jilted, more like icebergs floating rather than flowing river water. The broad message of the movie seems to be to keep your inner voice alive and listen to it. Corruption and atrophied culture can suck away and drain positive life energy. Social systems cannot always be believed in and relied upon.

The movie showcases the conflict faced by the near-dead widows with their desire. Their world becomes this constant inner struggle of life force Vs hopelessness, temptation Vs enforced chastity. This is contrasted with the wasted indulgence of curators of culture, who prey on their victims and consequently hollow their inner self. There is hope and new energy in youth. Desire to make a difference, to shed old meaningless ways of living.

John and Lisa were not the best choice for the roles. They bring in dead-pan expressions/delivery and add unnecessary glamour which takes away from the solemnity of the movie. Seema Biswas delivers.

I felt really really sad after watching this movie. After watching a movie like this one feels empathy towards the women. We know women and children are being treating worse than animals...by patriarchy.

Most women in the western world to not even know the meaning of this word. In North America what is the worse thing that happens to us...we encounter betrayal and gossip mostly by other women. We are too busy comparing ourselves to even appreciate our rights. Oprah (has said) that we are lucky just to be born in North America.

All the women in this movie were strong willful characters, like many Indian women they accepted their fate, BUT they still made choices. Lisa Ray's character still fell in love despite her destiny. Despite her circumstances she was so mentally, spiritually, emotionally and overall more evolved than John's character.

One even feels empathy towards him, as a man he is so out of touch with reality...he lives life according to his idealism. This is how he copes with struggles in his life. He choices are also constrained by circumstance From an outsiders point of view, John's character seems to have it all, respect, a sweet mom (Waheeda). I loved WR in Guide that is one of my favorites. His world shatters when he learns of his fathers secrets...

Lisa's character knows her fate, yet she takes the initiative to follow her heart. As a Canadian I am really proud of WATER, I usually do not watch these kinds of movies but sometimes a wake up call is necessary especially when we are wrapped up in our own selfish needs. Water is masterpiece...I am proud of Lisa Ray for taking the time and actually learning about the craft of acting.

The thing that bothered me about this movie was that the only two adults with a chance of breaking away from tradition and finding their own happiness were the only people in the movie who were gorgeous and very Western-looking. I mean, this pair makes Brangelina look like a couple of losers. The slightly older widow, no longer attractive, is apparently stuck with her life situation. The message seems to be that love only happens to supermodels.

I also didn't quite buy that this budding lawyer would want to marry an illiterate woman. Bad enough that she's a widow. Are we really supposed to accept that he's going to take a chance of cutting himself off from his upper-caste family because he fell in love at first sight with a pretty face? They've spent maybe an hour together?

This film takes on a tragic theme-- the plight of widows in India. Unfortunately it is so riddled with clichés that, for me at least, it's impact was undermined. An eight year old girl wakes up to be told by her father that she is a widow. She is taken to an ashram to live with a group of mostly old women, also widows. Among them is a young, beautiful and rather European looking widow. There is a love story with a handsome, idealistic man, who is willing to break taboos to marry a widow. Set in 1938 the film tries to portray the conflict with old traditions and modernity. Gandhi even gets a cameo. While Water is beautifully filmed, in the end I felt that I had watched a piece of glossy propaganda, albeit for a good cause.

Water is certainly an excellent film by an excellent director. She has crafted a drama that blends a love story with social commentary, humour and the challenges of faith. The characterizations are subtle yet complex. The cinematography is outstanding.

However, what I wonder about arises from the plot outline and film description posted on the IMDb, which describe Narayana (John Abraham's character) as being of lower caste and his father's home as being a "hovel". Did I see a different version of Water? In the film I saw Narayana and his family are high caste Brahmans and the "hovel" is a mansion. Perhaps someone can explain this to me.

This movie is not banned in India as said in some of the reviews. I have watched the movie on a legal DVD. It was released in movie theatres too. Like most of the other reviewers I too found it to be a great movie. I was disturbed for some days after watching this movie. But I must also add that the depiction of widows in the movie is not representative of Hindu community as of today. No one of my generation here talks of or is aware of Manu's Laws on which this movie is based. I come from a fairly conservative small town Hindu family . But I do not remember my widowed aunts, grandmothers or cousins being treated in the way depicted in this movie. None of them was banished to live in an 'ashram'. They stayed at home and led a quite but dignified life. A cousin of mine who lost her husband in an accident was remarried by her parents! I am not an ultra-rightist. I too deplore the harassment Deepa Mehta faced while shooting in Varanasi. But through this review I wanted to give a balanced picture especially to the western movie goers.

I mostly enjoyed this movie. It's hard to find films of this calibre (or ones that are not arty or bollywood escapism) coming out of India. I can think of one other - Salaam Bombay which also uses a young child to take us into the story. And like that film, despite all the misery that piles up, there are still some moments of comedic relief.

In this case it mostly comes from the characters of Madhumati (Manorama), a fat and pompous widow and her only friend the pimp, Gulabi (Raghuvir Yadav). They are in a way the villains of the film portrayed as pathetic characters. Their conversations, shared almost as if between jail cells, are sometimes funny and show them sticking to useless even superstitious traditions - dismissing Gandhi for example. Their attitude though probably represent a certain way of thinking in India even today.

The messages of obeying rules laid down centuries ago are painted in big brushstrokes but it's probably hard to tell it any other way. Considering the controversy the director has caused in India it's also a brave film. Hindu fundamentalist - who probably identify with the character of Madhumati caused a lot of trouble during the initial filming of this film.

But it's far from perfect and about 4 songs are blended into the story. This was probably done with an Indian audience in mind who are used to bollywood conventions of people bursting into song and dance to drive home messages of sadness, love or joy.

Fortunately, here, the characters don't start magically singing but there is still a bit too much jumping and dancing that detracts from the story while adding nothing (at least for a western audience). Particularly one song sequence showing the hindu festival of holi seems to belong in a different film with characters acting contrary to what we have seen.

All in all a recommended film and one I hope is seen by many people in India.

Well let me tell right upfront , I am from India and Water is banned in India . I saw this movie by downloading through torrent .

This movie is the greatest movie by Deepa Mehta ,right from the direction to the cinematography is awesome . Regarding the subject , i can vouch that the events shown in this film is true to the last pixel(I myself have seen my late great grandmother leaving by manu principles after her husbands death but it was unforced and she spent the rest of her life in her residence itself). But starting from our previous generation this is not followed even a bit, let me assure you that.

The movie was disturbed by Hindu Extremists supported by leading political parties and the movie was shot in Sri lanka at later stages due to this reason .

This movie deserves to win an Oscar . If not it needs to be shown to extremists ,So that instead of spending there energy on preventing the movie from getting released , they can focus there energy on routing this evil completely from our society.

Finally, in 2007 Water showed up on screens across India. The IMDb description of the film dates it to 2005. The film could not have justified the wait more. Water is a triumph a all the way - a befitting culmination of Deepa Mehta's trilogy on the forces-of-nature metaphors.

Water, on the surface, is a story of inhuman treatment of widows in early twentieth century India. It starts with the induction of a little girl, Chuhiya, into the widows' ashram and ends with what is perhaps her escape out of a life of misery and social oppression. The truth is, Water goes much beyond its story. Just like the metaphor, it flows, cutting its banks and extending its boundaries to symbolise the challenges that make it almost impossible to rise against hard-set traditions and ideologies of society. It reaffirms that at the end to break such shackles, it requires individual courage and only individual instances, however small, finally coalesce to catalyse a social change.

In her last two films of the trilogy Deepa Mehta treated the subjects of love under duress because of social taboos (Fire, 1996) and loss of humanity under crisis like India's partition (Earth, 1998). I feel Water surpasses both because of a lack of an obvious villain to blame - there is no taboo, there is no Partition. What would perhaps be a seemingly normal social structure of the times is the cause of the widows plight. How do you correct a society that does not see anything wrong with itself? Giving the audience a film where they cannot blame anyone for the wrongs and as a result invoking in them a slight sense of guilt for being humans who still have to learn humanity is probably an achievement for Mehta that goes beyond the craft of film making.

The film is beautifully shot. There is a definite theme running those the visuals - water, whites, bright but pale. Each shot is crafted and is there for a reason. The only time you see color is the Holi sequence with Chuhiya and others smearing color on each other. That sequence only goes on to contrast the tragedies that follow. The background score as well as the songs lend soul to the proceedings - there is pain, longing and hope.

The little Chuhiya is played beautifully by Sarala. Her innocence and energy is ironical and heart-breaking. The mere thought of what the girl has to go through can bring one to tears. Seema Biswas is a gem of an actress. She speaks - through words, eyes, body, her sheer presence - so much that the viewer will still have to comprehend hours after the film ends. Lisa Ray is okay. Unfortunately, she does not add any dimension to her character by her performance but the whole content of the film carries her along. Jonh Abraham is natural. It reaffirms my faith that he is a director's actor. Rest of the cast also does a good job.

The film at the end has Mahatma Gandhi deliver a simple two line message - He thought that God was the only Truth. But now he is convinced that Truth is the only God. Hardly has anything been ever said which is so terse and still capable of filling volumes upon elucidation.

The closing shot is magnificent, just as the film is to Mehta's trilogy. This is her hour of triumph and she has made her contribution to world cinema.

This is not the country but certain class of that country which doesn't want to see the truth.It is a brutal truth about the culture, how society cared about the widows in the past centuries. Now film is nominated for the 2006 Academy award. This will be a slap on the faces of those bunches of clowns, who made the film an issue for their cheap popularity. Film is outstanding and definitely deserves recognition. I saw other films which has the good work of Giles Nuttgens as a cinematographer, like "Keep the Aspidistra Flying", "Fire", "Earth" and some other TV films, but he show his charisma through the lenses in "Water". It's all Deepa Mehta, who is best in story telling and pulling best out of her cast. Even small characters "Gulabi" (Raghuvir Yadav) and "Madhumati" (Manorama) show the presence. Undoubtedly, Lisa Ray's work was the best. She is good actress hidden in astounding beauty. She expressed every feeling in each frame beautifully sometime even without speaking at all. We just need good story tellers. Though India makes about 3 movies in a day on an average not of any world standards, but certainly we have stories of world class. Disrespect about widow is a truth in India. It happened in the '30s and is still happening today. If you disagree, write me back, I can send you as many pictures of those places as you want. Good job Deepa! Some time people like you make me proud to be an Indian.

Check out the production notes on WATER, you'd learn of the travails and hurdles filmmaker Mehta has to go through, determined and dauntlessly she forged on. We are fortunate to be able to see the result (thanks to Fox Searchlight Pictures distribution). Perhaps the casting ten years after could very well meant to be: Seema Biswas as Shakuntula - the protective, courageous Didi with unyielding faith; Lisa Ray as Kalyani, the beautiful 'sole bread-winner' with lovely hair and a tender companion to young Chuyia; John Abraham as Narayan, the idealistic young man returning to the village after his law exam and smitten by Kalyani; introducing the talented 8 year old Sarala from a village near Galle, Sri Lanka playing Chuyia, the 'girl widow'- she sure captures the spirit of the story/film.

Seeing what these women had to endure/endured all these years, prompts us to think how lucky we are - not to assume/take for granted the goodness and abundance we so readily have. The struggles/problems we may have compared to their grievous hardship sure makes one rethink - putting things in perspective. The film is not preachy at all, in fact, it's dramatic with mystery and secrets, not depressive in spite of the storyline but contains dashes of hope, laughter and tender moments. An impressive production all round, with cinematography by Giles Nuttgens, who collaborated with w-d Mehta on her trilogy installments: FIRE 1996 and EARTH 1998; music complements from Mychael Danna, who participated with w-d Mira Nair in "Monsoon Wedding" and "Kama Sutra: A Tale of Love" and on fellow Canadian filmmaker Atom Egoyan's ventures.

This is an often beautiful, sometimes elliptical but mostly somewhat-conventional film about the unsettling ways in which widows – including children – were treated in India, at least in the 1930s (the ending title card leaves it ambiguous as to how much of these practices continue today). Probably the strangest aspect of it was how the film started by focusing on the young child, then switched over to a love story bit that seemed always Disney-esquire, and the film shifts focus once again even after that. Although it's not as if these elements are unrelated, the film isn't really set up as a multiple-perspective affair, which makes it all somewhat jarring. Overall I liked it, but I was not really blow away either, and I imagine that had the subject matter been slighter and more familiar, I would have been harder on it.

The script of this movie has possibly been plagiarized from a famous Bengali novel, "Sei Somoy", written by Sunil Gangopadhyay. There is a court case in India on this (google or check http://www.apunkachoice.com/happenings/20050824-0.html , for example), and the latest is that Deepa wants to settle out of court. Something should be done about this, and such films should not be getting accolades in film festivals. The film is extremely similar to the novel.

The movie is decent otherwise.

Lots of other such links, but let me also include http://www.playbackmag.com/articles/magazine/20050912/mehta.html