Brutal Reality Drowned in Deepa Mehta's Most Talked About Film <em>Water</em>

This is no novel news that at the 30th International Film Festival held in Toronto, Canada, David Hamilton productions came up with the screening of “Water”, Deepa Mehta's brave exploration of India's grim, sordid past in a finely judged tale of a young Hindu girl whose life is suddenly changed by the traditions of her religion. The film is supposed to be the opening feature film of the film festival, starting on September 7. 

What is remarkable to my mind about the theme of the film is that it attempts to delve deep into the Indian society of the thirties, thereby telling an inspirational tale about a girl who refuses to accept her fate and struggles against all powerful religious customs those are at odds with her and those render her a prisoner without a future. Overall, there is a mixed reaction about the film from all quarters of the world, where rejection is reported much more than acceptance. 

To my mind, this is owing to the fact that Mehta tells the story with a stoic sense of outrage that turns into a growing spirit of possibility and potential. It is a pity that the film has to focus mainly on the Foreign market and International Film Festivals all around the globe, as the Indian market that thrives on feel-good commercial flicks is reportedly “appalled” and “shocked to death” by the film depicting the horrendous past of India where baseless beliefs were blindly followed and umpteen lives were painfully wasted by the Indian caste system.

Having watched the two earlier films of Deepa Mehta’s much-hyped trilogy, “Fire” and “Earth-1947” years ago, it was time for me to watch the last one, “Water”, to make my viewing full-circle. No doubt, the whole trilogy, comprising of taboo topics like lesbianism and polygamy, even in this era, is bound to rake up fire as they have challenged established moral concerns through the detailed examination of sexual and familial relationships. 

This time, there was scope of unlimited challenges and controversies for the film-maker, what with the project being shelved in February 2000 due to the ruthless attack of Hindu fundamentalists angered by the sensitive subject matter. The set of the film was burned in the “holy” city of Varanas, causing over $600,000 worth of damage.

In every era, when the veil of darkness is lifted and age-old conventions and superstitions casting an evil spell in human minds are challenged, so-called aficionados of religion, by imposing nonsensical restrictions and by creating treacherously outrageous conditions in the name of power play, still make it a point to prove that they are there for humanity and they will make their presence felt, “taming the shrew” in the process. 

By delaying the project for six long years, by succumbing to the hostility of the fundamentalists with the resulting tensions, and eventually being forced to shoot the film outside India (in Sri Lanka) with an entirely new casting crew, and with a somewhat altered script, even the bold director Deepa Mehta proved that the devils of the yesteryears who suppressed the voices of humanity in the name of religion, are here to stay for long. 

As a result, the film has not only been shrouded in controversies, but has also quite ironically been a by-product of compromises. I pretty much remember Shabana Azmi being in news in 2000 for shaving off her hair after signing this project with Deepa Mehta. Nandita Das, the dusky, unconventional beauty was to do the bit which was later done by Lisa Ray. While both these women are pretty known in the socialite circle for their activist avatars, it is a wonder that they later backed out of the project, giving way to a totally different star-cast.

The story, set on the banks of the Ganges in Varanasi, depicts the desperate plight of widows forced to live a renounced, abandoned life, which the priest (Kulbhushan Kharbanda) portrays as “the prayashchit” of the ill the widows have committed in their previous karmic lives and also as the door to attain “liberation” after being possessed by God in the realm of death. The enigmatic, resilient widow Shakuntala (played to utmost perfection by Seema Biswas) seems to have been used to the pathetic plight she is forced into after her widowhood, but still she cannot resist the temptation of questioning the basis of all these, only to hear to obscure answers from the priest, in the name of the Hindu scriptures. 

As a corollary to her silent suffering, there are widows of various ages and sizes, all living under the same roof. Though a maximum number of them are widowed in childhood, never remembering the bliss of a conjugal life, all are forced to live impoverished lives devoid of sensual pleasures. Bearing suppression for ages, the amount of pain, frustration, anger, and even a bit of lunacy are elements that make them all the more human. 

It is a psychologically proven fact that suppression of human desires bring about perversion, lunacy and distorted pleasures, all of which, ironically, are shown by the existence of Madhumati (played by vamp of yesteryears, Manorama) and her accomplice, the eunuch Gulabi (played by Raghuvir Yadav). While the widows assort themselves by the ganges to listen to the religious scriptures and sanctify their souls by thinking of renunciation, a vicious game of prostitution continues from behind, as Kalyani (Lisa Ray), the gorgeous “asset” of the widow asram is set free to have her large tresses, dress up and sleep around with the “seth” secretly, prompted by the old hag Madhumati, all these in order to keep the asram “survive”.

The role of the child “Chuiya” in the film: 

In the first scene of the film, the death of the so-called “husband” of Chuiya, an eight year-old kid, brings her idyllic innocence to a jolting halt. Being forced to shave off her hair, wrap her body in a piece of white cloth and left in the widow asram along with its inmates, all of whom are four to five double her age in average, the plot of the film revolves around how her life changes its course during her stay in the asram and how she is able to touch the chords of her heart with her inmates. While with her childish innocence and pranks, she befriends Kalyani, the stunning young widow (some scenes and the rain song being filmed on the two have a lyrical intensity to it), in spite of raking up fire and letting all hell break loose at times in the Asram, she affects the lives of some older widows that have been there for years.

Her role to the film is crucial from at least three perspectives: (i) reviewing the emotional conflicts of the adult widows with her pristine innocence, (ii) providing the characteristic childish innocence to the romantic aspect of the film depicted by the love between Kalyani and the idealist youth Narayan. (iii) The third perspective of the child’s presence is somewhat grim and ironical, that of child sexual abuse being secretly administered beneath the so-called sanctified framework of the existence of the widows. The child, overall, acts as the eye-opener to the hypocritical, perverse social practices being maintained under the so-called banner of religion.

The love aspect of the film:

In spite of the lyrical intensity of the songs (written by Sukhwinder, composed by A.R.Rehman) that depict forbidden love between Narayan and Kalyani, the cinematography (by Giles Nuttgens) capturing the ghats of the ganges, the outstanding background score by Mychael Danna,, the mysterious nights of Vanaras where the lovers meet secretly and profess their affections for each other, the sadistic theme of doomed star-crossed lovers prove at the end, with Kalyani’s suicide, that in a society where hypocrisy and skin-trade in the name of religion and Brahmin existence prevails, Narayan the idealist is living in a fool’s paradise, nurturing dreams of marrying a widow who had all lust for life. While the vices being offered to Kalyani secretly, at the expense of her beauty portrays a brutal truth, her tragic death highlights the fact that patriarchal social norms will have their cunning way in spite of the silent sufferings of thousands of Kalyanis. 

One may question at the end, isn’t there any positive aspect at the end of the brutal truth? Remember the last scene, where the desperate Shakuntala (Seema Biswas) literally begs the fanatics swept over by the idealism and “passive resistance” of Gandhiji to handover the mentally and physically tormented child to Gandhiji? Not one of them is honest enough to listen to her pleas, and to consider the child’s identity as something other than a “doomed widow”, until the broken hearted Narayan takes her into his shelter. This proves that the big talks of shattering customs and prejudices preached by the reformers of society, uttered time and again by so-called intellectuals fall flat when the actual time arises. The writer had to ultimately take recourse to the so-called hero Narayan and rather accidental circumstances to show that there is at least a ray of hope for the shattered child.

In India, where there are around 34,000 widows (according to the 2001 census) still living impoverished, shattered lives, such a film is worth a watch, at least to acknowledge that there is a vicious reality around. However, numerous controversies, the media-hype, the news of lawsuits of plagiarism being filed by a Bengali writer (Sunil Ganguly) against the director will only create enough "masala" to deviate the audiences’ minds from the actual intention of the film and render it yet another hyped product in the film-market!

It is all the more shocking to know that even in Toronto and in some of the US cities, there exists a group of fundamentalists who have dared to offer “friendly advice” to Deepa Mehta, the film maker, suggesting to quit screening the film here because Americans and Canadians do not understand the complexities of Indian traditions! Coupled to it are the “valuable” suggestions coming up from nooks and corners of India as well as the so-called “Worldwide Indian Diaspora” who are alleging the lady about highlighting the dark side of the Indian society. They question her inability to perceive good things in India and show them on big screen. 

However, these pseudo-intellectuals ought to know that mushy, goody goody love tales, sentimental family dramas and Ramgopal Verma horror flicks are not the absolute truths of the country. Having said that, one has to acknowledge that venal corruption, casteism, communal riots, female infanticide as well as exploitation of the female in all forms have become sort of ground realities in the country. It is not all about clinging to a vision of the land that might have existed hundreds of years ago. The truth on the other hand is, even today, if one visits Vanaras or for that matter, any other religious small town of India, such things do exist, though in less severity than before. In the end, all I think is that a society can move forward only when reality of plights and atrocities are accepted and a solution is sought for it. And now, it is really high time that fundamentalists of all hues and faiths, whether in India, or in the US and Canada, realize that!

Six Tips to Help You Clean and Organize Your Photography Studio

1. Photography Studio Organization - Use good old fashion hanging files.

Believe it or not, in this digital age, the classic green hanging folder is still a great organization tool. Using manila folders to organize your photography studio's bills, invoices, and receipts is a good start. It is a lost cause however, if you don't have an organized place to put them. The hanging folder is the perfect place to put them

Don't have a filing cabinet to put the hanging folders in? Not a problem. There are several options available at your local retail store. I prefer the clear Rubbermaid bins. They are about 8 inches wide. This means they are easily stored in closets or on a bookshelf. Since photography studio space is usually valuable real estate, these smaller file boxes might be the way to go.

2. Photography Studio Organization - File your files

A great way to keep your files organized is to keep a file of all your files. What do I mean by this? Keep a piece of paper in your photography studio with all of your file folders on with their names. If the folders have sub-folders, list those too.

This will let you see if you have folders that overlap so that you can condense your folders. For example, there is no point in having studio file and a studio equipment file.

You could have this list written on a piece of paper, but that would just be one more piece of paper to file. Try keeping this record in a word or excel document. That way you have one less piece of paper in your office and you can update it much easier when you add new folders and files.

3. Photography Studio Organization - Throw things away

For some reason most photography studio owners have a fear of throwing client paperwork and photos away. There are certain things that you just don't need to hang on to. If you are a digital photographer there is no reason to hold on to basic prints. Create a varity of back-ups and toss the prints. You can always re-print them. If you aren't a digital photographer and have a traditional photography studio, invest in a scanner. This way, if you must hold on to prints for color purposes, you can scan them and toss the print.

There are some things you need to hold onto though.

Tax items are one thing you should hold onto. You should save your tax returns forever. The rest of your tax reports and receipts should be saved for no longer than six years.

Throw away papers that you don't have an immediate need for, can get a copy of easy, or that don't have any tax or legal reason to hold on to.

If you feel like you need to hold on to all your photography studios paperwork, than try scanning it all onto a portable hard drive. Then you can throw all the papers away. It will take more time than growing through all the papers away, but at least the hard drive will take up less space in your office.

You can scan model's head shots for reference later. You can scan pose ideas from magazines so you don't have clipping all over your photography studio.

4. Photography Studio Organization - "Assorted" Folders

How many other, assorted, or misc files do you have in your photography studio? You know, the folder that you put everything in that you just don't know where else to put it. That isn't organization. Odds are you can just throw it away altogether. A good rule of thumb is, if you haven't needed it or touched it in a year then toss it.

5. Photography Studio Organization - Get rid of business cards

There are so many ways to organize all your business cards, model head shots, and contact information. There are plenty of ways to get rid of it altogether as well. A simple approach is to take the business card or headshot and tape it or staple it the file folder it is associated with. At least then it is filed away instead of in a pile on your desk or in a drawer.

There are lots of gadgets out there made for scanning in business cards to your computer. If you are a digital photography studio, you probably already have a scanner, put it to good use. If you don't have the money for one of these than just take some time to enter the contact information into your electronic address book. Outlook has a great address book or you could even use your email clients address book. Anything is better than having them just laying around waiting to get lost.

6. Photography Studio Organization - Use the computer

Try using your photography studio's computer as much as possible. Use it to make your to-do lists, create address books, file documents, and more. The more you keep or put into your computer the less you have in your photography studio.

As I mentioned before, there are plenty of gadgets out there that can help you scan your files into the computer. Take advantage of them!

Camera Buffs: Why Are You Still Using Film? Go Digital With Rechargable Batteries

here

If you're one of those people caught riding the fence between using your favorite standard camera and the new digital camera you have sitting around, it's time to climb down off your mount. Unless you're one of the rare people who makes a living snapping photos or you do almost exclusively very artsy types of photography, your standard film camera may not offer you anywhere near as many advantages as even a lower-end digital camera of today.

But, whether you realize it or not, the failure to move to almost exclusive use of your digital camera is costing you - and the environment around you - in far more ways than one. Actually, the list of differences between the two platforms can go on for pages, but let's tackle the ones apt to make the most positive difference to you.

1. The cost of film - and the limited number of pictures possible per roll - often limit the number of shots you take. Think about it: how many times have you missed a great scene just because you wanted to save room for more pictures later? The same holds true for film processing; we avoid taking all the pictures we could because we don't want to make the costs to develop our vacation pictures cost more than the trip itself.

2. Related to the first issue, many cameras let you take anywhere from 30 to 100 shots before you either have to transfer the images into your computer or change your Flash or other storage medium card. Also, it's usually much faster and easier to change the card than it is to insert a new roll of 35 mm film.

3. Film only lasts so long. While we often try to be prepared by keeping an extra roll or two in our bags, we may not realize that extremes of heat or cold - or other less than ideal situational factors - have made the film and the pictures we take with it sub-par. Plus we have no idea how long a roll of film has been sitting on a store shelf when we buy it. Sure, the film usually has a date on the package, but if we rarely check that date when buying food, what's the chance we'll double-check it before we use the film?

4. If your big excuse for not moving entirely to digital is that you know such a camera eats batteries faster than a chocoholic can consume her way through a Ghiradelli shop, think rechargeable. Good quality rechargeable batteries and a proper recharger are much less expensive than they were a few years ago and can save you a fortune (as much as a $100 per month per household).

5. It's much easier, as well as more cost efficient, to store a huge volume of digital images than it is to store developed photographs. Your recordable CD or DVD drive can become your best friend for archiving your photos or making a quick album you can share with friends and family.

6. Without having to worry about the cost of film, you can experiment with your photography to your heart's content. This will help you develop your talent far faster than being nickel and dimed having to process bad shots taken with a standard camera.

7. Software available for use with your camera - including third party commercial packages like Microsoft Digital Image - let you do some very interesting alterations to your photos. You can retouch, enhance, crop, rotate, and add special effects at the click of a mouse.

8. Even more inexpensive digital cameras offer corrective features like red eye reduction and auto focus that you normally have to become skilled to overcome with a standard camera. Many also automatically adjust for light levels better than standard cameras can.

9. Film-produced photos can age rapidly; colors fade and the image can crack. Even storage of negatives can be a problem. But a digital image you can all up and reprint again and again.

10. Not only is the cost of film development quite expensive, the chemicals used are toxic. All too frequently, these toxins end up in waterways or pollute the ground water. Use rechargeable batteries with a digital camera, however, and the environment will (practically) thank you.

And the final bonus? You can just delete your really bad shots. No one ever has to see them or gets the opportunity to tease you about them. That's a great plus all by itself.

How Baby Talk Helps a Baby's Language Development

baby clothes gifts

Adults speak to babies in a distinctive way in all cultures, in baby talk.  In some ways, baby talk cannot be helped, some adults are not even aware they are speaking differently with a baby.  The face of a baby appears to inspire adults to speak in a slow, high pitched, singsong voice.   In a different context, in which a baby is not involved, it often sounds silly and out of place.  It is not the voice that adults generally use with other adults.  Why is that that we as adults distinctively use baby talk with babies?

One might be tempted to say that it is a cultural phenomenon.  After all, we see other people coo-chi coo-chi coo-ing to their babies, and we were also coo-chi-ed at when we were babies.  Perhaps using baby talk is a latent memory of our own early days as babies.

These are all possible theories, however, some clever social scientists have found reasons to suspect that we are, in essence, programmed to engage babies in baby talk because it helps them to develop their own language skills.

Babies are fascinating people.  They are born with the ability to soak up knowledge like a sponge.  They have an innate ability to watch, listen, and imitate the people around them.  Yet, if you watch the preference of a baby in the crib, they will pay more attention to the person speaking in baby talk than the person speaking in a normal voice.  Why is that?  Do they prefer the voice of the mother and the caretakers, the people who will speak the most baby talk?

Tests have shown that babies not only prefer baby talk, but they prefer any kind of baby talk to a regular voice.  Baby talk in French or any other foreign languages will be preferred over the normal voice of the mother.  We can then deduct that they like to listen to the certain pitch and tone that comes with baby talk of all languages.  Why the preference?  Babies are not susceptible to cultural phenomenon just yet, and baby talk is distinctive different than how adults interact with each other.

As it turns out, baby talk is not just the way we happen to speak to babies, but it is a mechanism of helping babies learn language.  Analysis of baby talk shows that the vowels are lengthened, and speech is slowed down, and more articulated.  It is an exaggeration of adult speech.  What appears to be an unconscious effort is actually a lesson plan in language.  Even mouth movements are exaggerated for the baby’s benefit.  One would press their lips more tightly together to say “baaaaaaaaaaall” to a baby.  In fact, when the full length baby talk is written down, it has the look of a grammar lesson, repetitive, but varied by description and structure: “Look at the ball, look at the bouncing ball, look at the pretty bouncing ball”.

As silly as it may sound, baby talk has all the important components of language.  It is an important part of a baby’s language development skills because it provides them what normal adult speech lacks, a methodical way of providing the basic building blocks of language.  So baby talk is not just an unconscious effect of babies on adults, but rather, the unconscious way people teach babies how to use language.