In her introduction to A Critical Study of Deepa Mehta’s Trilogy: Fire, Earth and Water, the author Manju Jaidka informs us that her “endeavour has been to produce a concise, focused study that avoids the bane of excessive jargon” – and in the next paragraph she speaks of the “chronotopic specificities of the stories that Mehta chooses to narrate.” Jaidka, while seeking to avoid the argot of academia, feels no compunctions about bandying a word like “chronotopic,” which instantly instills in the reader the feeling of being beset by the jargon of joyless academics. As proof, allow me to offer this analysis: For Mehta, “any outrage of the earth, as in times of war when there are forcible occupations, is synonymous with outrage against the female of the species. Woman, like the earth, is the oppressed mother-figure while the male predator rampages on. For a healthy state of affairs, woman needs to be free and in tune with the cosmic forces.”
This insight comes not from a chapter on one of the three films under discussion but from the Preface, which, along with the Introduction that follows, fills out 33 of this volume’s 85 pages (not counting the index and other back-of-the-book baggage). This smallness of size is puzzling given the broadness of Jaidka’s aims, which are manifold – an introduction to Mehta; an overview of the traditional image of women in India and their representation on screen; an assessment of Mehta’s contribution to narratives of women’s lives; an examination of the ‘elemental’ films; an overview of the other films; and, finally, a personal look at Mehta. Jaidka observes that little academic work has been devoted exclusively to the study of Mehta, but she doesn’t do all that much to alleviate this apparent crisis, opting, instead, to skim through the films with a larded, expository writing style reminiscent of collegiate theses. (“This section focuses on Deepa Mehta’s film Fire which was originally made in English and later dubbed into Hindi.”) Beware the book that brings with it the itch to blue-pencil.
As for the chapters on individual films, Jaidka cobbles together other people’s (and newspaper) quotes and personal interpretation, and those new to these films will certainly find these narratives of use as an entry point, but it’s hard to endure page after page of protractedly earnest writing. From the chapter on Earth: “In the book, and also in the film, the cracking of a country is symbolically presented through the violation perpetrated on the Ayah who is significantly named Shanta after ‘peace’ – that elusive, utopic state of affairs that Mahatma Gandhi, the father of the nation, aspired for.” Sentences like these suggest that the book is aimed at filling up shelves in the cinema sections of libraries in foreign universities, and even the chapter titled “Deepa Mehta: On a Personal Note,” which promises insights into the creator drawn through one-on-one conversations, has little that we don’t already know. “Born and brought up in Amritsar, Deepa Mehta graduated from Delhi University and moved to Canada in 1973.” Did such a slim volume need to thicken its pages with biographical detail available to anyone with access to Wikipedia?
An edited version of this piece can be found here.
Copyright ©2012 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
Farida Ujjal
June 2, 2012
Post these rejoinders too from the Hindu website:
This book by Manju Jaidka is a pioneering initiative opening up possibilities of re-viewing the lens through which Indian women film makers address issues and ideas whether they are themselves located at home or in the world.. In fact, it is this emphasis on the gender lens that the reviewer may have missed in the enthusisam for nit picking.A holistic reading of emerging areas is expected to comprise bio- criticism and film analysis and Manu Jaidka’s use of certain critically informed arguments and signifiers merely underscore the seriousness of the project. And of course we are all aware that quantity cannot justify quality!
from: Sanjukta Dasgupta
Posted on: May 29, 2012 at 09:36 IST
I completely disagree with the reviewer’s oblique stance. The book
comes across as a pioneer work giving considerable insights in the
world of women directors especially belonging to the Indian diasporic
cinema. It serves as a good reference point for cultural studies and
opens up possibilities for inter-disciplinary analysis as well. As far
as the jargon is concerned, the academia is well-versed and expectedly
comfortable with it. Also, with due respect, I would like to remind
that existing analysis, established theories, opinions of other
writers and personal interpretation – all goes into the making of a
good research piece which the reviewer has conveniently and callously
termed as “cobbl(ing) together”. In one line, mere nitpicking cannot
undermine the academic worth of this critical study.
from: Anupam Vatsyayan
Posted on: May 29, 2012 at 20:37 IST
I have a completely opposite opinion about what you have written about
this book. I read your blog and it looks you have a negative opinion
about almost everything under the sun. Use of one word “chronotropic”
doesn’t make the book jargon laden. I have read the book and it is an
easy *academic* read of value to researchers on feminism.A one line
biographical detail on Deepa Mehta in a slim volume; yes, this is
required because this is a book not a website where the name may be
hyperlinked to wikipedia. There are a lot of positive things in the
book which you have failed to take notice such as analysis of feminist
issues as they merge with national issues.
I think you should stick to reviewing Bollywood movies and avoid
books. Your misreadings of the book will definitely mislead readers.
After reading your article I’m wondering about the (lack of) editorial
supervision at The Hindu.
from: sangeeta
brangan
June 4, 2012
From the Hindu web site:
Thank you for the very elementary review of my “elementary” Deepa Mehta
book, excerpts and citations from which have actually found a place in
international academic discussions and journals! However, your critic
seems to operate on a standard higher than universities across the
globe, which is why nothing seems to meet his approval. In time,
perhaps, he will learn to discern the positive elements in a text, too.
Until then, good luck to all those he exercises nastiness on.
from: M. Jaidka