Agree...Disagree....Which reviewer?

Having read both reviews of the Indian film Earth (Wallia and Ansari), I am leaning more towards agreeing with the review Unforgettable by Zarminae Ansari. However, I do feel that I belong in the middle of the road on this one, I just find myself nodding to Ansari's review more.

Ansari gives Earth a rave review. She discuss the lines that wrapped around the building during its premier. She goes into deep discussion of the film portrayed through Lenny-baby's eyes and the genius of that choice.

Wallia a writer for the India Star denounces the greatness of Earth by shaming it for its lack of historical accuracy. Stating that the film takes a religious side and negatively portrays the Sikhs in particular. He passionately defends them from the film and gives his reader a brief but intense History lesson in an attempt to fortify the view of Sikh's. This was a red flag to me that this review may or may not be unbiased.

Wallia also criticizes the writer and the artistic quality of the film. He states, "The screenplay of Earth, also by Deepa Mehta, tells the story, for the most part, from the viewpoint of Lenny-baby. The viewpoint chosen is too limiting for the subject, but it could be offset by a more skillful writer. However, Mehta's script fails to create dramatic situations that could bring out Lenny Baby's anguished bewilderment of the tragic events of the partition." I feel that Mehta chose to make the view point from Lenny-baby's prospective to give it a different feel. Furthermore, to say its to limiting for the subject was untrue. He goes on to comment on how the torture of the Muslim man was shown by Lenny tearing a stuffed doll apart, and the separation of India is compared to a broken plate was to simplictic for such strong issues. Children tend to deal with stress and unsettling visions differently than adults. Maybe this is the way Mehta wanted Lenny to react to her surroundings, maybe she internalizes events and subtley releases them in small insignificant ways.

It just seemed to me that Wallia was being a hypocirt of sorts. He criticized Mehta's film for being flat and one-sided and poorly written. His review is also one-sided, (being the opposite side)flat, and his generalizations are undeveloped.

Again, I am not saying that I %100 agree with Ansair's review, I do agree with Wallia in terms of some characters could have been rounded out more to help develop the storyline. Also, I feel that the historic significance of each religion and the position on the division could have been further developed as well.