Friday, 8 May 2009

Hot Docs 09: Not Loving LOVE IN INDIA

LOVE IN INDIA was a disappointment for me. I had been expecting a revealing discussion of why, in the land of the Kama Sutra, public displays of affection and talking about sex was such a social taboo. Director Q has discussions about the issue with several people, from philosophers to friends, but the way the film is pieced together is sloppy and rambling. There are scenes that go nowhere, too many shots of his beautiful girlfriend, Rii (did I need to see her rolling around in the rain or see the two of them watch a video of themselves making love?), and not enough thoughts of how the documentary should unfold in a cohesive manner.

I appreciated scenes of Q's family, especially the female members, talking about their views of love and sex. A widowed aunt is full of emotion as she talks about the oppressive nature of India, and how she didn't dare go against society by having another relationship after her husband's death. I would have welcomed the inclusion of a women's services organization in this film, but all I got were statistics on how many women are murdered or commit suicide in the name of love gone wrong.

If you must see this film, it has another screening Sunday, May 10th, 4:00 pm at the Cumberland.

Photo courtesy of Hot Docs.

7 comments:

Mildred Davenport said...

I think i'll take a pass on this movie, thanks, you just saved me 2 hours of life!

Rajarshi Basu said...

I watched the film and I loved it !!!

Who is donna g? said...

Rajarshi, could you tell me what you loved about the film? I thought the film's premise was a fantastic idea that wasn't well realized.--donna g

Rajarshi Basu said...

The film for me, explored the dichotomy that exists in India today through the personal life of the director Q. We get an alternative view of Indian mythology which has been suppressed for a long time by the organized religion. That was very important. And love is not rational, its emotional , its chaotic..so is India and so is the structure of the film. It flows in and out through various scenes and places...And I think it will be hard for a westerner to understand the spirituality and chaos that exists in India today. You cannot watch the film with the same eye as you would watch a information laden documentary like those on Disocovery Channel for example. And like Jean Luc Godard says in his Hstoire(s) du Cinema..that history is never partial...so we have seen through 3000 years in our country and so we see now through Q's eyes. Its his India and his story.

Who is donna g? said...

I understand the dichotomy, and am fascinated by the subject, but thought the filmmaking was sloppy and self-indulgent.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Opposing views are always welcome, especially when they are well-defended. By the way, I'm not a Godard fan--I much prefer Melville:-))

Rajarshi Basu said...

Oh..you mean sloppy because it was loose and hand held...i guess different aesthetics eh :-)

Who is donna g? said...

Nope. Don't need slick or fancy, just cohesive:-)