|
|
 My initial gut reaction was mixed. One part of me wanted to like it a
lot for the fact that I had finally seen an Indian made movie that was sensual
and erotic more so than the usual sexual themes. I loved the richness of the
costumes, incredible scenery in Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan and the photography
of the movie. Another part of me, thought that considering this is an
international movie, what would non-Indians think of this movie? Would I have to
defend the story against another set of stereotypes (elephants, opium, women as
objects of desire, etc., you have to watch the movie to understand some of
these.)
[]I don't think this movie is meant to be a factual, historical piece. I think it is a screenplay set in the 16th century and Mira has taken liberties to portray her characters in a sensual but revengeful way to show that love brings out the best and worst of us. []I think we need more balanced portrayal of sexuality in both mainstream
western movies and Indian movies. I do think that a lot of Indian movies are
explicitly crude and violent when portraying women's sexuality (any Bollywood
movie showing wedding nights and rape scenes are good examples of this). I
disagree that this movie didn't portray "good" sexual expression. I think it
showed a range of sexual behavior that puts you as the audience in a position to
determine what is good vs. not-so good. --Anonymous.
I just saw the movie Kama Sutra by Mira Nair. It was extremely disturbing to
me. It through off my perception of reality, fantasy, feminism, sexuality,
everything! I was left utterly confused by it, esp since I was looking so very
forward to it. It took place at a time when the Kama Sutra was in practice. The
women competed for the attention of men, were manipulative & insecure, and
basically defined themselves by how they were viewed by men. It was tough movie
to sit through.
The sex scenes left me cold, probably because any possible mood buildup had been destroyed by the platitudes pouring out of the actor's mouths. Like much of the movie, they were beautiful (rose petals, torchlight, jewellery etc.) but not erotic. About halfway through the movie I got bored and was wondering how many more monotonous cycles of sex/talk/sex there were to go, but the Shah's appearance livened things up. (Isn't that a sad commentary on a film, that war is more interesting than sex? :-)) Mira Nair said in an interview that she had not thought about showing male or female nudity specifically, that 'you see what I want you to see'. A rather disingenuous statement, since there is plenty of female nudity, full frontal and all, but nary a glimpse of the male equivalent. Surely an articulate woman director is not that naive? Judging from the interviews, her 'vision' was far more complex than she was able to portray in the film. She talked of 'radical ideas in historical literature', but women using their bodies for power is hardly radical, and the principles of how to please a man are explored regularly in women's magazines today. She sneers at Bollywood, but the film had lots of classic Hindi-movie bits, like loss of virginity being pointedly demonstrated by large bloodstains on the sheets, or a woman dramatically wiping the tikka off her forehead when her husband dies. And a bizarre hair-cutting scene near the end, which is meant to be heavily significant but is merely bewildering. (Altogether, Sholay was better on the drama.) Rekha and Naveen Andrews thoroughly enjoyed themselves hamming it up. Rekha was stunning as always, and brought some dignity to the film. Sarita Chowdhary had no role -- she was offscreen for a large chunk of the film, and the rest of the time she had to be either resentful or miserable. Indira Verma was clearly the star, but she would have been better without having to spout those awful lines. Ramon Tikaram played his part completely straightfaced, which made it hard to take him seriously. But all of them looked good. -- Susan Chacko. I saw "Kama Sutra" with two Caucasian American female co-workers last night. We all got a good deal of enjoyment out of it, and came away with surprisingly similar thoughts about it. We all thought the movie was a visual treat - beautiful scenes and beautiful people, much like everybody else's opinion, with no great character or plot development. None of us thought it very erotic either, and at least the two colleagues that I went with didn't "exoticize" the movie in any way. I can safely attribute most of my enjoyment of this film to previous SAWNET reviews of it which totally prepared me for the under-developed story line. The other factor was my draining day at work which made me crave something visually but not physically or emotionally stimulating! It was a good way to unwind. Also, my fears that a movie of this kind would create this impression of Indian women as "sex goddess / love slave" types were laid to rest. I'm fairly certain that none of my non-Indian friends would use this movie as part of their database for impressions of India and Indians. -- Jayshree Aiyar What was Mira Nair thinking? Talk about exploitation of one's culture. It was a terrible movie. In Mira Nair's own words, the original where she got the idea from lasts for the first 10 mins of the flick. Well folks, get up and leave after that. []Other than stunning jewellery and clothes, and hunky Indians there is nothing, nada, kuch nahin, nyet, non in the flick. I stayed thru the flick by concentrating on the colors, jewellery, and clothes. I couldn't believe how long it was taking and looked at my watch at least 10 times. Was too scared to get up from my center seat. Also, [] did you see the look on Navin Andrews face. He simply couldn't believe what he was doing in the movie. Also, Mira Nair claimed that the two women characters were equally strong. Ha. I think she and I were at different movies. I finally figured out the movie about three quarter's into it. It wasn't a movie about India, Indians, the Kama Sutra, our culture, or anything Indian. It was a bunch of people who looked Indian, wore 16th century Indian clothes, and fabulous jewellery (OK I'm fixated on jewellery) and were in a country that looked Indian. It all made sense then. After the movie got over, a white woman responding to my outraged, horrified outburst said that it was like Danielle Steel in a sari. That's it. -- Sonya Pelia. I guess I didn't get shocked/horrified/angered etc., but rather irritated (though I grant the gorgeous photography, gorgeous costumes, well-done sex scenes,beautiful dance choreographies, parts). And no, the English in indian accent didn't bother me, what bothered me was the insertion of occassional Indian comments. The King's eunuch sees Maya and says 'Aare vah !' Why not drop these exotic pretensions and have him say 'Oh wow !' But parts of the movie struck me as totally idiotic. I mean, why the heck call it Kama Sutra ? What was Kama Sutra about it except Rekha's lectures on it ? And the added pretension of having one white haired old woman in every single 'classroom' scene ! What's the message ? Indian women obsess about pleasing their men till the day they die ? Anyway, there wasn't a single technique which hasn't been shown in any darn X-rated movies anywhere--toe-sucking, kissing all over punctuated with bites--groaaan ! And nobody seems to notice that Tara had actually been taught Kama Sutra since she was a kid. Guess she had 'exam blues' on her wedding night, and had to be re-tutored ! The only part that offended me was the scene between Tara and Maya. I have a strong aversion to lesbian sex being shown as something cutesy to stimulate the male appetite--that its something women are supposed to do to excite their EVENTUAL male partners. And dialogues like 'he'll know a woman made this marks and it'll excite him' want to make me smack 'em both. The overwhelming feeling at the end of the movie was 'So bloody what ?' Why call it 'Kama Sutra', why not just---I don't know---'Mayavati' or something. Strip it down to the bare bones: A woman seduces her mistress's husband, the king for revenge, gets into trouble, falls in love with another man, has a misunderstading with him, joins the king's harem, re-ignites affair with ex-lover, king finds out--tragedy ! What, exactly, was KS's role? The king was obsessed with her before she learned KS. Her scenes with the sculptor (I'm terrible with names) before and after KS weren't that different. And there is exactly NO higher philosophy in the actual Kama Sutra, it is exactly what it claims to be. A book on sex-techniques, some interesting chapters like 'how to seduce your worst enemy's wife', practical advice on dress, food, walking, playing hard-to-get, how to get gifts out of your lover, etc (I've tried the last. doesn't necessarily work !). So this thing about Maya somehow achieving a higher plain of self-realization through KS is--well, totally pretentious. And how come there weren't any men learning the KS ? The actual book is FULL of instructions to MEN on how to please their women ! Also, all those lovely naked women, and not one single male penis shown in the entire movie. Hmmm ! -- Bisakha Sen
Summary written by Film Four Cast: Read an interview with Mira Nair here More films created by Mira Nair |
I do think the characters both female and male needed more depth.
Mira left a lot of the characterization (in my opinion) to the audience. I do
think that some of the characters were manipulative and I didn't think that it
mattered so much that they were manipulative but I would have liked her to
strengthen the reasons. The film initially showed the two female characters when
they were young and didn't detail enough of their lives to justify some of the
actions that later develop the plot of the movie.
Kama Sutra starts off well with pretty shots of two children swimming,
and one waits eagerly but is likely to be disappointed. The plot is predictable,
and except for the 16th-century Indian setting, the movie is conventional. You
won't even pick up any good sex tips, unless you wish to entertain your lover
with phrases like 'Twining of the Creeper'.
|
