Gianni Amelio's Lamerica

Lamerica is a film that seems to alternate between sad and darkly silly. Two men, Fiore and Gino, are attempting to get funding from the Italian government to supposedly run an Albanian shoe manufacturer. The real plan, however, is to run with the money. This is not the first time for either of the men, but it seems that Fiore is more experienced than Gino, since Fiore mentions working with Gino's father.

The film takes place in 1991 in Albania, as the government is overthrown and an exodus takes place from Albania to Italy. After Fiore and Gino pick a "straw man," as chairman, who they believe to be an Albanian named Spiro Tozai, Gino is left to take care of him and instruct him on his "job." Spiro turns out to be an Italian, however, named Michele Talarico. He was imprisoned in Albania during the war and is now delusional, since he believes himself to still be twenty years old and sometimes actually believes he is Spiro the Albanian.

There is a parallel between Michele/Spiro's dual identities as Italian and Albanian and Gino's ever-blurring identity as a well-off Italian. As the film progresses, Gino lives and travels with poor Albanians, many of whom are trying to get to Italy. Gino himself becomes more poor as time passes, and he loses his job, his car, some belongings, and his arrogance on the way.

Lamerica covers a broad swath of ideas, history, politics, and universal life lessons, but it does so very cleanly. The characters are well-developed even as the plight of the Albanians is made all too clear.

Reviews of Deepa Mehta's "Earth"

Readings and Links: 'Earth'’: Unforgettable by Zarminae Ansari and '‘Earth'’: Reviewed by C. J. S. Wallia”

Prompt: Who among the reviewers did you agree with more and why?

Although both C. J. S. Wallia made some good points, I tend to agree more with Zarminae Ansari's review.

I thoroughly enjoyed Earth, Deepa Mehta's romantic and violent look at the beginning of the Indian subcontinent's independence from the British and separation into two nations. I agree more with Ansari's outlook on the film itself:

An excellent cast, together with Sidhwa's character development, plot, and narrative, deserve a great deal of the credit for the impact of the movie. Deepa Mehta deserves credit for bringing it to the screen and putting it all together.

Shanta (Nandita Das), Ice Candy Man (Amir Khan) and the Masseur (Rahul Khanna) especially shine, and the two men do a wonderful job of showing their characters' respective love for Shanta. However, one can't imagine that it is too difficult to feign attraction to a charming beauty such as Das.

I know little about the historical events that take place during the film other than what I have read in Unit 3. However, given the time and logistical restrictions inherent in the medium of film, and considering that the film seemed to be more about the characters than the history, Mehta did a wonderful job drawing me in and making me empathize with the characters.

Wallia's review seems to be more politically biased. Again, I cannot say whether all of her historical perspectives hold true, but she seemed to come into the film knowing that she wouldn't enjoy it. Her description here:

Mehta's rendering of the horrendous tragedy of the partition of India in "Earth" is simplistic. In this film Mehta manages to distort the complex history of the partition and in the process depicts the role of the Hindus and Sikhs falsely and negatively. The film's weak storyline, its limiting viewpoint, its poorly developed characters, and the distorted roles of the different Indian religious communities and the British- produce a dismal picture of the complex background-events of the partition

reeks of bias and doesn't sound like the reviews of an impartial viewer. As I said, it's difficult to render something as deep and complex as the Indian independence and partition in any other than "simply" within one film. Also, to call the storyline weak and the characters poorly developed is just posturing. Wallia does, however, make a good point when she says that "the transformation of the ice-candy man from a poetry-reciting admirer of Shanta to her betrayer is poorly dramatized. The several subaltern characters- the zoo-man, the gardener, the barber- are types and lack individualized motivations." Ice-Candy Man does seem to turn quickly from a humorous, friendly, peaceful man to a vengeful thug within mere hours. It's not difficult to understand why he would go mad after his sisters were murdered, but we aren't given any insight into his transformation.

Wallia points out that

Mehta's script fails to create dramatic situations that could bring out Lenny Baby's anguished bewilderment of the tragic events of the partition. Very early in the film, we see Lenny-baby (Maia Sethna) dropping a plate and asking her mother (Kitu Gidwani) whether a country can be cracked up like a plate and worrying how she and Shanta would get to the park if Lahore also gets cracked up. Another scene shows Lenny-baby tearing off the limbs of her doll. Simplistic treatment of a complex history.

If the point of the story was meant to be seen through a child's eyes, however, then isn't that exactly what Mehta has done here?

Overall, Ansari is more open minded and seems less biased, and besides that, I enjoyed the film as much as she did.