This first film in Deepa Mehta’s trilogy is almost too close to my heart for me to discuss rationally – but I do have volumes to say about it; it's difficult to pick just a few points.
Sita (Nandita Das), a new bride in an arranged marriage, quickly finds that her married life isn't quite meeting her expectations. Her husband Jatin (Javed Jaffrey) is more interested in his sexy modern mistress than he is in Sita, leaving her alone night after night. As her romantic innocence is tarnished by this disillusionment, Sita finds a kindred soul in her elder sister-in-law Radha (Shabana Azmi), a dutiful wife who works hard in the family's restaurant kitchen all day, but who is also left alone most evenings while her husband Ashok (Kulbushan Kharbanda) devotes himself to religious pursuits. Sita and Radha bond in these lonely evenings, observing the city from a quiet distance on the roof of their home. Radha's traditional sensibilities are shaken, though, when Sita boldly initiates a sexual relationship with her.
Fire's story unfolds with a quiet, contemplative tone, paced by Radha's quiet, contemplative character; Deepa Mehta's camera often dwells on Radha's solitary silences as she ponders the conflict between her duty and her desire. Mehta also captures the surreptitious glances that pass between the two women, small moments of silent communication and understanding. Even in her climactic confrontation with Ashok, Radha maintains her stillness; her voice grows in intensity without rising in pitch or volume.
It almost goes without saying what makes Radha's introspective intensity so compelling - after all, these character traits might not seem the most cinemagenic - is the understated genius of Shabana Azmi's performance. This film was too controversial in India to have earned Shabana the kind of accolades that other exemplars of her best work have received, but she delivers as effectively in Fire as in any of her National Film Award roles. She conveys as much in her silences as in her dialogue, if not even more. You can almost hear the thoughts behind Radha's sad eyes as she gazes into the night sky; the screen crackles as she studies herself in the mirror after Sita's first bold kiss. It is a brilliant, iconic performance.
Although one criticism of Fire is that it suggests that Radha and Sita's sexual relationship is merely a reaction to being neglected by their husbands, the tenderness between the two women is palpable and genuine, not reactionary. Moreover, the story has a more subtle reading, as an allegory for a certain crossroads in Indian society: The family's frail, mute matriarch, Biji, represents tradition - weakened, but still a palpable presence; Sita, a bold yet innocent agent for change, represents modernity; and Radha, of course, is India, caught between the two, self-consciously examining the balance between her own desires and her responsibility to uphold traditional institutions. On this reading the message of the film is that steps toward modernity should surely be taken, but not without contemplation, not without consciousness, and certainly not without consequences.
Whatever its allegorical significance, though, Fire is most compelling to me at the small scale, as a story about a woman, Radha, asserting her sexual autonomy for the first time in her life. There are likely many factors that contributed to the controversy surrounding this film, but it's likely that one of them was Radha's ultimate assertion of independence: I have sexual desire, and if my husband refuses to satisfy it then I am justified in finding someone else who will. There are influential elements in American society that cannot accept a statement like that from a woman, and I'm sure similar sentiments exist in sectors of Indian society as well.
This isn't a forum for political debate, even of the civil kind - and certainly not for your vitriol and gibberish. There are plenty of places where you can preach to bitter, angry folks just like yourself - please take it to someone who cares. I'm just here to talk about movies.
Posted by: carla | January 28, 2008 at 11:43 PM
Just remove those posts then, I wont post about this disgraceful lowlife Shabana here anymore. If you ever visit India and meet with common Indians, dont expect them to share your admiration for this wretched creature, else you'll be in for a big shock.
Posted by: reality | January 28, 2008 at 11:58 PM
Carla, welcome to the ugly side of India :). Who knows, this might put you off Indian movies for a while and we might get some nuggets of reviews of European and Iranian movies. I strongly recommend Majid Majidi's Children of Heaven. I've always wondered why Filmi Geek only obsesses over Indian movies, why not the rest of the world.
Reality, I hope you realize taht your comments will drive more people against Hindus when they see just how full of hate people of your religion can be.
Posted by: maajhi | January 29, 2008 at 12:13 AM
Reality, another recommendation. Watch movies like Masoom, Arth and Sparsh. Shabana Azmi may have some faults (who doesn't) but she has done a lot of work to improve people's lot too. What have you done in your life?
Posted by: maajhi | January 29, 2008 at 12:16 AM
Have you improve a poor person's life? Have you brought a smile to a homeless kid's face? Why all the judging and hating. Spend your time improving people's lives instead of ranting about someone. There's too much of that anyway. Don't add to global warming please ;).
Posted by: maajhi | January 29, 2008 at 12:17 AM
Maajhi, instead of answering any of the questions of my earlier post you chose to write bullshit stuff. Apparently, I am a Hindu full of hate, is it? Well I am only posting on a forum, see what people of Shabana's religion do to express their anger, commit terrorist activities all over the world, not only in India. I'll pass watching that witch's movies and as for her social work, even Hezbollah and Hamas do social work, but they remain terrorists and Shabana is of their kind. Talking of judging and hating, Shabana is an expert in that, she had the nerve to vilify Narendra Modi who has improved the lives of more people than Shabana would even meet in 1000 lifetimes.
Posted by: reality | January 29, 2008 at 12:37 AM
reality, has Shabana ever killed or propagated killing anyone? Hezbollah have. Hamas has, and so has Narendra Modi. How then can you call her a terrorist or compare her with them? That's a ridiculous comparison.
And let's keep it civil instead of randomly using four-letter words which only discredit you.
Did you know:
1. Shabana Azmi also asked the Shahi Imam of Delhi to parachute into Afghanistan if he was so supportive of the Taliban. Guess that wasn't reported in the Hindutva Times :).
2. She has been excommunicated from her religion by the fanatical mullahs because of her support for Muslim women's rights in their religion.
2. Have you personally heard her trash Hindus or India? Why go by hearsay? Why would she choose to live in India if she hated it so much?
I hear you on you list of complaints about majority-minority politics in India. But I think you're making someone a scapegoat of your anger who really doesn't deserve it.
As for your questions about why she acted in Fire: She was playing the part of a woman who wasn't getting any love in her marriage from her husband. She didn't name the characters, and she didn't create the story. She likes to play interesting characters, and Deepa Mehta approached her with a part. Is that so difficult to understand? Why don't you think a bit logically and try to see it from her perspective before debasing yourself and your religion with your words?
Posted by: maajhi | January 29, 2008 at 01:13 AM
Also, this is really not the place for such angry comments.
Here's an American woman who enjoys Indian movies and she is writing about them. And here you are frothing at the mouth with your ridiculous comments. A shining example of today's Indian culture you're illustrating here!
Posted by: maajhi | January 29, 2008 at 01:15 AM
reality, dude, I'm not sure if you are still thinking logically or if you've given yourself up to anger, but here are some actual comments from your target. I don't think I agree with your perception based on what I've read of her quotes in general. What's wrong with pitting the liberals against extremists, or speaking for women's and girl's rights. I think you should pick a more logical target to hate ;).
http://noburka.blogspot.com/2006/11/indias-leading-muslim-cleric-describes.html
"The fight today cannot be between the Christian and the Muslim, the fight cannot be between the Hindu and the Muslim—the fight needs to be between ideologies—the ideologies of the liberal versus the ideologies of the extremist. The liberal Muslim, Christian, Hindu on the same side against the extremist Muslim, Christian, Hindu on the other," Azmi said.
She also spoke on the condition of women in India: "It is true that in India, women on one hand are moving from strength to strength, on the other we also have to confront the horrific violence of female foeticide. It is ironic that a country that worships its women as goddesses also devalues its girl child - denies her access to equal opportunity and is even denying her the right to life. We must put an end to this violence now."
But that was not all. She was confronted with a question on the current veil controversy raging in Britain, and her answer was very simple:
"The Quran speaks about women wearing clothes to cover her modesty. A woman is supposed to cover herself to be modest. She does not need to cover her face. A time has come for a debate on the issue"
Posted by: maajhi | January 29, 2008 at 01:32 AM
Narendra Modi is the best politician of India and future PM, what the hell are you saying about him killing someone? If you havent noticed he just won hadnsomely in Gujarat in face of all odds. Dont compare that great man to Shabana, he is a hero in Gujarat and among rest of India too.
Shabana may have criticized some islamic mullah or the veil, she is welcome to even criticize Hinduism constructively. But this film was delibrately targetted to insult Hindus, what possible motive was to name the characters about goddesses worshiped in every Hindu household. Even a child would have objected reading the script, Shabana could have refused to do the film. My question is when is she going to make a movie about lesbian or gay characters named after Mohammad or his family? Do you deny that if she does so, she will probably be butchered?
She once said that Muslims are not safe in India, well I hope she moves out of India ASAP.
Posted by: reality | January 29, 2008 at 08:07 AM
reality, thanks for dialing back the tone of your rhetoric a notch - just a notch, but it's better than nothing.
I think you are being a unfair in stating that a film should not have been made because there are ideas in it that offend some people. If people are offended by the idea of unhappy, mistreated women taking control of their own destinies than maybe there is no harm in offending such people.
You are being beyond unfair - just rude really - in suggesting that Shabana Azmi, who loves her country fiercely, should leave it simply because she disagrees with you about how it should be run. Fortunately India is a democracy, not a dictatorship run by you, and so people like Shabana Azmi who love their country and want to improve it in ways they believe in are free to engage people who want to improve it in different ways.
As I said, I do not wish to host political debates here and now that you have had your say I hope you will take this discussion elsewhere. I also hope you will consider being a little more tolerant and tempered in your expression, because to the extent your ideas have merit their merit gets lost in your calls for the exile of everyone who doesn't share your viewpoint.
Posted by: carla | January 29, 2008 at 08:21 AM
I did not wish to continue writing on this board. I suggest you remove these posts, otherwise some one else will again reply and which will get a response by another. I and millions of others maintain - this film could have been made choosing innocuous names, but deliberately choosing to name after Hindu deities was meant to insult(I can see no other reason), its as clear as day.
Lastly, Shabana is a pathetic actress really, nothing compared to greats like Madhubala, Nargis and their likes.
Posted by: reality | January 29, 2008 at 08:53 AM
reality, get well soon. I knew things had deteriorated in India but didn't realize they'd gotten to a point where seemingly educated people were abandoning logic altogether and embracing a mob mentality.
It is a truly sad day when Hindus are insulted by people naming their lesbian or otherwise characters after Hindu goddesses. I thought that was where Hinduism was different from Islam, but I guess I was wrong.
"My question is when is she going to make a movie
about lesbian or gay characters named after Mohammad or his family? Do you deny that if she does so, she will probably be butchered?"
Yes, she will probably be butchered. And no, no one has the courage to make a film like the one you are saying. But I thought that's where Hinduism differed.
Can you consider the possibility that it didn't strike Shabana that the characters were named after goddesses. Sita and Radha are common enough names among Indian women. Deepa Mehta may have named them after goddesses or may not have, but why blame an actress who's only acting a part.
I don't really see a bright future for India with such intolerance of views and utter hatred based on no logic becoming part of the Indian thought process as well. You see what's happening to countries like Pakistan that went this route, and yet you want to go the same? Sad.
Posted by: maajhi | January 29, 2008 at 11:16 AM
Hey Maajhi, looks like its you who has totally abandoned reason and logic. Has Shabana been butchered, has she been killed, has she been imprisoned by Hindus? No!! Thats where Hinduism differs from Islam. But Hindus do have a right to get offended by such depictions of their deities, go to any average Hindu home and tell them about making a movie like this with Sita and Radha as names, and then see their reaction, they will be offended for sure. Hindus are protesting more or less peacefully, all we want is these people stop insulting our religion continuously like this. And please dont give me this nonsense that Shabana didnt realize the sensitivity about Hindu goddesses, no one can be so naive; it was a deliberate insult, no question about it. Nor did she apologize to Hindus after that.
Dont be worried about India, finally Hindus are taking their destinies into their own hands, India is progressing quite well.
Posted by: reality | January 29, 2008 at 11:38 AM
"protesting peacefully" isn't how I'd characterize activities like burning up sets, genocidally killing thousands of Muslims in Gujarat, or take your simply example of RSS goons harassing young couples on Valentine's. A country that's abandoning freedom of speech and expression to threats and violence to silence and subdue people does NOT have a bright future - mark my words.
And fyi, Hinduism needs a lot of reform as well - dowry, caste killing and discrimination, female infanticide, those are everyday news in Hindu-majority India. I wish people would put some effort into fixing these things instead of wasting it abusing actresses on some random blog. Economic growth isn't everything when social justice is absent.
I'm done here. Good luck to you, reality and I hope you realize the disastrous consequences of your views and support to certain elements some day.
Posted by: maajhi | January 29, 2008 at 11:50 AM
These are the concepts postulated by Hinduism which Hindutva followers have forgotten in general and also in the case of their reaction to this movie in their set burning, violence and intimidation of the movie makers and these threats to Shabana to leave the country etc. Karma has a way of coming back. Haffun, reality!
ahimsa paramo dharma
dharmo hi hato hanti, rakshati rakshitaha
iha vairena vairaani na shamyante kadaachana, avairena ca shamyante eshah dharmah sanatanah
Posted by: maajhi | January 29, 2008 at 12:45 PM
What do you mean by this "genocidally killing thousands of Muslims in Gujarat" ??? Pulling out figures from your hat I guess? Official figures of the death toll was around 1000 people died of them 250 Hindus and around 800 Muslims, and most of the Hindus died in police firing. And you seem to forget Muslims started it by setting the train on fire killing Hindu pilgrims. And where were you and Shabana and co. when whole Kashmir valley was cleansed of Hindus. And when Muslims set off bombs in various places in India over the last 15 years killing scores of people.
And tell me if India had been a Muslim country like Pakistan then what would have happened to the minority if they had set a carriageful of Muslim pilgrims on fire? And which Muslim country would allow Shabana to make a film on gays and lesbians that too named after Mohammad's family? Muslim fanatics would have burnt not only her sets, but Shabana and Deepa and their extended families too. And in which Muslim country is Valentines day allowed to be celebrated as it is in India? Inspite of all this what do we see - movies are made about imaginary flaws in Hinduism, but no movie made about the problems in Islam. Compared to Muslims, Hindus are mind bogglingly peaceful in their protests. But this tolerance cannot be exploited for pointless bashing of Hindu symbols, like this movie does.
Posted by: reality | January 29, 2008 at 01:16 PM
Final thought: The day you stand by while someone else's right to expression is snatched by goons, is the day you lay yourself open to the same.
The whole idea of freedom of expression is that you allow a person to express themselves in whatever way they want. You can choose to be insulted but cannot intimidate or stop them. That is a sign of vibrant societies.
The day you or family member are stopped on the road by one of these goons and forced to do something you don't want to do is the day you will regret having supported them. This is how it started out in some Islamic countries too, until the day when nearly everyone is forced to grow a beard or don a burqa. God forbid we give up India to so-called religious "protectors".
Posted by: maajhi | January 29, 2008 at 01:23 PM
reality, you have a list of things about what happens in Muslim countries. But that's the whole point, isn't it? If India is NOT a Muslim country and is a free country, things that happen in Muslim countries should NOT happen in India. But you are supporting such things happening in India too. Suggests to me you prefer the way things are in Muslim countries to how open they are in India.
"But this tolerance cannot be exploited for pointless bashing of Hindu symbols, like this movie does."
To be honest, when I watched this movie, these were just two women characters to me. The thought of Hindu deities never entered my mind at all. Insults are taken not given. If you choose to be offended by everything, you will be offended forever. I don't get insulted or offended by what people say or express in art. I'm much more disgusted by the gruesome things that happen in Indian society everyday that appear in the papers. That to me is much more an insult to Hindu or Indian sensibilities and a black mark on India's face and image. That needs to be stopped much more than some Canadian woman making a random movie which no one in India would watch anyway because it's in English.
Posted by: maajhi | January 29, 2008 at 01:28 PM
reality, but hasn't Shabana Azmi taken on Syed Bukhari (of Jama Masjid) in the past and criticized him for certain issues pertaining to Indian Muslims? Or in your view, that's irrelevant?
Posted by: Amit | January 29, 2008 at 01:40 PM
Folks, please - I'm begging you - I do not want to have to close the comments on this post. You've both had your say. Stop now, and allow me to leave the comments open so that others who want to discuss the movie will have an opportunity to have their say as well.
Posted by: carla | January 29, 2008 at 01:40 PM
BTW, I personally am not a fan of this movie either. The servant masturbating in front of grandma to me vividly illustrates Deepa Mehta's penchant to use shock and scandal to popularize herself and her movies. Perhaps using Sita and Radha was part of the same. But you, reality are playing right into her hands and reacting in exactly the way she hoped for. Good job!
final comment, carla. No more posts from me.
Posted by: maajhi | January 29, 2008 at 01:44 PM
You cannot have selective freedom of expression. Can anyone make such a lesbian/gay movie with Islamic names like Mohammad and his family? The Mohammad cartoons were banned in India under the threat of violence, Salman Rushdie's fate we all know and see what happened to Taslima Nasreen. Fine, dont allow criticism of Islam but then dont allow mocking and belittling of Hinduism as well.
Again, dont worry about the fate of India, we have survived the Muslim barbarians and the British looters, we will survive these pseudo intellectuals like Shabana and co. Hindus are reawakening and recognizing that such nonsense cannot be allowed anymore.
"... Canadian woman making a random movie which no one in India would watch anyway because it's in English." - wow, how enlightening that Indians dont understand English. You mean to say that its okay to ridicule Hindus in English? Is THIS what your convoluted mind has come up with?
BTW I AM DONE HERE, THIS IS MY LAST POST.
Posted by: reality | January 29, 2008 at 01:45 PM
Never mind. I didn't see the comments on the second page and seems like maajhi has already covered it. :)
Posted by: Amit | January 29, 2008 at 01:52 PM
THAT DOES IT.
I have seen enough "last posts" from each of you to keep the comments section of this blog going for a week!
COMMENTS CLOSED.
UPDATE: it's been almost 6 months since I've closed the comments on this post, and even though things have heated up elsewhere on the blog I'm going to quietly reopen the comments here. I do love this movie so, and I want to provide people the opportunity to discuss their interpretations of it.
Please please please treat everyone with respect - no name-calling of other posters or people involved with the film - all viewpoints are welcome here as long as they are presented politely and respectfully. I don't want to have to close the comments again.
Posted by: carla | January 29, 2008 at 01:55 PM