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.
sHABANA MAKES MY KNEES WEAK IN THIS MOVIE. HER EYES, HER SILENCES, HER BODY LANGUAGE! LOVE AND UNDERSTANDING. MY GOD!
Posted by: ANGELES | July 04, 2007 at 06:28 PM
Angeles, I could not have said it better myself. :)
Posted by: carla | July 05, 2007 at 01:31 PM
I love the scene when Radha talks to Sita about her "awareness of needs and desires" and that that is not something familiar to her. That "indulging" into what she needed is so human and it is shown beautifully in the movie. Also, I love her sweetness and warmth. What can I say? This movie has touched me so deeply. My life has nothing to do with Indian society, but I think that some of the feelings that brings these women are present everywhere.
Peace!
Posted by: Angeles | July 19, 2007 at 09:49 PM
Sorry, in my last sentence I meant to say these feelings that bring these two women together are present everywhere (looks like when I write about Shabana I get too emotional and forget how to write!! haha)
Posted by: Angeles | July 19, 2007 at 09:54 PM
Angeles, I know how you feel. :-) I hope you've checked out my new blog devoted to Shabana ji, http://soundslikepower.blogspot.com
I think it may be time for me to expand this review again and talk about some of the universal themes in *Fire*, the ones that transcend any commentary on Indian culture in particular - because whatever else *Fire* is about, it is also a film about women's sexual desire and sexual autonomy, and sometimes I think that is its single most important theme.
Posted by: carla | July 20, 2007 at 03:36 PM
Hey, Carla, I've been reading your new blog with a lot of interest. I love it. It gives a lot of info about Shabana ji and also lets us participate giving our point of view and telling about our feelings. I'd love to read what else you think about Fire.It has been a groundbreaking movie to me.
Posted by: Angeles | July 21, 2007 at 03:18 AM
I Loved the movie fire so much that still today it is in my mind it is a total different movie how the two women make love with each other it brings you warmth when you remember the scenes in the movie according to me this is the best film in my life which I have seen till date.
Regards,
Carlos
Posted by: carlos mendis | July 23, 2007 at 07:51 AM
Hi everyone,
I don't know who could help with this but I have always wanted to know the translation for the song that Radha and Seeta sing in Fire.
thanks a lot
Posted by: ANGELES | August 31, 2007 at 01:40 AM
Angeles - If I can find the lyrics to the song I will try and translate if for you. If I can't find the lyrics, I'll transcribe as much as I can understand and translate that. I'll try to do it this weekend.
By the way, on the subject of songs in *Fire*, each time I watch the film with more knowledge of Hindi and of Hindi songs under my belt, I notice new things. For example, watching the film a few months ago I realized the significance of a song Mundu sings under his breath as he and Radha clean up the restaurant one night. They are alone in the kitchen - this is the scene right before he looks at the picture of the family that he has defaced - and he is singing "Bol Radha Bol" from the movie *Sangam*. This is a very passionate love song directed at a woman named Radha:
mere man ki ganga, aur tere man ki jumna ka
bol Radha bol, sangam hoga ke nahin?
The Ganges of my heart and the Jamuna of yours,
Tell me, Radha, tell me, will they ever be joined?
The look of annoyance on Radha's face in this scene of *Fire* shows that it's not lost on her what song Mundu is singing, and it foreshadows and explains his coming actions beautifully.
Posted by: carla | August 31, 2007 at 10:33 AM
Thanks a lot Carla!!! What you tell about that scene with Mundu is very interesting and not understanding the language you miss things.
Thanks again! Looking forward to reading the translation.
I love Shabana's voice in that scene with Nandita, she's a great singer.
Angeles
Posted by: ANGELES | September 01, 2007 at 06:02 PM
Hi Angeles - I found the song! Just to be clear, this is the song that Radha and Seeta "perform" together, where Seeta dresses up in the suit and baseball cap.
The song is "Aaja zara mere dil ke sahaare" from the 1957 film *Ek jhalak*, sung by Hemant Kumar and Geeta Dutt.
I can't guarantee my translation - I'm sure I made errors - but you'll get the general idea.
H: aaja zara
aaja zara mere dil ke sahaare dil-ruba
Come to me, just come to me my darling, my heart’s desire
tere lie mere dil mein teri yaad hai javaan
For you, memories of you are fresh in my heart
G: are ja ja ja dekh li hai main ne shekhi teri
Go away from me – I have seen enough of your boasting
na sata ja ja ab na chalegi yahaan chaalen teri
Don’t torment me, go away, your wiles won’t work here anymore
H: tu ne na jaana main hun divaana
You haven't figured out that I’m crazy about you
dil me chhupi hain muhabbat teri
Your love is hidden in my heart
G: kuchh nahin yahaan
There’s nothing here for you.
H: aaja zara.....
Come to me &c.
H: are aa aa aa maan le o gori kahana mera
O, come to me, o lovely fair one, believe what I say
na jala aa aa achchha nahin dur rahana tera
Don’t make me jealous, come, it’s no good to stay so far away
G: pahle akadana phir paanv paDana
First you harass me, then fall on your feet and beg me
duniya men mardon ki aadat buri
In this world men behave so badly
H: jaaegi kahaan
Where will you go?
H: aaja zara...........
Come to me &c.
Posted by: carla | September 03, 2007 at 08:35 AM
Dear Carla, thanks so much for the translation!!!
I have always loved their performance in this part of the movie. I find it very funny and love shy Radha.
What a beautiful thing to share dancing and singing with your beloved!!
Thanks again!
Posted by: ANGELES | September 06, 2007 at 08:48 PM
I have just seen 'Fire' - I thought the performances were excellent, especially Shabana's. I love how she expressed her character's inner awakening - to borrow a cliche, like a flower opening up to the sun - beautiful. Nandita Das also did a great job at expressing the 'innocent boldness' (as you've so aptly put it) of her character. Das and Azmi did indeed create 'fire' together - I loved the warmth of their interaction. And I think the film was beautifully made - I especially love the contrasting uses of shadows/darkness and colours/light. I love the pace of the film - it unfolds gently but by the end of it, so much has taken place. Of course I need not mention that it was very courageous of the cast and crew to make this very important film, knowing full well that the reaction in some quarters would be vitriolic (that it would definitely be, as Mundu put it, 'too much electricity' for a lot of people).
I liked that the tradition v. modernity clash in 'Fire' was not simplistically interpreted (ie tradition/culture=all that's bad and repressed, modernity/westernisation=all that's good and free) - after all there is the 'modern' Jatin who's still an idiot - which brings me to one thing I didn't like - I'm not sure Mehta did her film any favours by making all the men in it so repulsive and awful - from the religious buffoon to the prat who enjoys wanking in front of an old lady, to the foolishly arrogant Jatin. All so thoroughly selfish and... really quite stupid. I don't think she set out to bash men (very easy to do, after all) but to emphasize the need for women to find and assert their independence - but the broad portrayal of the male characters does make it seem as though they were so terrible that the women had no choice but to find solace in each other - that maybe if the men hadn't been quite so bad they wouldn't have had to and could have continued quite happily in their stereotypical roles (I agree with you that the attraction and affection between Radha and Sita is portrayed as genuine, but I feel that they made it seem as though the sexual dimension of that attraction was a reaction to their ill-treatment). And I can't help but think that this isn't what Mehta and her cast and crew set out to achieve. Despite this, I thought it was a very beautiful and well-executed film, and the type of movie that I definitely want to go back to again and again, probably taking away something new each time. And I'm already wondering if I will feel differently about my grouse the next time I watch it. I loved the Karva Chauth part - it reminded me of when my friend and I visited the City Palace Museum in Jaipur and our tour guide showed us some Karva Chauth depictions - we asked our guide why there was no similar ritual for husbands and he looked at us in horror and almost galloped away from the display... perhaps scandalized at the very thought of men enduring such deprivation for their wives....
Finally, I REALLY wish this film had been made in the local language. I guess Mehta wanted it to find a wider audience and can understand the choice of language, but I would have much preferred it in Hindi - it would've felt more 'real' to me to hear the words coming out of the character's mouths in the vernacular (after all, it was an all-Indian cast all playing Indians living in India), and maybe the dialogues would have seemed a touch less didactic to me, more 'natural'.
Thanks for recommending this film Carla, I'm so glad to have watched it.
Posted by: Daddy's Girl | October 27, 2007 at 06:01 AM
Daddy's Girl, thanks for your (as always) thoughtful and thought-provoking comments. I am so glad you enjoyed this film, despite its flaws. It is too close to my heart to evaluate rationally. Sita in the film talks about responding like a trained monkey when someone pushes her button marked "tradition;" *Fire* pushed every single button I have, some I perhaps didn't even know were there, and (among other things) placed me squarely on the path I walk today, learning Hindi, watching and writing about Hindi films, founding SLP, and more.
So on the one hand, *Fire* is merely a very good, but imperfect, film; on the other, it is a watershed event in my life.
As to the film's imperfections; there is one point on which I often find myself defending *Fire*, and that is the uselessness of its male characters. It may be an artifact of the peculiar way that *Fire* mapped on to my life at the time I first saw it, but I always felt that Ashok - Radha's husband, Kulbushan Kharbanda's character - was deeply sympathetic. He made some odd choices in his pursuit of spiritual purity but his heart was good and he was mostly, as Radha noted, a scared and confused person. I felt that he was as much a victim of the situation as Radha was; it's unfortunate for him that it took such a drastic strike of lightning as the affair with Sita for Radha to wake up out of her stupor. It's possible to imagine a scenario where Radha could have had similar epiphanies without leaving Ashok and instead convinced him to give up on the celibacy and come back to being her husband, body and soul. That's not what happened in this story, but that's not Ashok's fault.
Even with respect to Jatin, I think Deepa Mehta tried (though she may have failed) to show him from a sympathetic perspective. She gave him a sad little backstory: Ashok and Biji were open-minded enough, despite their traditional ways, to accept Julie into their family, but Julie turned him down, not wanting to be a traditional Indian wife. Jatin, too, felt trapped. He could have just left his family and been with Julie on her terms, or stayed with his family and refused to marry, but something made him feel bound to accede to their wishes. He shouldn't have; he made a mistake. Even though he's a collossal ass - a pompous F-O-O-L as Sita says - there is, at least, an attempt to make him sympathetic.
Mundu is to my eye the least sympathetic of the three men; but the film even offers an explanation - not an excuse - for his disgusting behavior. "He was only doing what gave him pleasure," Radha muses. "Am I so different?" It seems an unfair parallel to draw, between Mundu's beating off and Radha and Sita's tender affair - Radha is certainly being hard on herself - but because of their circumstances neither is a victimless crime.
Another factor that adds a little dimension to Mundu is that he is in love with Radha, which makes his revenge motivation a little more complex. It's not just "she got me in trouble so I will get her in trouble." He's jealous of Ashok and jealous of Sita, and also confused and troubled and angry. He is not just a cartoon disgusting guy.
Ah, there is so much more I can say - but I'll stop now. :) One last thing - I also desperately wish the film had been in Hindi. I've read a couple of different explanations (rationalizations) from Deepa Mehta as to why she made it in English, and I sometimes wonder if she, too, wishes she'd not made that decision.
Posted by: carla | October 27, 2007 at 04:55 PM
Thanks so much for your comments on the male characters, Carla. You've definitely given me a few things to think about - especially with regard to Jatin and Mundu. I noticed the attempt to show that Ashok is not a bad guy but just a very misguided one - one who could've done so much better if he'd been made to know better... thinking about it now, there are quite a few moments in the film that express this - I think I was just too appalled at the absurd level of his devotion to his Swami to fully acknowledge them while I was watching.
It's a wonderful (and rare) thing when something created by another reaches into you and touches you in a way deeper than you could ever have imagined - I'm glad 'Fire' did that for you.
Posted by: daddy's girl | October 27, 2007 at 06:55 PM
Your most recent comments about the male characters in “Fire” got me thinking about Deepa’s filmi men in general. In my opinion, most are either vulgar caricatures, or spineless dishrags. I actually think that the men in Fire are less markedly so than in “Water”, and this is what got me wondering about the extent to which Deepa’s art is coloured by her own experiences in life. At a less forgiving discussion site than this one, I was always a defender of Deepa, and I still like her films (well Fire and Earth, anyway). A common attitude posted in that other forum was that Deepa was not Indian but Canadian. To me, it does not make sense to say that someone who was born, raised and educated in India is not Indian, regardless of the passport she currently holds.
Just as her Indianness has shaped her art, so her personal experiences must have. For example, did her daughter's choice to live with her father when Deepa and her husband separated affect Deepa's view of men in a way that might have found some expression in her films? That’s why I look forward to reading her daughter’s book, which was written while working with her mother on the set of “Water”. That particular movie seems to have the shallowest characterisations of its male roles out of Deepa’s trilogy, with the evil Brahmin Dad pitted against the gutless (but oh so good-looking!) John Abraham character.
More than the characters in “Fire” itself, it was this perceived progression of weakened male roles that intrigues me. I am sure that there must be something in Deepa’s experiences that have coloured her
characterisations, just as my experiences have coloured my perceptions of her male characters.
Posted by: maxqnz | October 29, 2007 at 03:36 PM
After some discussions with friends, I've come to the conclusion that if you aren't Indian born and bred, it's just difficult to understand why her movies evoke negative reactions among Indians - and I'm talking about apolitical Indians, not the fundamentalists. It's not the material, it's her presentation style which rubs the wrong way. Her portrayal of Indian society is so consistently and repetitively negative, it hurts to see yourself and your country painted internationally in such a manner, as if there isn't already enough that India isn't mocked and belittled for all over the world. I've understood that no one but Indians feel and empathize with this hurt, and I've discovered that it's futile to explain or try to transfer a feeling to another person who doesn't have the collective experience of being Indian. Indian hurt caused by her work is valid too. And she has hurt so many Indians across the world by her portrayals, I can understand why some people rhetorically refute her Indianness, maxqnz.
Carla's reaction to her work is purely personal and not related to the hurt I describe above. But both reactions are fully valid.
Posted by: Maajhi | October 29, 2007 at 08:50 PM
"After some discussions with friends, I've come to the conclusion that if you aren't Indian born and bred, it's just difficult to understand why her movies evoke negative reactions among Indians - and I'm talking about apolitical Indians, not the fundamentalists. It's not the material, it's her presentation style which rubs the wrong way. "
I have no problems with that at all. Indeed, I can even empathise from a distance. It's not the negative reaction her works evoke from many Indian nationals that I find bizarre. That is an entirely valid response. What I have trouble with is the way that some of those Indians who dislike her work insist quite vehemently that she's "not Indian". In terms of nationality, that's true (although if a gora like me can qualify for OCI, she surely could), but it seems like a knee-jerk reaction. Since the first 22 years of her life were spent in India, her experiences up to that point were undeniably "Indian". It's a kind of an ad hominem attack in my view. Not only do I dislike ad hominem attacks as a matter of principle, I also find them to be weak weapons for defending a viewpoint. So for example in this case, instead of outlining the reasons why they feel so strongly about her works, the things they think she got wrong or presented badly, some resort to personalising the argument and wave a dismissive hand saying, "She's not Indian anyway." That's a pity, because as much as I like her movies (and I feel about "Earth" as Carla does about "Fire"), even I, a gora from half a world away, could easily mount a "case for the defence" against her ouevre.
Posted by: | October 30, 2007 at 01:01 AM
"What I have trouble with is the way that some of those Indians who dislike her work insist quite vehemently that she's "not Indian"."
I wouldn't take that so literally. I think it would refer to her not being Indian in spirit or heart. Essentially not one of them. Someone who's seen to be disgracing the country. I'd take it as a statement of rejection from the community for hurting them. Not that I've ever heard anyone say she's not Indian. No one can deny that she is Indian by blood or upbringing - that's self-evident.
As for the "emotions drive a weak argument" bit, there's no doubt about that. Maybe they weren't worried about putting up an argument at all, but just venting their strong feelings; Indians can be a very emotional lot.
Posted by: Maajhi | October 30, 2007 at 01:45 AM
Um, I can't pass up an opportunity to correct maxqnz, who has painfully impeccable English but evidently not French. Unless it's a typo, the word you want is oeuvre (œuvre), not ouevre :).
Posted by: Maajhi | October 30, 2007 at 01:54 AM
"I can't pass up an opportunity to correct maxqnz, who has painfully impeccable English but evidently not French. Unless it's a typo, the word you want is oeuvre (œuvre), not ouevre :)."
Peccavi, to keep it subcontinental. ;-)
Posted by: | October 30, 2007 at 01:57 AM
Maajhi, I want to thank you for expressing your thoughts about Deepa Mehta without ad hominem attacks either on her, or on me for loving her work. I don't know whether you know how much of a rarity that is out here on the internet. I've grown tired of talking about her in various forums because the level of invective is hurtful and clouds the legitimate points of everyone.
I think you are right, that I can't understand why Indians feel that Deepa's work is negative and hurtful. When I watch her films, I just don't see hatred of India in them. I don't see her films portraying India negatively - at all - no more than any other film that portrays bad things that happen or have happened in India.
Perhaps I am very unusual among Deepa Mehta's audience; perhaps I give her audience too much credit, or perhaps the people who excoriate Deepa Mehta sell her audience short. But the fact is that Deepa Mehta made me the person you all know. I saw her films and didn't think "Oh those poor people in that backward country." I saw her films and thought "look at that interesting society, at such a fascinating crossroads, it's history happening before my eyes and I want to learn all about it. What a shame it is that I know so little about such a giant, diverse, compelling place." And I set out - was compelled - to change that.
I strongly believe that Deepa Mehta's films do not lower the opinion of India among Westerners. Westerners who see them either have no change in their attitude at all - the films go in one ear and out the other - or, occasionally, respond like I did, and become people who respect India and want to educate themselves about it. I don't have empirical support for this claim, just the anecdotal support of my own story and that of a few friends who were affected by Deepa Mehta's films in similar ways.
So. There's my defense of Deepa Mehta; I hope I won't need to say more about it because the topic is emotional and draining - except to thank you again, maajhi and max, for presenting alternate views with a level head. I can come much closer to understanding the differing perspectives when they are not bracketed by vitriol.
Posted by: carla | October 30, 2007 at 08:39 AM
Shabana Azami is a bloody traitor and a disgrace to India. She should be thrown out of the country for anti-Hindu and anti-national activities. Jis thaali mein khaati hai usi mein chhed karti hai, go to Pakistan Shabana, India dont need you.
Posted by: reality | January 28, 2008 at 07:14 PM
You may be surprised to see that I do not delete your comment even though it disgusts me. That is because, unlike you, I tolerate people who don't share my viewpoint. But I think the tenor of your remarks demonstrates that India does indeed need Shabana Azmi along with its many millions who share her respect for others. Thankfully, there are many more of them than there are sad, hateful people like you.
Posted by: carla | January 28, 2008 at 08:12 PM
You know what, very few people in India respect her. She wastes no opportunity to bad mouth India and Hindus, goes around the world talking trash about Indians. But she is still able to live in India, no one's killing her, unlike countries whose majority are her co-religionists, where she would have been slaughtered by now. Shabana and Deepa delibrately hurt Hindus by naming the characters Radha and Sita. Had they named them after Mohammad's wife and daughter, they wouldnt have survived for a week. Same with that senile ass MF Hussain, painting Hindu goddesses nude, why doesnt he try it with Islam(his own religion) and then see what happens. Any devout Hindu will be offended by this film fire, go to any average Hindu household and show them the film, you will be thrown out of the house. Why dont these idiots make such controversial movies about Islam? Simple, they are afraid Muslims, but in Hindus they find a perfect punching bad which rarely retaliates and that too mildly. And if you think Shabana and her ilk enjoy support in India, why dont they stand in elections ever?? These are good for nothing people without whom India would be better off.
Posted by: reality | January 28, 2008 at 10:34 PM