Fire (1997)

A melodramatic tale about the journey of two women towards Self-actualisation. This movie from the award-winning filmmaker Deepa Mehta perfectly depicts the illiberal ideas entrenched in our bigoted society. Mehta's Elements trilogy, Fire, Earth, and Water distinctly personify her visions and her elegance in filmmaking.Sita(Nandita Das) is entering a new family after her wedding. The family consists of her spouse Jatin(Javed Jaffrey), her brother in law Ashok and his wife Radha(Shabana Azmi) and the matriarch of the family is Biji. Biji is taken cared by the servant Mundu but often infuriates the old lady.Sita is a soul which dares to dream. She is bound by no shackles. But the married life has been quite tough on her after she found her husband to be cheating on her. During a conversation Radha tells Sita that she is infertile,"No eggs in ovaries " were the exact words to be precise and for that reason, her husband has vowed to celibacy under the influence of a Swamiji who has preached him that desire was the root of all evil. These two women gradually embrace each other and rediscover their sexuality and in the process rediscover their will to live a life that they wished to live in a cloudland.Mehta's effort to intricately design the characters has a positive impact on screen as it wasn't judgemental rather each character's reflections of their opinions.Azhagi fame Nandita Das has flabbergasted us with her role. Takeshi's Castle fame Javed Jaffrey has made his role look so easy. The entire team has done just to their roles, making this a movie that every movie maniac will savour.In 1998 Fire was screened in India.For its content of displaying Homosexuality as a non-evil custom, the movie garnered immense controversy. There were riots in various parts the country. Shiv sanaiks and Bajrang Dal members invaded and vandalized the theatres. Even now, After two decades from this film's release, the Section 377 is still a matter of debate. With many countries legalizing homosexuality, India has failed miserably and it nowhere near to making the right verdict. Releasing a movie that is against the prejudices in the 90's was gutsy and they deserve to be applauded but all they received was criticism.A movie that everyone should watch and a movie that everyone can relate to. Fire beautifully portrays so many human qualities like self-acceptance, self-actualization, Love, Passion, Sexuality. The movie deserves to be celebrated.

There are many plot points which were easy to see coming, which is the fault of the screenplay by Mehta. But the film is far too suffused with politics to approach greatness, even were it better written. It is not as overtly preachy and hammy as Brokeback Mountain, but it does make excuses for its adulterous lesbians, just as the Hollywood film basically makes heroes out of lying lowlife bastards. As example, while Jatin is certainly a fool and cheater, and Sita owes him no allegiance, the same cannot be said of Radha, for Ashok is certainly a devoted and loving husband. If she was not getting what she wanted, it was her right and duty to speak up and demand change, or leave with honor. His response to her barrenness may have been silly and wrong, but it was not accomplished without her complicity. Radha, in this sense, is the villain of the film, for while Jatin is a letch, he is shown as utterly void of depth. Mundu is a slimebag, but an insignificant little bug. But Radha has the ability to think and choose. She does not merely fall into her relationship with Sita, she chooses its deceptions over her first allegiance to her husband. If she wanted out or change, she should have spoken up, for the energy and will she displays in leaving him could have earlier been displayed within her marriage. Thus, she is an agent of the ill that befalls the family, not a victim, the way the naïve and forcefully betrothed Sita is.The other aspects of the film are well done, such as the musical soundtrack by A.R. Rahman, and the cinematography by Giles Nuttgens, but nothing that approaches greatness. The DVD, put out by New Yorker Video, has the 108 minute version of the film, and is shown in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio. There is no audio film commentary, but there is a theatrical trailer, cast profiles and production notes, and a documentary on the controversy the film caused in India, which led to its banning. All in all, it shows Indian culture in a very silly and puerile light.That said, the film, aside from its objective artistic flaws, also suffers from an insular take on its culture. To the non-Indian, as example, there are many political points meant for Indian society, alone, that are lost outside that milieu, and without these touchstone hot buttons as references, the film's political relevance fizzles- the best example being Sita's and Radha's names being based upon Hindu goddesses, and Sita being purged by fire- although in the film it is Radha who is purged by fire; a point Indian film critics lash out at, but which seem silly criticisms to foreign ears. Yet, ultimately, what causes Fire to only reach passable mediocrity as a film is the more immanent artistic flaws of screenplay, characterization, and political imposition. It is a film that is solid, but nothing worth viewing a second time, save for glimpsing the two gorgeous lipstick lesbians. Not that that is a bad thing, of course, but why not try Penthouse, instead? At least there you won't be subjected to puerile political statements.The film is the first of a trilogy of films, and was followed by Earth and Water, which seem to be less 'controversial,' as well as less pointedly provocative. Whether or not this equates with a genuine upgrade of the art is something to be seen, but there is potential here. It's just that Mehta's desire to make a cogent statement so overwhelms her desire to make it endure to future generations, and outside its natal setting, that this film fails. Rein that in, and she has the makings of an artist of consequence. I'll be watching.

Its a very sensitive portrayal of life with unquenched or constrained desires. What does one do with desire in a culture and society with rigid norms? One husband finds outlet with the immigrant - since immigrants don't belong or aren't accepted, they don't need to conform and dam their desires. The other husband looks for solace in spirituality and tries to evaporate his desire into nothingness. It fails - of course - and he breaks down in the last scene for multiple reasons. Sita still cared enough for him to find that moment to let him know that he is not responsible for her deviant outlet to her blocked desires. The mother in her still couldn't find the strength to destroy his myth. She sees him as a child who is glorifying himself in his lust-control but should she give him the opportunity to finally grow up? Both the wives find courage and togetherness through their shared rejection by their husband. But the final act of rejection was by the grandmother - she could not break free from her rusted mindset to accept Sita's desire. A decade and more of receiving care was not enough to break the shackles of her culture.Seems like it was easiest for the househelp to let his desires flow - since he's anyway damned by his culture - being at the bottom of the hierarchy. Since there is anyway no respect and expectations, might as well taste sin.

There are questions that sometimes hover over us and have no answer. Two women progressively find themselves ensnared in each other's arms (as corny as the expression sounds, that is exactly what happens) and fins that they cannot answer their own question as to what defines their relationship when their very own society has no name to what they are. Deepa Mehta's somewhat mis-titled FIRE is the first of a loosely connected trilogy, here linked by the theme of the elements, and more symbolic than consuming. Fire as uncontrolled erotic passion does not make an appearance here, since the women -- the older and more feminine Radha (Shabana Azmi) and the younger, more masculine tempered Sita (Nandita Das) come to realize they share a lot more than common ideas and affection for each other and stand for what they believe is their passion for each other despite the opposition faced by their very traditional husbands and families. As in WATER, FIRE is deeply spiritual, even if it technically falls into the mode of sentimental melodrama (where WATER, much like the weight of the word, carries a stronger meaning that ultimately transcends its definition). Even so, it's a very beautiful picture, and a strong voice from a strong director.