A NEW FIRE IN AN OLD
TRADITION
Sheena Malhotra & Kathryn Sorrells
Fire is a film that questions tradition. It is a film about being alive, and about women defining their liberation in their own terms. Fire reworks some age-old myths that have often been used to oppress Indian women and reclaims them in a feminist voice. It is the first Indian film with an overt lesbian theme, and its bold offering of an alternative vision for Indian women is extremely threatening to the patriarchal system. The director envisions the film as one that challenges oppressive traditions, even as she works within an Indian cultural framework. This paper will examine the ways in which it fulfills this vision.
HOW Fire COMES INTO BEING
Fire revolves around an Indian joint
family in
Radha has long ago accepted her fate in the loveless marriage. Her fate is to embody the role of the traditional Indian housewife, one who places her duty to her husband and family above everything else. Her days consist of taking care of Biji (Ashok’s mother), who has suffered from a stroke and cannot speak, taking care of the household, as well as helping out in the store. Radha has learned to suppress her yearning for more, just as she has learned to repress her childhood desire to see the ocean someday.
Jatin is Ashok’s brother. He is caught between his love for his Chinese mistress, Julie, and what his family members expect of him. Julie is not interested in marrying him as it would mean living in a joint family, so he agrees to an arranged marriage to placate Ashok and Biji. He struggles between wanting his own life and independence and bowing to the expectations that membership in a joint family demand from him. He often resolves the conflict by going along with the family expectations for the sake of tradition, while pursuing his own life on his own time. Therefore, he has no intention of giving up his mistress even after his arranged marriage to Sita.
Sita is the true romantic. She cannot understand her husband’s dismissiveness with her in the beginning. As she comes to know the situation with his mistress, she begins to question her role within the family. Radha is the one person within the household who treats her with care and love, and slowly Sita falls in love with her sister-in-law. Sita represents the modern Indian woman who has had many old traditions and cultural norms programmed into her but does not really understand why she must be bound by them. As she reflects on herself, “Isn’t it amazing? We’re so bound by customs and rituals. Somebody just has to press my button... this button marked tradition, and I start responding like a trained monkey” (Fire, 1996). She envisions a different way of being and wants to question everything, including the taboo on loving her beloved Radha.
Biji represents the old order. She is the keeper of tradition. She has a bell that she uses to summon people, as well as to express her displeasure at what is happening around her as she has lost her speech. Finally, there is Mundu, the servant of the house. He resents his position of subservience within the household, thus, he retaliates by watching adult films, instead of the religious films he is supposed to be showing Biji. This act of defiance is also coupled with his masturbating to the adult films whenever he is left alone with Biji. He knows that Biji can never tell the other family members what he is doing. Mundu therefore, takes his pleasure where he can, disregarding any ideas about respect for elders, which is a cornerstone of Indian culture. The very thought of his actions would be sacrilegious to most Indians, but he does not really care as long as he can get away with it.
A review by James Berardinelli says, “Fire is less a story of lesbian love than it is a statement of female emancipation. This is the tale of two vital, beautiful women breaking their cultural obstacles and being reborn through the passion they express for each other. Their relationship is forbidden, but it is by giving in to their feelings that they find the strength to defy their husbands and turn their backs on tradition” (Berardinelli, 1996). Deepa Mehta, the writer and director of the film, concurs, “It is really about the characters needing to be alive” (Bowen, 1996).
The film begins with Sita being ritually accepted into the house, newly married to Jatin. As she learns the role she is supposed to play in the family, she tries to be the “good Indian wife” by waiting up for Jatin to come home before she eats, fasting for his long life, and so forth. However, Sita has a spirit that cannot be contained. She soon realizes that Jatin is never going to be the husband she had envisioned. Over time, she begins to develop feelings for her sister-in-law, Radha. When the two women go shopping for the daily groceries, they bond over sayings passed down to them by their mothers.
Radha: My
mother used to say that the way to a man’s heart is through his stomach. Apparently it’s a great English
saying.
Sita: My
mother says that a woman without a husband is like boiled rice, bland,
unappetizing, useless. This must
be an Indian saying.”
Radha: (looking quietly pensive) I like plain, boiled rice. (Fire, 1996).
This is the first indication that Radha is beginning to define herself outside of her relationship with Ashok. She frequently escapes to the terrace to breathe freely, and to be on her own, away from Ashok. Sita often joins her there, escaping the cold bed her marriage has come to represent. The first time and only time that Jatin has sex with Sita, it is cold and clinical, with him rolling off and falling asleep after informing her that she should not be scared if there was a little blood. She is left cleaning the blood off the sheets as Jatin sleeps. In one poignant scene, Radha and Sita, sitting on the terrace, watch a jubilant marriage procession go by in the streets below. Their silence is a stark contrast to the hopefulness in the music and dancing of the baraat (procession members).
As Sita begins to fall in love with Radha, she takes the initiative in moving the relationship from a platonic relationship to a sexual one, by kissing Radha on the mouth. Radha is surprised at first, but Sita’s kiss awakens a long-repressed desire in Radha. As the tension builds between them, the two women begin to enjoy their secret and continue to take care of each other.
On the night of Karva Chauth, the day of the year when all Hindu wives fast and pray for the long lives of their husbands, Jatin and Ashok are conspicuous by their absence. Radha takes her first concrete step away from tradition when she gives Sita water before Sita has received Jatin’s blessings, because she knows that Sita will remain thirsty if she has to wait for him. Sita goes to Radha’s room that night, and the two women make love with each other for the first time. Later, when Sita asks Radha if they did anything wrong, she quietly answers, “No.” In her one word answer, Radha tells us that she is no longer judging her life by traditional ideas.
Mehta, the director of the film, comments in an interview:
“The women’s relationship
represents modern
As the film unfolds, Radha and Sita continue to delight in each other, while Ashok and Jatin remain totally unaware of what is going on between them. The two women take advantage of the many different opportunities women have in Indian society to spend time together. They dance together with Sita in drag, play childhood games (buch)with each other and go to the holy shrine of Nizammuddin to pray. At the shrine, we realize that their relationship can no longer be contained within their prescribed roles in the family. Sita makes a wish:
Sita: I
wish we could be together forever. I’m
serious. Let’s leave! See, Jatin has Julie, Ashok bhaiya has
Swamiji and Biji has Mundu. They won’t
even miss us.
Radha: And how will we survive?
Sita: We’ll start our own take-out, of course. (Fire, 1996).
Just at that moment, a devotional qawaali (song) begins at the shrine. The song is about the love the singer has for Allah. The song’s words are, “You are in me and I am in you”, and it reflects just how much a part of each other’s lives Radha and Sita have become. However their actions have not gone unnoticed by Biji. Or for that matter, Mundu, who watching them dance earlier, shakes his head and comments, “Too much electricity.”
Things come to a head when Radha walks in on Mundu masturbating to an adult film one day. She is disgusted and shocked at what he has been doing in front of Biji. She beats him and wants to throw him out of the house. However, Mundu threatens her, saying that it would not be good for the family name if news about the “hanky-panky” between her and “Sita madam” got out. She ignores his threat of blackmail, and wants to fire him, but Ashok decides to give him another chance. Ashok takes Mundu and Jatin (his secret business of renting adult films has been exposed by Mundu) to Swamiji for a lecture in an attempt to rehabilitate them. Mundu begs forgiveness, and it appears as if everything has returned to normal. Ashok declares that it is human to err, but that one must forgive all such mistakes with compassion.
Inspired by Swamiji’s preaching about clean starts, Jatin tries to come clean with Sita. He talks to her about Julie, saying that he is never going to give her up. He goes on to say that Sita has the choice of getting divorced, (although he’s heard that “Life can be hell for a divorced woman”), or continue with things as they are. He tells her it is her choice and asks her what she thinks. He then offers her the option of having a baby, as that would keep her occupied. Sita is sitting on the bed, listening to his self-absorbed monologue and when he asks her what she thinks again, she replies, “I think you’re a pompous fool! You heard me. F-o-o-l” (Fire, 1996). Jatin slaps her. And she slaps him back (an act of defiance most traditional Indian women would not dream of doing). However, he attempts to co-opt and patronize her action by commenting on his surprise that his demure little wife would turn out to be a firecracker, adding that he likes his women to have spirit. He forcibly kisses her and leaves. Later, when Radha and Sita are on the terrace, hanging clothes out on a line, Radha sees the bruise from Sita’s exchange with Jatin and asks if it hurts. Sita replies, “I’m treated like a household pet. And I take it. That’s what hurts.” Radha takes Sita into her arms to comfort her, unable to do much else.
One night, Radha tells Sita about her inability to have children. When Sita asks her what that has to do with love, she reveals the story of her marriage when she replies:
Radha: According to Ashok, everything. “Desire distracts from the path to God. Desire is the root cause of all evil.” Swamiji says that the only reason to have a sexual relationship is to have sons that will carry on the family name. And so one night, many years ago Ashok found a way of turning our misfortune into an opportunity. He took a vow of celibacy. Whenever he felt any desire for me, he wanted me to lie next to him. He said, “I won’t even touch you. I promise. I only want to make certain that I am beyond temptation, and therefore, closer to God.” And when I said yes, his face glowed with such hope that I... that I chose not to see the confusion beneath the surface. He looked like a child. And in that instant, just for a moment, I knew what it felt like to be a mother. (Fire, 1996).
Radha tells Sita that they have lived like a brother and sister for 13 years. When Sita asks why she went along with it, she replies that the doctor told her, “No eggs in ovaries, madam.” And adds, “A need for self-worth. A bit of both, I guess.” (Fire, 1996). Sita who is obviously hurting for her, holds her close and declares that they are not going to stay in the house any longer.
However, before the two women have a chance to take any concrete action, the events in the film begin to gather momentum and take a course out of their control. Mundu who is watching Radha and Sita together through the peephole, decides to tell Ashok about them. He goes to the ashram where Ashok is and brings him home. Ashok asks Mundu to leave the house for what he has done, and then goes up to the room to see for himself. Ashok walks in on Radha and Sita making love. There is a long silence as none of them speak. He then leaves the room.
As Radha and Sita get dressed, Sita says that they are leaving right away, and comments that she is glad that Ashok found them. The following conversation sets up the rest of the film:
Radha: It really doesn’t matter now, does it? I only wish it hadn’t happened by
accident. I wanted to tell him.
Sita: What would you have said? “Goodbye Ashok, I’m leaving you for Sita. I love her, but not like a sister-in-law.” Now listen Radha. There’s no word in our language that can describe what we are, how we feel for each other.
Radha: Perhaps you’re right. Seeing is less complicated. (Fire, 1996).
Radha asks Sita to leave right away, saying that she will join her as soon as she can. Sita does not want to leave without Radha, and reminds her that she does not owe Ashok anything. But Radha says that she cannot leave without talking to Ashok. She is resolute, “I need to tell him that my leaving has everything to do with me” (Fire, 1996). She pleads with Sita to go ahead without her, saying that she will follow, “Knowing that you’re out there, waiting for me... it’ll help me to finally leave. Please” (Fire, 1996).
So Sita packs her bags, and leaves in the pouring rain, telling Radha that she will be waiting for her at the Nizammuddin shrine. Biji calls for Radha with her bell and then spits on her face to show her utter contempt for what Radha has done. Ashok however, discovers that he has an erection just thinking about Radha and Sita together. He comes to Radha and asks her to come and lie with him in order to test him.
Radha tells him that she is done with all of that and that she is leaving. Ashok tries to remind her that, “Desire brings ruin.” However, Radha questions him for the first time in their many years of marriage together,
Brings ruin. Does it, Ashok ? You know that without desire, I was dead. Without desire there’s no point in living. You know what else? I desire to live. I desire Sita. I desire her warmth, her compassion, her body. I desire to live again. If you want to control desire, ask for Swamiji’s help, not mine (Fire, 1996).
Ashok slaps her and calls her a prostitute. He cannot believe the woman she has become. He thinks that she should be begging his forgiveness, instead she is challenging him. He forcibly kisses her, saying, “You want passion?” In the struggle and in his final pushing her away, Radha’s saree catches fire on the stove behind her. Ashok watches her battle the flames, but does not move to help her. He then picks up Biji and carries her downstairs, abandoning Radha to her fate in the flames. As we watch Radha being surrounded by flames, we are reminded of the myth (enacted earlier in the film) of the Goddess Sita who had to go through a trial by fire to prove her purity.
In the next shot, Sita is waiting in the rain at the shrine. The shrine is isolated, but bathed in gold as the lights reflect the falling raindrops. It is the place where Sita had prayed that they would be together forever, and she waits for Radha there, not knowing if they will be united again. Radha comes to her, clothes all torn and dishevelled. She, like the Goddess Sita, has come out of the flames alive and pure. Sita goes to her and takes her in her arms, finally getting the answer to her prayers. As the camera pulls out, we leave them in an embrace in the midst of the shrine. They have chosen each other, but in doing so, have stepped out of all tradition and conventional society. This ending is ambiguous, albeit hopeful, for we do not know what might lie ahead of the two lovers who have found liberation in each other.
In Fire¸ Deepa Mehta has woven together Indian traditions and many of the most powerful myths in Hindu mythology (the myth of Sita is one of the pivotal stories in the Hindu epic, Ramayana). However, the true strength of the film comes from her ability to take the old and the familiar and interpret it in new and empowering ways.
THE MYTHS OF Fire
There are several myths that are reworked within the film. Mehta uses these myths as the backdrop of her film, but does so by reinterpreting them in ways that might be considered almost sacrilegious. The official webpage for Fire emphasizes the film’s intent of re-envisioning the myth of Sita:
“An intense, moving and sensuous
portrait of change in contemporary
Fire
focuses on several generations of a modern day
re-working of a story from the classic Hindu Ramayana, Fire recounts the
family's struggle to cope with the pressures of greater individual and personal
freedom while maintaining allegiance to traditional values.” (Fire, official webpage,1997).
This is an extremely important undertaking. As Nancy Theriot argues, the struggle over meaning is a political one and it is through meaning that we construct reality, “The point is: the meaning-struggle does not simply reflect reality, it creates reality. Furthermore, the reality that is created is not simply a legal fiction, it is also an experience” (Theriot, 1995, p.8). Therefore, Mehta’s attempts to re-work myths provides an extremely empowering vision for Indian women and their reality. In order to better understand how these myths have been reconceptualized within the film, it is necessary to examine the different myths individually.
The Myth of Sita
The
Goddess Sita was the wife of Rama. She accompanied him on his fourteen year
exile in the forest. During their time in the forest, the demon king, Ravana, abducted Sita to his island
The myth is first mentioned by Mundu who relates the story in one of his explanations about why Biji and he are so “emotional” after supposedly watching the Ramayana. This myth is also enacted in the film through a Ramleela (performance of the Ramayana) that Swamiji and Ashok are attending. It provides the set up for the final scenes of the film wherein Radha has to undergo a similar trial by fire. Fire is considered sacred in the Hindu tradition. Fueled by the myth of the Goddess Sita, fire is also considered the ultimate test of purity in Hindu mythology. Mehta transforms this myth, which has traditionally been used against Indian women to instill fear about their purity and honor. The cultural implications of this myth for many Indian women is that no matter how pure they might be, even the slightest speculation about their honor is enough to banish them from society. Therefore, the myth of the Goddess Sita has often been used to define the role of women in Indian society in extremely narrow terms, with no space for expressive freedom or individual independence.
However, in the film, the two women defy society’s ideas about how they should be living their lives. Although Radha starts out in the mold of the Goddess Sita, by being the dutiful and traditional housewife, she comes into her own by the end of the film. Not only does Radha go through a trial by fire that is very similar to the Goddess Sita’s ordeal, but she emerges triumphant and pure. Therefore, the fire is used to sanction the union of the two women. Radha’s victorious emergence from the flames that can discern pure from impure works to place the two women in a space of righteous morality even as they reject society’s ideas about morality and forge their own path together. This myth which underlies the entire film is used to sanction their choices.
The Myth of Radha:
In
Hindu mythology, Radha was the consort of the God Krishna. Although Radha was married to another
cowherder, she was
The mythological Radha is embodied in the character of Sita in the film. She is the one who acts on her desires, and takes the initiative with the character of Radha in the film. Although she is married to Jatin, she is in effect, Radha’s constant companion. Mehta has interchanged the names of her two main characters with the mythological figures they represent. It is the character of Radha who embodies the Goddess Sita while the character Sita is the one who embodies the mythical Radha. Mehta is making a very important statement by inter-changing the names of the two women. Mehta intimates that the two characters are different parts of a united whole. Both the characters, Radha (the pure) and Sita (the desirous) are one dimensional, split-reactions to a suffocating tradition. However, by bringing them together, Mehta allows for fluidity between different and multiple possibilities. The pure and the desirous are no longer separate or incompatible. They are two aspects of one. This interpretation questions the original myths.
The Myth of Karva Chauth
Karva Chauth is the day when Hindu women fast for the long life of their husbands. The story behind this day is retold by Radha in the film in a surreal re-enactment. It is the story of a prince who is very handsome and proud. For this, he is cursed with a million needles that prick him all over his body. His faithful wife, the queen, spends one year painstakingly taking out each needle from his body. Finally, there are only two left, one on each eyelid. Just then, her maid servant comes and tells her that a holy man has come to meet her. The queen goes to pay her respects to the holy man, telling the maid servant to continue the job. When the maid servant takes out the final needles from his eyes, the king awakens and mistakenly thinks it is the maid servant who has faithfully been serving him the whole year. He makes her his queen and demotes the queen to the status of a maid. The holy man who has watched the entire exchange tells the queen to fast all day without food or water until the moon rises in order to break the spell the king is under. So the queen fasts, and at the end of the fast, the king realizes the error he has made and demotes the maid servant back to her original status and takes the queen into his arms and reinstates her to the throne. The story is visualized by Mundu, who sees himself as the king, Radha as the queen, Sita as the maid, Ashok as the holy man and Jatin as a servant diligently fanning the king. This scene places the entire myth in a comedic light. Radha ends the story by commenting:
Radha: So now you know why we fast? To prove how loyal and devoted we are to our husbands.
Sita: What a wimp! I mean the queen. And as for the king, I think he’s a real jerk
(Biji rings the bell furiously at this apparent lack of respect from Sita).
What do you think? (Sita asks Radha, ignoring Biji’s bell).
Radha: I don’t know. She didn’t have many choices. (She looks at Sita quietly).
Sita: I’m so sick of all this devotion. We can find choices. (Fire, 1996).
Mehta uses Sita’s character effectively to comment on age-old Indian myths that are oppressive to women. By doing so and in her insistence that we can find other choices, she expands the dialogue, breaking out of the conventional myths and traditions.
The reinterpretation of myth to empower women is a very powerful device in Fire. It is the equivalent of the feminist movement in the West reclaiming words that have traditionally been used against women. Or the feminist practice of reclaiming the stories of women’s lives. Mary Daly, a radical feminist, defined a strategy that she believes can free women from oppressive language. She said that “redefinition” is recognizing the “deceptive perceptions [that] were/are implanted through language - the all-pervasive language of myth” (Daly, 1978, p.3). Daly believed that redefinition could free women from linguistic myths and help to empower them. In the same way, Fire allows Indian women to re-envision different possibilities by providing alternative readings to some of the most powerful myths that are part of the Indian psyche. Furthermore, by providing alternative readings to different myths, the film challenges the idea that there is only one way to read these myths, thereby rejecting the Cartesian ideal of One Truth. This Cartesian myth is one of the primary building blocks of patriarchy, and the film, Fire, highlights one possible strategy of deconstructing the myth.
TRADITIONS IN Fire
Similar to the reinterpretation of myths in Fire, the film also provides audiences with new interpretations of old traditions. The film deconstructs various Indian customs and rearticulates them in an empowering light for the benefit of Indian women. Fire highlights the spaces of intimacy between women that already exist within many Indian traditions. It celebrates the connection and bonding between women, making it sacred. Some examples from the film are detailed below.
It is an old Indian custom for women to oil each other’s hair. This tradition allows for the creation of a woman-only space. It is often a time when different teachings about being a woman (especially about the importance of hair in a woman’s beauty) are passed down from woman to woman. The ritual provides a space in which women are allowed to touch each other freely. The film demonstrates the erotic nature of the custom. When Sita asks Radha to put oil in her hair, both women are extremely aware of the sensuousness of the act as Radha lovingly caresses Sita’s hair.
Another tradition that the film reworks is that of dancing with partners of the same sex. This practice has been very common on the Indian stage and came into being because physical contact between members of the opposite sex was not allowed. It is common in Indian households for the same reasons. The activity is re-enacted in the film when Radha and Sita dance together with Sita in drag (she is wearing Jatin’s suit, a baseball cap and is playing the part of the “boy” in the sequence). Once again, this is not uncommon. What is uncommon is the acknowledgement of the “too much electricity” (Fire, 1996) between the women. The film provides a different reading for what has traditionally been portrayed as a non-sexual space between women, transforming it into one that is alight with sexual energy.
Yet another custom that the film re-interprets is that of wearing bangles. The exchange of bangles, of dressing each other is constantly enacted by young girls and women who are considered to be platonic friends within the culture. However, by having Radha and Sita exchange bangles the day after they first make love, Mehta uses the exchange to invoke other traditions. The two women look at each other intently, smiling lovingly. The act of putting bangles on each other’s hands is clearly reminiscent of the exchange of marriage garlands (which are equivalent to the ring ceremony in Christian weddings).
At different points in the film, we see Radha and Sita cooking in the family take-out store. This everyday scene often becomes imbued with sensual energy as they claim the space as their own and the two exchange intimacies from bangles to myths about the effects of certain spices on sexual prowess. Their ability to enact such exchanges in public might seem extremely daring in a Western context which acknowledges (albeit as Other) the existence of homosexuality. However, in an Indian context, that completely silences the possibility of homosexuality, their interaction is given the cloak of innocence, even as the film strives to give that reality a voice.
In yet another scene that uses Indian customs to release the sexual energy between the women, Sita offers to massage Radha’s feet on the family picnic. Massaging your elders’ feet is a very old tradition of respect. However, the tradition is reinterpreted as Sita touches Radha in sensual ways in the presence of Ashok and Jatin. The two women exchange ladden, sensual looks while Ashok remains unaware of about what is going on with his “good family”. By highlighting the erotic nature of the tradition, Mehta provides us with a new reading.
Even the girlhood game of buch (a version of hopscotch) is sexualized when Radha and Sita are playing together. Radha kneels down to pick the buch up and notices a drop of sweat on Sita’s leg. In an extremely sensual moment, she picks up the drop with her finger and then tastes it. Sita kneels down and they kiss. This provides a completely new spin on an old game. In an interview, Deepa Mehta comments on the scene:
“Fire is really about sensuality. For me, what you don’t see is far more erotic than what you see. I love eroticism, but it has to be subtle. In the scene where Radha takes a bead of sweat off Sita’s leg and tastes it - that’s extremely erotic for me. Both of them have their clothes on.” - (Sidwa, 1997, p.79).
One of the
greatest strengths of the film is that while it challenges and re-envisions
Indian traditions, Radha and Sita continue to exist and act within an Indian
context. They do not turn toward the
West as a source or model for their liberalization. They define it in their own terms. For example, their day off is not spent
going to the movies, or engaging with any other modern notions of fun. Instead, they go to visit the
Nizammuddin shrine. At the shrine, they
engage in a very traditional act, tying a prayer thread with a wish that they
could be together forever. Once again, in this scene, we see them
re-inventing a tradition in their own unique way. Their visit to this traditional and holy
place, situates them in a long tradition of images of heterosexual couples
praying to be together forever, at that shrine.
The cumulative effect of these new interpretations of the spaces that women create together in Indian society is to highlight intimate spaces and connections that already exist between women and to rearticulate them in empowering ways. It also serves to sexualize a space that is often sensual in nature, but is never acknowledged as such by the culture. There are many opportunities within traditional Indian customs for women to bond with each other, to be together and to interact with each other in ways that might be read as homoerotic. In fact, Mehta says that it was this very bonding that provided some of the inspiration for the film. In an interview with Bowen, Mehta explains that the story, “is not autobiographical, but it is based on what I knew of my mother’s life, being brought into a joint household after an arranged marriage. I knew that she had bonded with the other women and I wondered what would happen for women in the ‘90s.” (Bowen, 1996). Therefore, although Indian women are allowed the space, to be with each other in very intimate and caring ways, the culture imposes severe taboos against enacting same-sex love. By making these spaces explicitly sexual, Mehta pushes the issue in her film and opens up a flood of possibilities for reading many taken-for-granted customs and spaces.
Perhaps the greatest break with tradition in Fire is the very premise of the film. Mehta’s story questions centuries of Indian philosophy which teaches that, “Desire is the root of all evil”. Ashok’s vow of celibacy and approach to life embody the traditional, accepted notion that desire must be removed from one’s life. Indeed, his practice of celibacy is modeled after Mahatma Gandhi’s own writing and practice on the subject. Through the love between the two women, Fire defies the entire premise. As Radha finally declares, “Without desire, there’s no point in living” (Fire, 1996).
THE USE OF SPACE, TIME & LIGHT IN Fire
Fire uses the elements of space, light and time effectively to reinforce different interpretations of the myths, or to create ambiguity. A large portion of the film is shot in the house that the family inhabits which is lit in subdued tones. The visual spaces in the film are constantly enclosed or framed to reflect the claustrophobia of the women’s lives. However, as the love the two women share opens up, so do the visuals in the film. We see them on the terrace at various times, in the park, at the shrine and in the market. It is the open terrace space which becomes the women’s exclusive territory. That is where they go to breathe outside the air of oppression in their marriages. That is where they begin to first bond with each other, over household chores and late night wanderings. They go to the terrace to be alone together. The terrace becomes the physical manifestation of the intimate space they create together. However, Mehta disrupts the need for a physical space through the exchange between Radha’s and Sita’s eyes. Their eyes seem to create a space all their own, a place no one else can enter. A space that only they can retreat to and find solace in. They thus begin to embody each other’s freedom.
Mehta comments on
the visuals in the film, “I wrote it exactly the way I wanted to shoot it,
whether it was the transitions, or the use of mosquito nets for a gauzy effect,
or the colors. It’s all there in the
script. I knew the color palette I
wanted from the minute I started writing it.
I knew it was going to be orange, white and green, the colors of the
Indian flag.” (Gerstel, 1996)
Thus, Mehta uses
the visuals to support the point that the actual contested space in the film is
modern
In addition to the flashback technique, light is also used to disrupt time and create ambiguity in the film in certain key scenes. The time of day is often unclear in the film. For example, the scene following their first time love making seems bright enough to indicate morning. However, when Sita leaves Radha’s room, it becomes obvious that it is still dark outside. This effect is created through the use of day-for-night or night-for-day lighting.
The use of different visuals, and
the disruption of time, space and light are effective devices in creating
ambiguity as they disrupt the known, and therefore bring forth different
possibilities.
THE JUXTAPOSITIONING OF THE OLD AND THE NEW
Fire is a film that juxtaposes the
modern and the old. Many monuments (the
Taj Mahal, Nizamuddin’s Shrine, and Humayun’s Tomb) that carry strong
traditional value appear at key points in the film: the beginning is set at the
Taj Mahal, the first time the two women interact in a sensual way in public is
at Humayun’s Tomb, and it is at Nizamuddin’s Shrine that they make a wish to be
together and finally are together.
Juxtaposing the characters against these ancient monuments visually
emphasizes the tension between the old, traditional
Fire’s MULTIPLE
POSSIBILITIES
Fire’s strength lies in its ability to challenge traditional dualistic thinking that dictates only one, narrowly-defined path for all women. The film imagines different possibilities for women. Gender lines are deliberately blurred through different instances of cross dressing in the film. Sita first comes to the house and wears Jatin’s trousers. Radha and Sita dance together, with Sita as the man. The Ramayana is enacted on stage with the mythological character of Sita played by a man. Sita makes an obvious comment on the subject when Jatin tries to set up an either/or situation for her with the “stay married” or “get divorced” idea. Sita calls Jatin a “pompous fool” for his inability to see beyond himself or his dualistic thinking. Finally, Radha and Sita’s act of loving each other challenges traditional either/or thinking i.e. that men are the only choice that women have.
THE LIBERATION OF Fire
In conclusion, Fire is a film about liberation for Indian women. It achieves this liberation through the portrayal of strong women characters who break away from their prescribed roles to forge a new path that they define for themselves. It reworks many myths and Indian customs in order to envision new, alternative meanings for the spaces of connection created by women. Fire uses the different elements of space and time to create ambiguities within which unconventional interpretations may emerge. Finally, it juxtaposes the old and the new in an attempt to open the door to multiple readings and possibilities. It is an exhilarating film that thrills with the quiet revolution of the desires it is portraying. Deepa Mehta sums it up in an interview, when she says:
“I think the film’s had an incredible impact on young people of all communities, because they are fighting something also. It might not be traditional values, but some bias or injustice. Everybody has this tug-of-war to express what they want, and basically Fire is a film about desire. You have to ask yourself, ‘What do I want?’ We’ve all been taught to go for what we need. I say it’s more important to go for what you want” (Sidwa, 1997, p.79).
REFERENCES
Berardinelli, James (1996). “Fire. A Film Review”. Http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/
moview/f/fire.html. Accessed 11/7/97, 4:32 p.m. MST.
Bowen, Peter (1996). “Spontaneous Combustion”. Http://sundancechannel.com/toronto/ s92.html. Accessed 11/7/97, 3:48 p.m. MST.
Britannica. (1997). Http://www.eb.com/cgi-bin/g?keywords=sita. Accessed 11/7/97, 4:15 p.m. MST.
Britannica. (1997).
Http://www.eb.com/cgi-bin/g?keywords=radha. Accessed 11/7/97, 4:20 p.m. MST.
Daly, M.
(1978). Gyn/Ecology: The metaethics
of radical feminism.
Fire.
(1996). Trial by Fire Films. Written and
Directed by Deepa Mehta. Produced by Bobby
Bedi and Deepa Mehta.
Fire. Official Webpage (1997). Http://www.bradson.com/fire/plot.html. Accessed on 11/5/97, 2:20 p.m. MST.
Gerstel, Judy (1996). “FilmFest ’96. Canadians Kick it Off”. Http://www.thestar.com/
editorial/filmfest/960906D01a_MO-MEHTA06.html. September 6, 1996. Accessed on 11/5/97, 2:33 p.m. MST.
Randoja, Ingrid (1996). “Deepa Mehta. Heat rises as resilient director sets Fire to film fest’s Canadian slate.” In NOW On. 16 (1). (Sept 5-11, 1996). Http://www.now.com/issues/ 16/01/Ent/cover.html. Accessed on 11/5/97, 2:09 p.m. MST.
Sidhwa, Bapsi (1997). “Playing with Fire”. Ms. Vol 8, No. 3. (November/December 1997). Pp.76-79.
Theriot, N. (1990). “The Politics of ‘Meaning-Making’; Feminist
Hermeneutics, Language, and Culture.” In
Raymond, D. (Ed.) (1990). Sexual
Politics and Popular Culture.