![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
[WQ40] Fire [2024-04-16]
Apr. 18th, 2024 01:15 pmThe multi-ticket pass functionality on Eventive did not work as advertised (it has maybe since been fixed?), but we did eventually manage to watch a film on Tuesday date night.
Though the fact that subtitles were not available was a disappointment since it was definitely hard to make out what was being said at times. We mostly just rolled with it, though sometimes we skipped back in an attempt to figure out something that felt important (and between the two of us we could usually get something).
The men are kind of jerks, and at one point Abby was like, "These women need to start hooking up" -- and then they did? It felt a bit rushed -- like they barely knew each other. But as the relationship builds, it feels more believable.
Despite the fact that parts of the Ramayana come up in the film, I totally didn't notice that the character Sita shares a name with a figure in Hindu mythology until Abby and I were reading up about the film later (India's film certification board wanted the the character's name changed). We learned that Radha is also a figure in Hindu mythology -- "the goddess of love, tenderness, compassion, and devotion" (per Wiki).
We read the Wiki about the film and had some opinions about the Reception section.
The first paragraph cited above feels like an overly-simplified misreading of the film. We were more sympathetic to the second paragraph. In going back to it to articulate my thoughts, my sympathies have maybe flipped? But I think my responses remain basically the same.
I think it could be easy for men watching this film to take away the lesson that they "should not neglect the sexual needs of their wives, lest they turn lesbian" -- but that misses so much of what's going on in the film. The core issue is that the men ignore/take for granted their wives, but still expect them to be dutiful to them.
Radha's face lights up incredibly some of the first moments when she says No to her husband or tells him to do something he always asks her to do. Having power and agency feels amazing.
Sita's husband is willing to have sex with her, but she doesn't want him to (because he has a girlfriend on the side, etc.). From the very beginning, it's clear that they have little in common and that he doesn't like her very much (and isn't interested in growing to like her).
Sex is the primary symptom of the men's treatment of their wives, but it's not the only one.
Abby noted that Radha's "I desire" list at the end includes "Sita's body" last -- and also it does include Sita's body.
(I haven't talked about the Mundu character at all -- but his relationship with Biji is another example in the film of a man caring only for what he wants, and not about a woman he has a responsibility to. Though Abby and I also talked about how none of the men are one-dimensional villains -- we get an understanding of why they're making the choices they are, in the constraints they're under -- though she also noted that they do tend to snap back to their one-dimensionality.)
Though the fact that subtitles were not available was a disappointment since it was definitely hard to make out what was being said at times. We mostly just rolled with it, though sometimes we skipped back in an attempt to figure out something that felt important (and between the two of us we could usually get something).
FireThe virtual screening pages don't have the WQ blurbs, but the blurb for this one was: "A film that caused riots and led to a Lesbian political revolution in India. Who doesn't love some forbidden romance! This throwback is an absolute classic and shows us no matter what love can conquer all."
DIRECTOR: Deepa Mehta
YEAR: 1997
RUN TIME: 104min
COUNTRY: India, Canada
LANGUAGE: English
Radha (the stunning Shabana Azmi) is unwavering in her devotion to her husband, Ashok (Kulbushan Kharbanda), despite their barren and sexless arranged marriage. For 15 years, Radha has been the consummate Indian wife, while Ashok, under the guidance of a spiritual leader, is attempting to rid himself completely of any form of desire. Meanwhile, Ashok's brother Jatin (Jaaved Jaaferi) has brought home his new wife, Sita (Nandita Das), but is unwilling to give up his relationship with his Chinese girlfriend. Added to the mix are Biji (Kushal Rekhi), Ashok and Jatin`s infirm mother, who keeps a watchful eye over the family, and Mundu (Ranjit Chowdhry), who works in the family's restaurant and video store under their small apartment. Slowly, Sita`s presence causes the threads that held the family together to unravel.
The men are kind of jerks, and at one point Abby was like, "These women need to start hooking up" -- and then they did? It felt a bit rushed -- like they barely knew each other. But as the relationship builds, it feels more believable.
Despite the fact that parts of the Ramayana come up in the film, I totally didn't notice that the character Sita shares a name with a figure in Hindu mythology until Abby and I were reading up about the film later (India's film certification board wanted the the character's name changed). We learned that Radha is also a figure in Hindu mythology -- "the goddess of love, tenderness, compassion, and devotion" (per Wiki).
We read the Wiki about the film and had some opinions about the Reception section.
Feminist critics of Mehta's films argue that Mehta's portrayal of women and gender relations is over-simplified. Noted Indian feminist authors Mary E. John and Tejaswini Niranjana wrote in 1999 that Fire reduces patriarchy to the denial and control of female sexuality. The authors make the point that the film traps itself in its own rendering of patriarchy:(Um, there isn't actually a full citation on the Wiki entry, so I wanna fix that at some point. Anyway.)Control of female sexuality is surely one of the ideological planks on which patriarchy rests. But by taking this idea literally, the film imprisons itself in the very ideology it seeks to fight, its own version of authentic reality being nothing but a mirror image of patriarchal discourse. Fire ends up arguing that the successful assertion of sexual choice is not only a necessary but also a sufficient condition—indeed, the sole criterion—for the emancipation of women. Thus the patriarchal ideology of 'control' is first reduced to pure denial – as though such control did not also involve the production and amplification of sexuality – and is later simply inverted to produce the film's own vision of women's liberation as free sexual 'choice'. (1999:582)
Whatever subversive potential Fire might have had (as a film that makes visible the 'naturalised' hegemony of heterosexuality in contemporary culture, for example) is nullified by its largely masculinist assumption that men should not neglect the sexual needs of their wives, lest they turn lesbian (1999:583).
The first paragraph cited above feels like an overly-simplified misreading of the film. We were more sympathetic to the second paragraph. In going back to it to articulate my thoughts, my sympathies have maybe flipped? But I think my responses remain basically the same.
I think it could be easy for men watching this film to take away the lesson that they "should not neglect the sexual needs of their wives, lest they turn lesbian" -- but that misses so much of what's going on in the film. The core issue is that the men ignore/take for granted their wives, but still expect them to be dutiful to them.
Radha's face lights up incredibly some of the first moments when she says No to her husband or tells him to do something he always asks her to do. Having power and agency feels amazing.
Sita's husband is willing to have sex with her, but she doesn't want him to (because he has a girlfriend on the side, etc.). From the very beginning, it's clear that they have little in common and that he doesn't like her very much (and isn't interested in growing to like her).
Sex is the primary symptom of the men's treatment of their wives, but it's not the only one.
Abby noted that Radha's "I desire" list at the end includes "Sita's body" last -- and also it does include Sita's body.
(I haven't talked about the Mundu character at all -- but his relationship with Biji is another example in the film of a man caring only for what he wants, and not about a woman he has a responsibility to. Though Abby and I also talked about how none of the men are one-dimensional villains -- we get an understanding of why they're making the choices they are, in the constraints they're under -- though she also noted that they do tend to snap back to their one-dimensionality.)
