Analysis of the film ‘Fire’ through the lens of Gender, Violence and Sexuality
The film Fire directed by Deepa Mehta, an Indo-Canadian director, was released in India in 1998. Since its release the film unfurled a whirlwind of controversy in the Indian media and among the Indian masses. It is considered as the first Indian film about Lesbianism. The reason why I wanted to review this film is that, through it, the female director tries to question the Indian social system where women enjoy very little to no rights. In my opinion,the film is relevant even till date as the issues portrayed in the film, such as domestic violence, subjugation by husbands, patriarchal control on female sexuality, etc. are some of the major issues that continue to torment Indian women today.
Fire amplifies some of the important themes throughout its running time: The emphasis on Ramayana. Throughout the film we see scenes from the Hindu epic, Ramayana, being brought to focus on different occasions by two of the eldest characters in the family ,Biji and Ashok. Biji (the bedridden mother in law) thoroughly enjoys watching religious films and Ramayana seems to be her most favorite. Ashok, the eldest son of the family too enjoys the enacted skit on Ramayana with his Swamiji (the local spiritual leader). The scene of ‘Agni-pariksha’ is repeatedly shown in the film as a way of emphasizing on the moral tests that women irrespective of their age and relationship status have to go through, to prove their chastity, innocence and loyalty.
The two protagonists in this film Radha (elder daughter in law) and Sita (younger daughter in law) seem to be burdened with family traditions, household chores and wifely duties which seem like a series of ‘Agni-parikshas’. No matter how distant, irresponsible and devoid of emotions Ram and Lakshman (Ashok and Jatin) are, Sita and Urmila (Radha and Sita) must stay true to their duties and fulfill them with utmost sincerity.
Often we have been told “Sab moh-maya hain!” as if renouncing all desires and worldly pleasures alone will help us attain nirvana. Ashok upon learning about his wife’s infertility, vowed to a life of celibacy under the guidance of Swamiji, with whom Ashok seems to spend most of his time. Being the patriarch of the family, nobody, not even his wife Radha questions him on his choices. He is rather viewed by all as a pious man on his journey to attain enlightenment. Ashok is frequently seen chanting “Desire is the root of evil” as he firmly believes restraining from desires and pleasure is the ultimate goal of humankind. He is selfish and blind to the needs of his loyal wife Radha. When Radha questions him about how his choice of practicing celibacy will benefit her, he justifies it by saying that being his wife, it is her moral duty to stick to her husband regardless of his choices. Here again, it is an indication of how procreative sex is held as the ideal form of intimacy between a husband and wife. The moral and ethical questions seem to shape even the sexual relationships of a married couple. Being a married man yet being unable to father thus calls for refraining from sexual acts even with one’s wife, as non-procreative sex is viewed to be marred by lust, desire and evil.
As the story revolves around a Delhi based middle class Hindu joint family the characters are made to act in sync with the cultural norms of the region. In the take away business both the daughter in laws are seen as the chefs and both of them are solely confined to the kitchen. The patriarch Ashok manages the cash section. Although the younger brother Jatin runs the videotape store, both the brothers share a joint bank account, predominantly a feature of the then Indian joint family. We see how being the elder brother and the head of the family Ashok once confronted Jatin about his affair with the Chinese hairdresser Julie, and advised him to end it. Although Jatin’s family upholds the joint family structure Julie refrained herself from marrying Jatin as she too would be bound by the tiring shackles of a middle-class joint family. In this family structure it is the women who are responsible for grocery shopping, feeding and taking care of the mother-in-law while the men enjoy “me-time”, one with Swamiji and another with his girlfriend, Julie.
Female Sexuality- The film tries to portray complete control of female sexuality with only limited sanctions in the heteronormative framework. Radha being the elder daughter-in-law is expected to be supportive of her husband, sacrificing her own desires and pleasure in the pursuit of her husband’s enlightenment. Sita on the other hand experiences cold treatment from her husband Jatin who cares little for his wife, but is very curious to know whether she bled for the first time when they had intercourse. All that mattered to Jatin was to consummate the marriage in a ‘no strings attached’ manner. Julie, the Chinese girlfriend is aware about the struggles and subjugation she would have to face as Jatin’s wife in a typical Hindu joint family so she plans to settle in Hongkong, as she is terrified that her overt sexuality will not be tolerated even in the heart of the Indian capital. The lack of foreplay implies how sex between a heterosexual couple is viewed solely as an act of penovaginal penetration as Jatin unleashed his urges on Sita. On the other hand while the two daughters in laws were making love, it was a much more subtle, romantic and sensual portrayal that acknowledges female orgasm, foreplay and sensations.
The younger couple Sita and Jatin had an arranged marriage and here, the need for marriage is reduced to bearing the heir. Since Julie turned down the marriage proposal, Jatin was compelled to keep his elder brother and mother happy by marrying Sita. While Sita had to accept that Jatin would not love her, she was given two options. She had to choose either to get divorced or to get pregnant so she can engage herself in the child’s upbringing. Indian women have very little freedom in choosing their partner before marriage and even after marriage their choices are driven by the interests of her husband and his family at large.
Both the protagonists get slapped by their respective husbands on minor issues. This portrays the prevalent mindset amongst men who believe they need to tighten the bolts of unruly wives. Husband resorting to slapping or wife battering is taken as an act of obedience for wives or female partners who refuse to be ruled over. Towards the end of the film when Radha’s saree caught fire Ashok seems to not care for his so called spoilt, unfaithful, unchaste wife and flees the scene with his paralyzed mother.
Class hierarchy also played a subtle role throughout this film. Mundu the male servant was once caught masturbating to pornographic videos in front of Biji, by the elder daughter in law Radha. Despite being a woman who always took the backseat in a patriarchal family set up, Radha was able to raise her voice against this wrongdoing and hit Mundu. She was able to do so because of her upper-class affiliation as compared to Mundu who was a lower-class male servant. This would have been impossible had they both belonged to the same class. In another way it marginalized the sexuality of the lower class by adding a comic humor to Mundu’s masturbation scene while there was grave seriousness during the bed scenes involving Sita-Jatin and Radha-Sita. Although Mundu was condemned for his offensive act, Jatin being the one who hoards pornographic videotapes was not questioned or condemned simply because of his class, profession and his relation to the family.
The aspects of the film “Fire” that I found relatable were the perils faced by the two women who were trapped in the vicious cycle of self-sacrifice and subjugation; the ways in which women are conditioned to follow traditions and norms without questioning them. In a scene when Radha suggested Sita to skip the Karwa Chauth fast, Sita reacted by saying that had her mother learned about it, she would kill Sita. Through this single dialogue one can guess the magnitude of conditioning that deems necessary to the upbringing of a ‘sanskari girl’. The gender indoctrination or the gendering process is designed in such a way that the choices, aspirations, interests, ideas, etc. are shaped based on gender roles. It is rightly expressed by Sita, how she feels trapped in a rigorous structure of obeying and responding to every situation that demands her attention. Sita was a more independent, free-spirited woman who knew if they eloped, they would be able to sustain themselves by creating a new take away business, while Radha on the contrary was traditional and customs bound. Hence, the two characters made a perfect duo where one’s free spirit and sense of independence empowered the other.
Although this film is globally acclaimed for its bold and unusual storytelling, I feel the lesbian relationship portrayed through the two female protagonist is colored in the shades of compulsive form of lesbianism. The heterosexual women only found solace in each other since their married life was a wreck. Here, Mehta delivers the story in a politically neutral manner not implying that homosexuality or lesbianism can be a choice for Indian women but more as a result of situation where in two women found love in each other when everyone else deprived them of love and dignity. I felt this would create a wrong impression about same sex love as people would conclude only sexually non-gratified women resort to lesbianism rather than accepting and respecting it as one’s sexual preference. Showing any one of the protagonists as lesbian who is married off for the sake of family’s honor and later found her lover in her sister in law is what I would have liked Mehta to show.
The film concludes with the two characters meeting at the Nizamuddin Dargah. Considering that the two women are Hindu, Mehta could have shown the final scene shot in a temple as I feel there is a slight tinge of ‘othering’ in this location choice. The Hindu culture allows no tolerance for social evils like homosexuality thus showing a dargah indicates just like homosexuality being an alien culture not recognized by the heteronormative, in the Hindu middle-class culture the Hindu place of worship too cannot tolerate this impermissible act.
In conclusion, the film Fire indeed led to an uproar of controversies. The protests were mostly led by a political group, which led to vandalism at movie theatres unveiling how lesbianism was a forbidden topic and people feared this film was in a way threatening the institution of marriage as homosexuality would threaten the institution of marriage and deprive the families of their legitimate heirs.Interestingly,one of the conditions laid out by these political groups to allow the screening of this film was that the Hindu names of the protagonists,i.e Radha and Sita be changed to Muslim ones. Needless, to say the film Fire did make an attempt to broaden people’s perspective and question the age-old orthodoxy.
Written by Tanisha Das under the Gender,Sexuality and Violence course rolled out by Rangeen Khidki.
Tanisha is pursuing her Master’s in Women’s Studies from Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Hyderabad. She shares profound interest in gender equality, female sexuality, body positivity and puppies. She is a social science student aspiring to be a human service professional someday.
