The first consideration is that “the formation of sexual subjectivity within transnational flows of culture, capital, bodies, desire and labor”. (150) The first consideration presents the importance of “flow”, as transnational contexts. The mobility can easily be exemplified in “Fire”. The production, consumption and distribution of the film mark the mobility that enables the movie to speak to different audience from particular social constructions. Made by an Indian Canadian, the movie captures Indian society through the eyes of a diasporic Indian. It is because of the production that the movie “flows”, since various discourses are speaking within the move. It is not a cultural shock like the one presented in “Persepolis” where the character leaves the country to be an immigrant. The negotiation of identity is a self-exploration, but the fact that the director is an immigrant, using a Canadian production engage in another level of negotiation. Radha and Sita display mobile identities, and since they are not part of the hegemonic and heternormative discourse presented in the Indian society, they are too flowing into a discourse that embraces self-identification and desire as a valid form of living.
One of the main movie critiques, as Gayatri Gopinath explains, is that“ Fire interrogates the teleological Euro-American narrative according to which lesbian sexuality must emerge from a private, domestic sphere into a public, visible subjectivity.” (155) The film is westernized in the sense that it does engage and repeat the discursive construct that calls upon disclosure one’s personal identification to be considered authentic. In the end, the narrative has contact points of the western and occidental ideals, since the movie to seems to be negotiation the director identity as an Indian Canadian.
The second consideration about queer diasporic positionality is that it “contents the logic that situates the term “queer” and “diaspora” as dependent on originality and authenticity of “heterosexuality” and “nation”” (150). The problem is that the dichotomies presented in fire are not necessarily constructed around the queer/heterosexual and the national/diasporic bodies. Even though, there are certain teleological grand narratives regarding the construction of gender and nation in Indian culture. For instance, Sita’s husband says that it is difficult for him to be reconcile what he wants and what he is expected to be. This phrase is present in the film, since most of the characters are in a personal struggle between tradition and self-identification. Radha’s husband is also carrying the burden of a religious discourse that identifies desire with perdition.
National discourse confronts personal desires, leaving no space for self-identification. The national discourse constructs images that citizens are supposed to follow. Heteronormative laws are reinforced with religious teachings. For instance, the Ramadan passage of Sita having to undergo the Proof of Fire in order to validate her discourse about purity reinforces gender constructions. The following images the Trial by fire of Sita:
It is interesting to notice the parallelism of the religious message and the ending (and title) of the film. Radha passed the proof of fire and survived intact since she is purely devoted to Sita.
The last consideration is disorganization of dominant categories, thus marking a different economy of desire. (150) This disorganization of dominant categories can seem to be a threat to the national discourse that reinforces heternormativity. Radha and Sita can not find a space or a word that describe the feelings they have for each other. With no words, it would seem that signification is inaccessible, but they refer to the feelings for each other as a proof. They, then, construct a new identity inaccessible to language but not to self-identification. The difference with the national discourse around Sita’s trial by fire is that Rama sends her to exile after she passed the test, and Radha and Sita are together after the first one survived the fire. Religious discourse disorganizes and by doing so, opens new possibilities of identity. Because of the flow of transnational discourse, “Fire” can connect and can be related to queer diasporic positionality.
You have a strong grasp on queer diaspora and its relation to Fire. I enjoyed what you had to say about authenticity and personal experience. The film has a westernized perspective in that this is a personal experience coming from within a domestic household as you also said. I also liked your description of the patterns and importance of fire throughout the film. It is interesting that Sita usually wears firey colored clothing and there is importance placed on the fire dance in the theatrical performance at the religious meeting.
ReplyDelete