In the film ‘Fire” by Deepah Menta, there are recurring themes such as queer diaspora and queer inauthenticity that are mentioned and analyzed with various film elements and techniques throughout the entirety of the film. In the article, “Local Sites/Global Contexts: The Transnational Trajectories of Deepa Mehta’s Fire,” by Gayatri Gopinath, she analyses queer desire, diaspora and inauthenticity in the film. She has a very important term that is thoroughly used throughout the article that makes the film a bit more clear to understand. Queer diasporic positionality, her main point, refers to the three ways it functions in the film: first, analyzes sexual subjectivity in terms of culture, capital, bodies, desire and labor, second, the word queer completely denounces any dependence on heteronormative words, and third, it opens up a broad spectrum of sexuality and gender based on sexuality and pushes past categories in the US (Gopinath 150). The film is further analyzed in these very up front topics that break down the irony of the film.
Throughout the film there is a very intense blockade through which heteronormativity has tunnel vision about what is queer and what is “God’s way” and how they both can’t correlate with one another. There are many times in which the older man in the film talks about God’s way and how desire can take you places that you'd rather not go. And there is a particular time in which Ratha speaks up about how she believes she is being selfish in putting the family at stake for her own passion and love. The way the film portrays their discovery of sexuality and love gives way to the belief that the queer group is a diaspora kept away from society. This gives way to the notion that homosexuality is seen as unpure. Perhaps it is also the notion that homosexuality is seen as inauthentic because of its refusal to conform to the norms of heterosexuality. This relates to the first and second functions of queer diasporic positionality: desire in terms of sexual subjectivity. In this context of the film, there is a constant criticism of desire when it comes to the two women. This reminds me of a part in the movie in which Cita’s husband tells her she can go, but warns that divorced women have tough lives. He is subjecting her to a particular lifestyle because of her desire and/or option to be free.
Another very interesting attribute that the movie makes throughout the entirety of the film is a constant visual of a reflection in the many mirrors and the bright light of the windows around the house. I believe that the mirror suggests a reflection they'd rather see, or something they'd rather be that they couldn’t seem to achieve. For example, when Ratha and Cita kiss for the first time, Ratha goes into the bathroom and touches her lips in the mirror right next to a very bright window. The window, I believe, suggests a certain freedom the women don’t have. The closed windows also suggest something like a prison keeping the women in confinement. These two themes could be directly correlated with their sexual subjectivity.
Something that I also found very interesting was when the two women would be seen together out in public as very “close” friends, and nothing was said or assumed of them. This is a very close culture that deteriorates this uncomfortable feeling when people of the same-sex are very close with one another. I noticed that when the eldest man, was caressing and massaging the feet of the older man, nobody found it rare, yet it was very polite and respectful while to me it bordered on homoerotic. Many things are deemed unacceptable, yet continue to be allowed in a country in which homosexuality is deemed as something unpure and unacceptable. Who makes these rules? And a bigger question, who abides by them?
I have added a video of a film I recently watched with a similar plot to Fire. This film was called, "I Can't Think Straight."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W8igqK_QWU
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I was also intrigued by Ashok's attentiveness to Swamiji. It seemed as though, when at home, he and his brother expected their wives to take care of all of the domestic work, including caring for them and their mother; neither of them helped until Radha told Ashok to feed Biji when Mundu complained about it. It was interesting, then, to see Ashok waiting on the Swami hand and foot (literally) in nearly every frame they occupied together; the work he did for the Swami was identical to the work the women did for each other, in the case of the foot massage. It seemed to me that scenes of Ashok and the Swami were often juxtaposed with scenes of romantic love between other couples; this and his continued denial of desire make me question who that desire might actually be for...after all, it was the Swami's picture in his bedroom, which seems somewhat significant to me.
ReplyDeleteI’m interested in the trailer of the film that you watched. It does seem like a similar plot to Fire in terms of women that are not supposed to fall for each other because of their already-established engagements (whether that be to marriage or otherwise). I think this tends to be a really common narrative convention that is used, particularly for contemporary films that hope to rely on slapstick comedy. What is most intriguing, though, is how the woman about to be married is characterized as someone who has already been engaged three times before. From the trailer it seems like her queerness is not something new to her so I would be interested to see how that plays out throughout her narrative arc.
ReplyDeleteThanks for including your interesting reading of the presence of mirrors and windows in the film. That's a great point, and it's something I had not picked up on. I did notice that the women were often positioned near bright colors when spending time together, such as the scene in which the Sita and Rahda are folding the bright yellow/orange textile on the rooftop with the sun shining overhead. These symbolic references are very telling, and lead into a better understanding of the filmmakers intentions.
ReplyDeleteHmmm, I'm also really intrigued by the trailer for "I Can't Think Straight." I think I might have to check out that film! Interesting connection.
I enjoy your post a lot especially regarding the details of window and freedom/ confinement, the mirror and reflection as well as the parallel images—of foot massage, and hair oiling/ cutting. I am reminded of the relationship between space and identity; that the women looking out from the window/on the roof-top for the street/ sky/ field (memory) hint at their isolation, alienation within themselves and desire/ hope to escape, but also their conscious reflection of their act as one that is against the system they are in. This guilt and uneasiness is seldom shown in the movies we have watched other that the context of conservatism in India. The last scene in which Radha stands up against her husband, defying her right instead of begging for forgiveness, seems to suggest that instead of deciding whether it is right or wrong she/ they but turns to the system of confinement instead.
ReplyDeleteI like your attention to and commentary about the use of bright lights and mirrors throughout the house. They are an interesting element that I had not given much thought too, but they play an important role in constantly reflecting the actions inside the house. I think it is also interesting how space is constructed within the film. While the women rarely leave the house, they actually are never seen outside of the constructs of urban civilization, with the exception of the dream sequences. The house becomes not only the private domain, but in many ways the only domain that they occupy
ReplyDelete