Smoke Signals: Visibility Politics in Deepa Mehta's Fire and the films of Monica Enriquez-Enriquez

Gayatri Gopinth’s essay, “The Transnational Trajectories of Deepa Mehta’s Fire”, proposes that Mehta’s movie, Fire, issues a challenge of Euro-American visibility politics for its complicity in colonialism and racist visualities. In reviewing the film, I believe that it does, indeed, offer up alternatives to the traditional narrative of visibility required in Euro-American societies; a mandatory, teleological “coming out” narrative which generally begins within the private (re: domestic) sphere, and gradually works its way into the public arena, resulting in a visible, often sexual, subjectivity labeled “gay” or “lesbian”. The question of who becomes “visible” is directly related those in power that establish and/or define what constitutes “visibility” in a particular society; as such, the politics of visibility carry the weight of racist, colonialist societies into this definition- just as they do into any political decision they make, law they pass, or custom they design and enforce. The obvious danger in such a situation is the very real chance that, unless you practice the carefully delineated role/narrative/identity recognized as “visible” in a particular society, you run the risk of becoming altogether invisible- a sort of non-entity in the eyes of either the law, society- or both.

In Fire, there is evidence of a challenge to such a required narrative. Although the relationship between Radha and Sita does begin in the domestic sphere, this is due to the centrality of that sphere to their lives as women in a joint household in New Delhi, as opposed to following the traditional, required narrative. What Euro-American visibility politics would take as an extremely oppressive existence that renders the women nearly invisible to the outside world, however, the women utilize to their advantage. This shielded existence provides the women more opportunities to explore their growing feelings for each other, and to bond and enjoy the physical and emotional closeness this traditionally homosocial space affords them away from questions, accusations, and (most) prying eyes. Traditions that are viewed with scorn by some of the film’s more “modern” characters (such as Sita’s husband) become a safe haven for a developing, but officially nonexistent, love; when it eventually becomes “known”, and the women are caught in the act of lovemaking, Sita herself acknowledges their predicament: “It is better this way- to see. There is no word to describe [what we are]…seeing is less complicated.” With this statement (and Radha’s agreement), the women acknowledge their relationship’s “in”-visibility to the outside world, and the system which leads to it being so.

The same type of systemic denial of visibility is at work in the art of Monica Enriquez-Enriquez, who documents the stories of immigrants in the United States for what she terms “community art”. What is interesting about Monica’s work is the fact that most of the interviews she conducts for her films - if not all- are with immigrants either in the country “illegally”, or with those who are awaiting asylum. As such, they are “undocumented”, and thus do not exist as “citizens”. The same troubling issues apply to these bodies as those discussed above- including, but not limited to, questions of who has the authority to declare a human being “visible” vis-à-vis citizenship and/or other societal recognition. Often, this recognition is the difference between being able to live (via work papers, the right to occupy public spaces, and public benefits like healthcare and food stamps, to name a few) and trying to merely survive in a society that is not necessarily very nice to people who don’t “follow the rules”. In postcolonial societies- such as India and the United States- this visibility often has a lot to do with who your parents were, and what you look like. The more you resemble an “appropriate” citizen (usually, this means resembling those in charge), and follow their “narratives”, the more chance you have at becoming visible.

What Monica and Mehta both illustrate is that these narratives are inherently classed, raced, gendered, and are known only to very particular “national/cultural” groups, as well. In Asilo Queer, Monica is shown naked, faceless, with words written all over her body. While the words are in English- the language she must make her asylum appeal in- her narration is a seamless mix of her native Spanish and the newly acquired- and required- English. She references the impossibility of “translating herself”, and the continued demands of her newfound “home” that she do so in order to become visible as a citizen. This is a particularly common, and difficult, portion of the asylum process for those fleeing persecution due to their “sexual orientation”, and Monica’s work captures many such stories. These men and women, fleeing one culture to take shelter in another, find themselves faced with the same conundrum as the women of Fire: If they do not follow the narratives proscribed by an alien culture and judicial system, they will not be officially “visible” to that system. Since the expected narrative that leads to visibility is merely one possible narrative among many, and representative of one particular society’s idea of what constitutes said visibility, what happens to the Radhas, the Sitas and the Monicas of this world, who come from cultures in which such narratives simply don’t exist? It is work like Mehta’s and Monica’s that addresses the violences that are the result of just such situations- and the subversive potential that lies within them, as well.

I included the below montage of Mehta’s “Elements” trilogy from YouTube, as I found it interesting how these three films, and their characters, were interpreted and made visible for worldwide viewers who may or may not have seen the films. It is interesting, to me, to consider the reading we did- and the international uproar over the films- in light of the possible ways people are exposed to the films themselves.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZATO-5WMklo&feature=related (Mehta trilogy montage)