Watch Fire For Free

Memorable, crazy movie

Good concept, poorly executed.

As Good As It Gets

As somebody who had not heard any of this before, it became a curious phenomenon to sit and watch a film and slowly have the realities begin to click into place.

Congratulations to the makers of Fire, specially Deepa Mehta and Giles Nuttgens – they have succeeded in entertaining us. Fire is a wonderful film and is a landmark in the Indian History of Cinema. 1996 is the time when we were used to watching blockbusters with not much story, Hum Aapke Hain Kaun (1994) et al. It was the time when the song 'Sexy Sexy' from Khuddar (1994) was censored to 'Baby Baby' (it sounds funny now though). It was also the time when people enjoyed family dramas or even violent drama films, Ghatak (1996) for instance. To make such a movie in India in that period was a courageous effort from the complete crew of Fire.Story is nothing new to talk of; everybody knows it – two women (Shabana Azmi and Nandita Das), ignored by husbands, come together, find solace. Cinematography by Giles Nuttgens is fabulous. There is not much space in the set of the house to move the camera around (and that is evident in the film as Mehta wanted to make the set look real) but still, Nuttgens manages to give some wonderful cinematography. Observe the movements in the beginning of the film, in the huge field and later in Taj Mahal – that itself proves his abilities. There is a dusky brown tint throughout and many sequences are shot in a single go. He has planned the movement very well.Shabana Azmi as Radha is superb in the film. She is remarkable towards the final sequences where she is confused whether she is doing the right thing or not. Her outburst with Khulbhushan Kharbanda (who plays Ashok) is the highlight of the film, which is accompanied by wonderful background music by A. R. Rahman. Khulbhushan has got nothing to do throughout except in the end and he utilizes the opportunity well. I was surprised to see Javed Jafferi as Jatin in the movie. I never knew this famous comedian-dancer has acted in this masterpiece. He proves that not only is he good at comedy and dance, but also at acting.I was a bit perplexed to see Ranjit Chowdhary as Mundu masturbating. I wondered long why Mehta has induced this into the film, why not any other mischief by him, and this is answered towards the end and becomes the root cause of Radha's confusion. Every scene in the film has some meaning, be it Jatin's humiliation by his Chinese girlfriend Julie's parents, or the continual use of the scene from Ramayan where Sita plunges into the pyre to prove her purity, or even Radha's dream sequence. Amidst the fast paced drama, we get some relief in the form of 'Mundu's Fantasy.' For example, he imagines the story Radha narrates in the movie in which he is the king, Radha his wife, Sita (played by Nandita Das) his mistress and Jatin his servant. Also, the sex scene in the end is aesthetically filmed and doesn't go above what was required.Such a film can never be imagined to come out of India, even today, 15 years after its release. It is only now that we are witnessing gay characters in Hindi Movies – Dostana (2008), I Am (2011) – implied masturbation – Ek Chotisi Love Story (2002) – but not as explicit as in this film. Not only from the theme and content point of view, also from the presentation point of view, the film is different. The scenes are moving along with the camera and the drama develops at a fast pace and maintains the speed throughout. Some jokes drop by but the story is continuously moving within the small house. The dialogs of the film are witty and at times humorous (e.g. Sita – Are you coming home tonight? Jatin – Maybe! ; Radha – Where is Jatin? Sita – He is away to meet his girlfriend). You cherish them and at the same time get involved in them and feel the character's pain. The production design is completely different from other films then.A marvelous effort by Deepa Mehta (though didn't gain recognition in India due to the explicit homosexuality in the film) and the rest of the crew. Kudos to them. And I must appreciate the censor board of India that they released this film without any cuts and an A certificate.

'Water' (2005), the final part of Toronto-based Indian film-director Deepa Mehta's elemental trilogy has been finally completed, almost ten years after the release of the very first controversial element, 'Fire' (1996), which was followed with a slightly lesser controversial sequel '1947: Earth' (1998). Mehta made her directorial debut with a 24-minute Canadian short film 'At 99: A Portrait of Louise Tandy Murch' (1975), but it was her Canadian feature film about the life of Indians living in Canada that brought her fame back in east, her country by birthright, 'Sam & Me' (1991). Recognition internationally came in the way of 'Camilla' (1994), starring Bridget Fonda, along with the actress who in 1990 won an Oscar in Best Actress in a Leading Role category at the age of 80, paving the way for middle-aged actresses to still have hope, for her portrayal of a stubborn old Jewish woman in 'Driving Miss Daisy' (1989), late Jessica Tandy. 'Camilla' dealt with a friendship between two women from two other ends of the human lifespan, a May/December friendship. 'Camilla' was Tandy's last picture; she died the very same year.International fame followed Deepa Mehta in 1996 with the release of the controversial 'Fire', which spread with rage among the false patriotic consciousness existing Indian extremist. Having already explored friendship between two women in 'Camilla', in 'Fire' Mehta went a step further to portray a more intimate relationship between two lonely neglected women. Set in modern day India, the suburbs of the capital city of New Delhi, it shows two brothers and their wives, the elder brother (Kulbhushan Kharbanda) having joined a weird Hindu sect leads a life of celibacy, faithful to his guru of sexless existence. The younger brother (Javed Jaffrey) is having an extra marital affair with a Chinese woman (Alice Poon). Thus, both the wives, Shabana Azmi playing the elder brothers wife and Nandita Das the younger wife, find themselves neglected in their own way. One forced to lead a celibate life, thanks to her husband's eccentricities, and the other whose only interaction with her husband is through sex, and nothing more. Living in a world of in-laws and being the only two outsiders in the family, having nobody else to confide in, the two women fall in the arms of each other. Thus comes the issue of lesbianism. If there were an outside man's shoulder to cry on, there most probably would have been chance for them to fall into the arms of a man, but having no one else to confide in, their need for each others support is quite obvious. It does not necessarily state that all neglected women would end up taking lesbianism, it just happened to exist with regard to the two women in this context. All in all, the movie is excellent, and delves far deeper than just two women rolling in bed. The key focus isn't lesbianism in the movie, but the plight of modern day neglected Indian wives, even in the capital city, the two female characters just happen to have a sexual relationship. Two years later, Deepa Mehta's second installment was the element of mother earth, released in India by the name of '1947: Earth',yet another excellent movie by a great director, this time in the Hindi language, unlike 'Fire', which was made in the English language. Now Deepa Mehta has managed to complete the trilogy, despite a lot of problems, having released the final installment recently, 'Water'. No doubt it would be just as great as the other two.

A fairly interesting look at some characters from India's burgeoning middle class. Although India is rapidly modernizing, her culture is not keeping up. This film involves the patriarchal society, where women are not yet truly free citizens. A land of arranged marriages, men who dally with mistresses with total impunity, and women who are expected to tolerate all this, will eventually come up short. I was impressed with Nandita Das, who was quite attractive, and played her character with total earnestness. But I was even more impressed with Shabana Azmi, who I understand is a long-time fixture of Bollywood. Her quiet beauty and low-key psychic suffering was excellent. The lesbian subtext of this film was never particularly erotic, and never titillating. (Darn!) Worth a look for those interested in vastly different cultures.

First of all, I love this movie. Mostly because I think sexuality is vague issue here, it's instead the idea of loyalty vs. personal fulfillment being explored. Yeah, I think the idea that a 'bad' husband drives a woman to another woman is a lie, but it did not hinder my enjoyment of this film simply because it's deeper than that. I saw sexuality being precisely hetro or homosexual challenged here. The friendship could have stayed an emotionally fulfilling friendship, but it doesn't. It matures into sexual attraction and a physical relation ship. Why? I do believe, with Sita at least, she never seemed satisfied with her husband. And only wanted to make the best of it because she seemed to just be trying to fulfill some idea in her head about how marriage should be (as she was raised to believe it should be at least). It doesn't help that her husband's true love (or is it true lust?) remains in his life, but I still never felt like there was ever any real love or attraction between them, unlike Sita's relationship with Radha. Yes, Sita was a lesbian from the beginning and at the beginnings of a sexual awakening. In her rigged upbringing she was able to repress those feelings, but the closer she gets to Radha - the harder it becomes. She wants that genuine connection to become more because it's a real genuine emotional and physical attraction. Radha on the other hand is a more complex character to figure out sexually, she loves her husband (it seems), but suffers from neglect because of a vow her husband took once it was clear children would not result from a continued physical relationship between them. But he seems to have taken this role to the next level, cutting off the emotional relationship along with the physical one. She remains loyal, as she feels she should, until Sita takes their friendship to the next level. As there are bisexual people who can fall in love with one person at a time, and that person can be either male or female So why can't Radha be bisexual? And that's what I find interesting about Radha, she fell in love with someone else and it was that simple. I found Radha, in particular, touched me as a character. Especially her confrontation with her husband before she can make the choice she makes in the end. So I think all in all, it's a beautiful love story. But maybe I suffer from seeing things simply. I also found the characters believably flawed. Everyone made mistakes in their relationships here, including the women. This is a story about two women who married into bad situations. That doesn't mean I believe their are no healthy family situations in India.