Lovely indie-lesbian movie
Added 9/13/2009
A tender and warm film, realistically portrayed and beautifully photographed. A rare little gem of a movie.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Overwhelming and engrossing cinema
Added 9/9/2009
One of the best films that deals with the subject of Lesbianism really well. The chemistry is excellent between Shabana Azmi and Nandita Das. Both deliver a performence close to perfection, making each and every possible situations quite believable for the viewer. Ranjit Chowdhary manages to steal the show, his timing is impeccable. Kulbhushan Kharbanda and Javed Jaffery delivers a reasonable performenceA sattisfying piece of cinema will surely carry you away along with its moments. Shocking yet a neat drama on charecter study.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
There are many plot points which were easy to see coming, which is the fault of the screenplay by Mehta. But the film is far too suffused with politics to approach greatness, even were it better written. It is not as overtly preachy and hammy as Brokeback Mountain, but it does make excuses for its adulterous lesbians, just as the Hollywood film basically makes heroes out of lying lowlife bastards. As example, while Jatin is certainly a fool and cheater, and Sita owes him no allegiance, the same cannot be said of Radha, for Ashok is certainly a devoted and loving husband. If she was not getting what she wanted, it was her right and duty to speak up and demand change, or leave with honor. His response to her barrenness may have been silly and wrong, but it was not accomplished without her complicity. Radha, in this sense, is the villain of the film, for while Jatin is a letch, he is shown as utterly void of depth. Mundu is a slimebag, but an insignificant little bug. But Radha has the ability to think and choose. She does not merely fall into her relationship with Sita, she chooses its deceptions over her first allegiance to her husband. If she wanted out or change, she should have spoken up, for the energy and will she displays in leaving him could have earlier been displayed within her marriage. Thus, she is an agent of the ill that befalls the family, not a victim, the way the naïve and forcefully betrothed Sita is.
The other aspects of the film are well done, such as the musical soundtrack by A.R. Rahman, and the cinematography by Giles Nuttgens, but nothing that approaches greatness. The DVD, put out by New Yorker Video, has the 108 minute version of the film, and is shown in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio. There is no audio film commentary, but there is a theatrical trailer, cast profiles and production notes, and a documentary on the controversy the film caused in India, which led to its banning. All in all, it shows Indian culture in a very silly and puerile light.
That said, the film, aside from its objective artistic flaws, also suffers from an insular take on its culture. To the non-Indian, as example, there are many political points meant for Indian society, alone, that are lost outside that milieu, and without these touchstone hot buttons as references, the film's political relevance fizzles- the best example being Sita's and Radha's names being based upon Hindu goddesses, and Sita being purged by fire- although in the film it is Radha who is purged by fire; a point Indian film critics lash out at, but which seem silly criticisms to foreign ears. Yet, ultimately, what causes Fire to only reach passable mediocrity as a film is the more immanent artistic flaws of screenplay, characterization, and political imposition. It is a film that is solid, but nothing worth viewing a second time, save for glimpsing the two gorgeous lipstick lesbians. Not that that is a bad thing, of course, but why not try Penthouse, instead? At least there you won't be subjected to puerile political statements.
The film is the first of a trilogy of films, and was followed by Earth and Water, which seem to be less `controversial,' as well as less pointedly provocative. Whether or not this equates with a genuine upgrade of the art is something to be seen, but there is potential here. It's just that Mehta's desire to make a cogent statement so overwhelms her desire to make it endure to future generations, and outside its natal setting, that this film fails. Rein that in, and she has the makings of an artist of consequence. I'll be watching.
0 out of 0 people found this helpful.
|
Fire: Burning Bridges
Added 2/24/2009
I find this film to be an intense intellectual experience on several levels.
Ostensibly an Indian movie on the taboo subject of female relationships there is a clear parable involving the spiritual versus the secular where one brother, married to a barren wife seeks to overcome his human desires through following the teachings of a swami. His brother, the proprietor of a video store, has a relationship with a Chinese woman but goes through with an arranged marriage in conformity with family tradition. The strains of tradition force the two women to seek comfort in each other, developing a relationship between them where desires are awakened and love overcomes the taboos enforced by a patriarchal society. In the background is the handicapped matriarch who's care is the responsibility of a young man who abuses the responsibility entrusted to him, but which heightens the lack of respect women hold in that society.
On a different level, the film nicely illustrates the conflicts involed in a society which is in the throes of a transition to modernity. The ols quasi-religious notions are being usurped as contemporary capitalistic globalisation forces drive deep into the urban population. The brothers sybolise the old and the new. The old holds that spirituality is the glue which holds society together whilst the new stresses individuality and business meeting individual needs. In this sense the two women show how the new notions corrupt and subsume the old. the relationship which develops is based on desire and the concept of selfishness which may or may not be long lasting and worthwhile.
Choosing thus overlooks the plight of those women in India who are excluded from society upon divorce or widowhood and other social issues but neverthe less this is an important film not just for the representation of the modernisation of India but to gives us a glimpse of some of the issues involved in the West in our own journey to industrialisation and beyond.
An altogether excellent, even extraordinary film.
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
Mehta Ignites a 'Fire' of Controversy with Her Unfulfilled Housewives.
Added 11/25/2008
Deepa Mehta is best known for her extraordinary trilogy: Fire (1996), Earth (1998), and Water (2005). Set in contemporary Delhi, India, the first film in the series, Fire, ignited a controversy upon its 1988 release with its frank depiction of loveless, arranged marriages and lesbian sexuality. Shabana Azmi and Nandita Das star as unhappily married sisters-in-law, Radha and Sita, living together under the same roof with their husbands. In fact, the entire extended family lives above a sundries and video store run by Radha's husband. Radha is unable to conceive. ("Sorry, no eggs in ovary," the doctor explains to her.) Sita is neglected by her husband, Jatin (Javed Jaffrey), who is in love with Julie, a Chinese-Indian. When the two unfulfilled women turn to each other for emotional support, they soon become find themselves engulfed in the flames of passionate desire for each other. Radha's husband, Ashok (Kulbhushan Kharbanda), eventually discovers Radha and Sita in bed together, a discovery that confuses him and threatens to tear the family apart.
Fire is compelling on many levels. On one level, it may be experienced as a touching love story between two women. On another level, the film offers a scathing critique on oppresive Indian social system and its customs of arranged marriages, religious hypocrisy, sexism, and valuing women only as breeding chattel. The film also offers a lesson in what happens when basic human desires are ignored: Radha and Sita are seemingly transformed from heterosexual women into lesbian lovers. Highly recommended.
G. Merritt
1 out of 1 people found this helpful.
|
