Micitype Pretty Good

Claysaba Excellent, Without a doubt!!

Senteur 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.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Srinivas G Phani 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.

Cosmoeticadotcom 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.

crappydoo Few movies have dashed expectations and upset me as much as Fire has. The movie is pretentious garbage. It does not achieve anything at an artistic level. The only thing it managed to receive is a ban in India. If only it was because of the poor quality of film making rather than the topical controversy, the ban would have been more justifiable.Now that I've got my distress out of my system, I am more able to analyse the movie: * From the onset the movie feels unreal especially when the protagonists start conversing in English. The director, of course, did not make the movie for an Indian audience; however it underestimated its international audiences by over simplifying it. Watching the character of the domestic help conversing in perfect English is too unreal to be true.* Next we get regular glimpses into Radha's dreams. These scenes are not very effective. They coming up as jarring and obstruct the flow of the movie. I'm still wondering how that philosophical dialogue connected to the story. I felt that the surrealism was lost.* The love scenes felt voyeuristic and are probably meant for audience titillation rather than being a powerful statement. In any case, they do not achieve either of the two.* The names chosen for the women, Radha and Sita, are names of Hindu deities and hence been selected to shock the audiences. However, since the film wasn't meant for Indian audiences in the first place, the shock-through-name-selection is not meant to achieve its goal, which is absurd.* The quality of direction is very poor and some key and delicate scenes have been poorly handled. A better director could have made a powerful emotional drama out of the subject.* The acting felt wooden although Nandita Das brought some life into the role, the others were wasted. I always thought that Shabana Azmi was a good actress but her talent is not evident in this film. The male leads were outright rubbish.In case you are a fan of Earth and wish to see more of the director, stay away from this one. Please.

dana-196 It's worth boning up on the Hindu pantheon before watching this film. Three main female deities -- wise Sita, nurturing Lakshmi and Kali the Transformer -- as well as three main male deities -- grave Rama, playful Krishna and Shiva the Ender -- are all alluded to. Knowing the folklore as surely every Indian member of an audience does lends a richness to the telling of the present-day story. In fact, one folktale is enacted first on stage, as part of a lesson in spirituality, and then in the movie's "real life." "Fire" speaks out against the misogyny and homophobia in the society to which its producers are native, and it does so with a beauty that weaves the message into multiple levels of the viewer's awareness, making it a deeply satisfying presentation. This is the finest film i've seen in the past ten years; very highly recommended!