Fire is really just a 'Bollywood' film for people who don't like Bollywood. I've seen three films from India: Lagaan, Raja Hindustani and this one and let me tell you that Fire is oh so very different to the other two but this is not a criticism. Indian cinema prides itself on long, epic, large scale films that are full of colour, dance, music and wide, epic outdoor scenes; Raja Hindustani and Lagaan both have all of these conventions and at just about three hours long each, you certainly get plenty of time to realise it. This is where Fire is different. At 108 minutes, it's considerably shorter; most of the scenes are indoors and each scene only has a maximum of about three people in it. This twinned with the fact there are no song or dance numbers, a lesbian relationship forms and almost every Bollywood convention is ignored, Fire truly is one hell of a rebel Indian film. Maybe the fact it was co-produced by Canada had something to do with it? I always enjoy watching a non-USA or UK film every once in a while; it reminds me that there is film beyond Hollywood and English speaking people. I would not say that Fire is a bad film but it is the worst of the three Indian ones I've seen. When I first saw Lagaan, I was a little confused by but still intrigued by Indian film; when I saw Raja Hindustani a few years later, I was then aware of what Indian cinema did and what it was Fire is not Indian cinema, it is a character relations film that centres around drama, love and Indian tradition being broken; both in the film and in the script.
Fire is still very well made; its attention to character and their relationships with other characters is fascinating. One male has a problem with his father and his wife to be while another female doesn't want to marry yet is bossed about a little too much for her liking there is even room for a crippled old lady who communicates through bell ringing. The way the film flips back and forth telling us these people's stories and showing us what they do, who they're speaking with and such give us a real chance to identify with them and get to know them.
There are numerous examples of modernity trying to break through Indian tradition in the film. I've already established that this isn't a typical Indian film but what it does plot wise and speech wise is more interesting. One scene includes a young girl wearing a top that bares her chest, when she goes downstairs the elderly cripple sees her and rings the bell in annoyance she shouldn't be dressed like that but this is India 1996, not India 1956; it's modernity trying to push through. Another scene is where one male defies his father over wishing to be married off in an arranged marriage he's in love with one woman (non-Indian) and merely enjoys the company of his to-be wife. Usually in a circumstance like this, I expect the woman to stand up and not wish to marry but again, Fire plays with what it should be and ends up something else which is refreshing.
As events unfold, a gay relationship forms and scenes of kissing and masturbation are included at various points (though not at once, obviously). Fire also uses clever film techniques such as lighting to display character's moods. The lamp shade in one dimly lit bedroom scene creates distorted rays of light on one girls face as she contemplates the fact she may be gay distorted light = distorted feelings and it works well. There is also an atmosphere of dread and foreboding as the film wears on and the secret becomes more unbearable.
Fire is an impressive film but it is too breakaway for me to really like. It pulls off several film techniques to good effect but if this was American produced starring white people talking English, would anybody care? This is certainly not the Indian cinema I expected if Indian directors want to make breakaway films like this then travel to the west and make them, don't produce them through India because it makes them look better than they actually are and you never know you may inspire every Indian director to do so. Where would popular Indian cinema be then?
Fire is still very well made; its attention to character and their relationships with other characters is fascinating. One male has a problem with his father and his wife to be while another female doesn't want to marry yet is bossed about a little too much for her liking there is even room for a crippled old lady who communicates through bell ringing. The way the film flips back and forth telling us these people's stories and showing us what they do, who they're speaking with and such give us a real chance to identify with them and get to know them.
There are numerous examples of modernity trying to break through Indian tradition in the film. I've already established that this isn't a typical Indian film but what it does plot wise and speech wise is more interesting. One scene includes a young girl wearing a top that bares her chest, when she goes downstairs the elderly cripple sees her and rings the bell in annoyance she shouldn't be dressed like that but this is India 1996, not India 1956; it's modernity trying to push through. Another scene is where one male defies his father over wishing to be married off in an arranged marriage he's in love with one woman (non-Indian) and merely enjoys the company of his to-be wife. Usually in a circumstance like this, I expect the woman to stand up and not wish to marry but again, Fire plays with what it should be and ends up something else which is refreshing.
As events unfold, a gay relationship forms and scenes of kissing and masturbation are included at various points (though not at once, obviously). Fire also uses clever film techniques such as lighting to display character's moods. The lamp shade in one dimly lit bedroom scene creates distorted rays of light on one girls face as she contemplates the fact she may be gay distorted light = distorted feelings and it works well. There is also an atmosphere of dread and foreboding as the film wears on and the secret becomes more unbearable.
Fire is an impressive film but it is too breakaway for me to really like. It pulls off several film techniques to good effect but if this was American produced starring white people talking English, would anybody care? This is certainly not the Indian cinema I expected if Indian directors want to make breakaway films like this then travel to the west and make them, don't produce them through India because it makes them look better than they actually are and you never know you may inspire every Indian director to do so. Where would popular Indian cinema be then?