Fire (1996) User Reviews

Worthwhile foreign film, good acting

[smatysia · 7/10 · 30 April 2005]

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.

A beautiful love story

[fern-2 · 8/10 · 20 December 1998]

For a moment, let's put aside the cultural aspects of this movie, even if it is a very important side of it, and let's look at the simple fact that this is a very nice love story. Two individuals find themselves in a difficult situation, caused by two selfish husbands. They have to live through their sad days without any ray of hope. If each one of these two women had been alone, imagine what kind of life each one would have had to accept. They found each other and they fell in love. That this love was against all the social, religious and cultural laws of their environment is almost irrelevant. They loved each other, found relief in each other, that was sufficient. The reaction of the individuals around them is but a small fact that they have to accept, suffer even, and then they can go on with their lives, their life. Very nice.

One to see!

[lostgirlsp · 7/10 · 11 May 2019]

Even if you normally don't watch these types of movies you will be glad you didn't miss this one! Gain a hockingly real look into the lives of these two woman as they face some of the toughest of life's obstacles. If you enjoy this film see also Water another film in this series.

Impressive!

[bwdiaz · 13 April 2003]

I was so pleased to discover this movie. The box here in America makes it sound like it is soft core porn with descriptions such as "erotic heat" and the like.

But I was moved by the relationship of these two women and how it reflected their place in society. I was so impressed by how Shabana Azmi (Radha) showed her character growing as she began to understand what she really needed in her life.

Also, early in the film I began to worry that maybe it would just be a movie about how younger women influence traditional families by bringing in new ideas, but the first time Radha and Sita make love, Sita (Nandita Das) seems innocent and unsure about what has happened (even though she initiates it.) I realize that as a character she is going through her own development that starts with a woman who is unsure of expressing her opinion to one who can give voice to what she thinks.

Also, how the family is portrayed seems real in that people do not just immediately change when presented with new ideas. What I mean is that in American movies, we have the tendency to have all the main characters "work things out" by the end of the movie. So when Radha's husband finds Radha and Sita together he doesn't just say he was wrong to ignore Radha and make it up to her. He struggles and falls just like real people do.

This was great work. Radha and Sita have a true romance and the world they occupy is believable and impressive.

P.S. Also a reviewer before me described several parts of the movie and said negative things about it, but couldn't have been watching it too closely since the reviewer confuses the names of all the principle characters. It is Radha that catches on fire not Sita, and Radha who is the elder wife.

Also, I disagree with the characterization that the movie portrays men as the bad guys. I feel it shows very human people. Even the eldest female character Biji turns a blind eye to the pain and feelings of her caregiver Radha. People (men and women) are not perfect and the mistakes made by Radha and Sita's husbands are real things that men actually do and think their wives should just go along with because they are the wives. Does that make them bad men? No. But it does make it a bad system, which I believe is the real foe in this film.

Fire(1996)- A film you haven't watched

[babu_smart · 7/10 · 21 December 2017]

A melodramatic tale about the journey of two women towards Self-actualisation. This movie from the award-winning filmmaker Deepa Mehta perfectly depicts the illiberal ideas entrenched in our bigoted society. Mehta's Elements trilogy, Fire, Earth, and Water distinctly personify her visions and her elegance in filmmaking.

Sita(Nandita Das) is entering a new family after her wedding. The family consists of her spouse Jatin(Javed Jaffrey), her brother in law Ashok and his wife Radha(Shabana Azmi) and the matriarch of the family is Biji. Biji is taken cared by the servant Mundu but often infuriates the old lady.

Sita is a soul which dares to dream. She is bound by no shackles. But the married life has been quite tough on her after she found her husband to be cheating on her. During a conversation Radha tells Sita that she is infertile,"No eggs in ovaries " were the exact words to be precise and for that reason, her husband has vowed to celibacy under the influence of a Swamiji who has preached him that desire was the root of all evil. These two women gradually embrace each other and rediscover their sexuality and in the process rediscover their will to live a life that they wished to live in a cloudland.

Mehta's effort to intricately design the characters has a positive impact on screen as it wasn't judgemental rather each character's reflections of their opinions.Azhagi fame Nandita Das has flabbergasted us with her role. Takeshi's Castle fame Javed Jaffrey has made his role look so easy. The entire team has done just to their roles, making this a movie that every movie maniac will savour.

In 1998 Fire was screened in India.For its content of displaying Homosexuality as a non-evil custom, the movie garnered immense controversy. There were riots in various parts the country. Shiv sanaiks and Bajrang Dal members invaded and vandalized the theatres. Even now, After two decades from this film's release, the Section 377 is still a matter of debate. With many countries legalizing homosexuality, India has failed miserably and it nowhere near to making the right verdict. Releasing a movie that is against the prejudices in the 90's was gutsy and they deserve to be applauded but all they received was criticism.

A movie that everyone should watch and a movie that everyone can relate to. Fire beautifully portrays so many human qualities like self-acceptance, self-actualization, Love, Passion, Sexuality. The movie deserves to be celebrated.

Wonderfully tender treatment of sensitive subject matter

[hira · 9/10 · 21 December 1998]

This film powerfully demonstrates the struggle of two women in love in a culture so deeply entrenched in ritual and tradition. All this against a backdrop of an India which itself is struggling for freedom from these same values. This film is both political and personal and never too preachy or idealistic on either front. It is easy to see why "Fire" has caused riots in India, but tragic nonetheless. A true film such as this one deserves to be seen by all people of the world, not just privileged westerners.

Above-average screenplay

[JuguAbraham · 7/10 · 30 March 2003]

This is my first Deepa Mehta film. I saw the film on TV in its Hindi version with its "Sita" character presented as Nita. I also note that it is Radha who underwent the allegorical trial by fire in the film and not Nita/Sita. Yet what I loved about the film was its screenplay by Ms Mehta, not her direction. The characters, big and small, were well-developed and seemed quixotic towards the end--somewhat like the end of Mazursky's "An Unmarried Woman." They are brave women surrounded by cardboard men. And one cardboard man (Ashok) seems to come alive in the last shot we see of him---carrying his invalid mother Biji. He seems to finally take on a future responsibility beyond celibacy and adherance to religion.

Ms Mehta seems to fumble as a director (however, compared to most Indian mainstream cinema she would seem to be brilliant) as she cannot use her script to go beyond the microscopic joint family she is presenting except presenting a glimpse of the Chinese micro-minority in the social milieu of India. She even dedicates the film to her mother and daughter (not her father!) Yet her Radha reminesces of halcyon days with both her parents in a mustard field. Compare her to Mrinal Sen, Adoor Gopalakrishnan, Muzaffar Ali and she is dwarfed by these giants--given her competent Canadian production team and financial resources! Mehta's film of two bisexual ladies in an Indian middle-class household may be sacrilege to some, but merely captures the atrophy of middle-class homes that does not seem to aspire for something better than its immediate survival in a limited social space. Kannada, Malayalam, and Bengali films have touched parallel themes in India but did not have the publicity that surrounded this film and therefore have not been seen by a wide segment of knowledgeable cinemagoers.

Ms Das, Ms Azmi, Mr Jafri and Mr Kharbanda are credible but not outstanding. Ms Azmi is a talented actress who gave superb performances under good directors (Mrinal Sen's "Khandar", Gautam Ghose's "Paar", Benegal's "Ankur") a brilliance notably absent in this film. Ms Das sparkled due to her screen presence rather than her acting capability. All in all, the film's strength remains in the structure of the screenplay which is above average in terms of international cinema. I am sure Ms Mehta can hone her writing talents in her future screenplays.

one of best movies ever

[sspinola-1 · 10/10 · 13 December 2005]

one of best movies ever...Fire...it is not much about sociological description of India today...it is the mind blowing use of light that never stops, never becomes...normal...even when...in this sense the movie is almost unique...both leads are of very good quality...the origin of Das as a street performer are pretty obvious...her performance is a superb "cammeo"...but the use of the light...I have look at it and looked at it, again and again...still mind blowing after ages...nothing torrid in the story...rather "pure" way of facing the subject...in a way it is sad that in the bizarre world we live today, a major art work is usually known as a gender film...Fire can stand face to face with Dryer's Jeanne D' Arc or Ichikawa's Biruma no Tategoto or some of the major Kurosawa movies, just to name "some". Wish my input could help a little this movie to its deserved way to fame.

The subject matter is controversial in India not so much in most first world countries

[jordondave-28085 · 6/10 · 31 March 2023]

(1996) Fire DRAMA

Co-produced, written and directed by Deepa Mehta with two married loveless women of Rahda (Shabana Azmi) Sita (Nandita Das) seeking both comfort and compassion with one another, something they do not get from their traditional marriage spouses of Ashok (Kulbhushan Kharbanda) and Jatin (Jaaved Jaafei) all live in the same apartment complex, managing and operating a food and movie rental shop.

A rather taboo subject and controversial in India part of the reason the co-production was from Canada as much of the characters are speaking English despite taking place in India, for it states the complicated situation some of the characters are in.

"Fires" burn physically, emotionally and spiritually in this feminist film from India.

[Kathryn-17 · 10/10 · 29 January 2003]

CONTAINS "SPOILER" INFORMATION. Watch this director's other film, "Earth", at some point. It's a better film, but this one isn't bad just different.

A rare feminist point of view from an Indian filmmaker. Tradition, rituals, duty, secrets, and the portrayal of strict sex roles make this an engaging and culturally dynamic film viewing experience. All of the married characters lack the "fire" of the marriage bed with their respective spouses. One husband is celibate and commits a form of spiritual "adultery" by giving all of his love, honor, time and respect to his religious swami (guru). His wife is lonely and yearns for intimacy and tenderness which she eventually finds with her closeted lesbian sister-in-law who comes to live in their house with her unfaithful husband. This unfaithful husband is openly in love with his Chinese mistress but was forced into marriage with a (unbeknownest to him) lesbian. They only have sex once when his closet lesbian wife loses her virginity.

A servant lives in the house and he eventually reveals the secret that the two women are lovers. Another significant character is the elderly matriarch who is unable to speak or care for herself due to a stroke. However, she uses a ringing bell to communicate her needs as well as her displeasure with the family members. She lets them know through her bell or by pounding her fist that she knows exacly what's going on in the house and how much she disapproves.

In the end, the truth about everybody comes out and the two female lovers end up running away together. But, not before there is an emotional scene between the swami-addicted husband and his formerly straight wife. Her sari catches on fire and at first we think she is going to die. However, we see the two women united in the very last scene of the movie.

The writer/director of this film challenges her culture's traditions, but she shows us individual human beings who are trapped by their culture and gender. We come to really care about the characters and we don't see them as stereotypes. Each on surprises us with their humanity, vulgarity, tenderness, anger, and spirit.

An Indian film for people who don't like Indian films.

[johnnyboyz · 6/10 · 5 September 2007]

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?

A near perfect drama

[Phoenix-36 · 9/10 · 2 December 1998]

This intelligent, moving and beautiful film is a study in the ways people react to tradition (reminds me of William Faulkner's novels).

The characters all feel trapped by the weight of the roles they are expected to assume, and seek for a way to live within those roles rather than throw them off altogether. But as the story develops the two wives, trapped in loveless marriages, draw together. Drawing on the strength of their friendship and love, they give each other the courage to abandon their roles.

They have found that living within their traditions is no life at all, it is a sort of living death: without passion, without true connection to others, without fulfillment. Although they know there will be a price to be paid for their rebellion and freedom, it is a price much less dear than the sacrifice called for by a comfortable, predictable existence.

The screenplay is wonderful, the acting marvelous. Near perfect!

Lesbianism

[phat_mrt · 6/10 · 12 May 2006]

This film shows what the next generation is all about. You should always follow your heart and mind and not the views and expectations of society.

Society these days means that you should act and behave in a certain manner. Anything outside this is seen as shameful and a disgrace. This film shows that happiness is not always found by doing what other people expect of you...its about doing whats right for your self.

The film shed a light to the film industry and films like this need to be promoted more due to its reality and what younger people have to endure and o through.

i don't have a problem with homosexuals....if thats the way they choose to live there life then so be it. It is there choice.

As long as no-one of the same sex as myself tries to hit on me, because i am alllll straight, (hetero).

Good film.

Much ado about nothing

[Curious-from south · 1/10 · 28 January 2002]

Although advertised as path breaking and trend setting movie, this movie is nothing but a pathetic attempt to generate controversy for the purpose for advisement. The story of lesbian love between two in-laws is the central theme of the movie, but direct and indirect references to the legends of Hindu mythology were made very irresponsibly. It was also suggested especially at the end of movie that lesbians would be welcomed in the Muslim community, which I would say is very far from the truth. Instead of analyzing the different but normal sexual orientations, the movie has this theme that nothing in the heterosexual world is right.

A Sensitive Love Story of Two Women Living In a Repressive Society

[claudio_carvalho · 26 September 2004]

In the contemporary India, Jatin (Jaaved Jaaferi) is a man in love with the Chinese Julie (Alice Poon), who does not want to get married and become a housewife, since she intends to move to Hong Kong and become an actress. Due to the pressure of his family asking for a baby, Jatin decides to get married with the virgin Sita (Nandita Das) in a arranged marriage. Sita moves to the house of Jatin's family, where live on the second floor the matriarch Biji (Kushal Rekhi), the servant Mundu (Ranjit Chowdhry) and the unfertile Radha (Shabana Azmi) and her husband Ashok (Kulbhushan Kharbanda). On the first floor, they run a small business of video rental and food. Ashok opted for the celibate, since in his opinion, sex would be only for procreation and never for lust or desire. Both women are neglected by their husbands, and their loneliness turns into a lesbian relationship. I do not know much about Indian society, but I found this movie a sensitive and delicate love story of two needy women, born and raised in a repressive and male society. The story is never vulgar or erotic, and it is very easy to understand their attraction. The beauty of Nandita Das is very impressive. The direction and the performance of the cast is outstanding. Another excellent example of the Indian cinema. My vote is eight.

Title (Brazil): 'Fogo e Desejo' ('Fire and Desire')

Exquisite use of mythology

[dana-196 · 10/10 · 20 November 2005]

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!

Wonderfully Executed Drama with Touching Realism

[haroon · 9/10 · 24 July 2005]

The thing which makes "Fire" even more appealing to watch apart from its magical artistry, is its touch of femininism and rebellion. To my mind, the very character played by Shabana Azmi is a symbol of the Indian feminine protest against the Indian society. The name of the movie and the scene when Radha walks through flames in her kitchen are symbloic of Hindu Mythology's Lord Rama's wife Sita's walking through fire for the proof of her immaculacy, as per the same narrative which appears in the film too. The film could be a great inspiration for women, particularly those in the subcontinent, to search for their liberties and to attain control of their lives.

Incredibly brave statement, incendiary and raw

[fred-houpt · 9/10 · 28 February 2007]

I finally watched the third film in Mehta's trilogy: "Fire". To begin, I'd say that "Water" was the unquestionable masterpiece, on all levels. Fire comes next with Earth close behind in order of quality. Fire: there is so much going on in this film that I'll need a few more viewings to drink it all in. The writing is superb, the script creating friction that starts the entire process of "heat" from the beginning until the end when it really does erupt into a fire, the conflicts moving into complete rupture of relationships.

Mehta is one brave lady: she sees with a clear eye much that is jaundiced, false and repressive about the great society from which she came from. India is rapidly changing these days but much of this is economic change. That she met with such ferocious opposition to the making of "Water" after having had the script cleared, shows that there are still many taboo subjects which Indian people more than less cannot look squarely in the face, cannot examine or discuss them. Worse, if someone like Mehta has the courage to hold up a mirror to these issues, she faces death threats. So, as much as India thinks of itself as a pluralistic, tolerant society, the facts are not always so. Whereas "Earth" was merely a historical setting of the carnage of the civil war after Indian independence, Fire and Water are pointing at personal, social and religious issues, which as I say are considered so strongly (in a negative sense) that an open artistic dialog is still many years away. As I write this "Water" is scheduled to actually be shown in India later this year. I'll believe it when I see it.

Fire confronts a similar sexual and emotional conundrum that I saw in "A price above rubies". Whether it's arranged marriages (which it used to be like among Jews about 150 years ago, or like it is among many modern Indians), they have the risk of having a bad match forced upon both men and women; or, just plain loveless marriages..... However, this is not the real issue. Mehta is clearly impatient with the totally rigid religious attitudes that either keep widows in misery (Water) or else keep women enslaved to loveless marriages (Fire). I am no expert regarding either the secular or Hindu laws concerning divorce. The film seems to imply that the stigma (of divorce)is almost as bad as the sad marriage. In any case Mehta's film is a very moving, powerful attempt at sexual discourse that holds modern Indian relationships up to probing scrutiny. That all three of these films have made themselves felt in India as an unwarranted attack on their culture sounds to me like the predictable clamor of a repressive mindset. Mehta is forcing the issues to be looked at no matter how much flack. I admire her work and cannot highly recommend her films enough. Superb, disturbing, provocative, taboo shattering.

Beautiful, romantic, and actually pretty sensual.

[drlloyd11 · 10/10 · 21 June 2003]

While the romance in this film is an important aspect, it is largely about the role of responsibility and duty in modern Indian. All of the major characters were well fleshed out, and had their own "inner life". I recommend this strongly

Pretentious

[crappydoo · 2/10 · 20 February 2008]

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.

Touching Love Story

[randy_lejeune · 10/10 · 7 February 2001]

This was a great film in every sense of the word. It tackles the subject of tribadism in a society that is quite intolerant of any deviations from the norm. It criticises a great many Indian customs that many find oppressive -- such as the arranging of marriages by others, the importance of status and face, religious hypocrisy, sexism, the valuation of women in terms of their baby-making capacity, the binding concepts of duty and so on. At the heart of the film is a touching love story that goes beyond such limitations of the society which the two protagonists find themselves. The film is well-acted and genuine, completely believable from beginning to end, unlike most Bollywood flicks. The main faults of the film as I saw it was first, that the two lovers seem drawn to one another not necessarily by a natural affinity for each other as much as the fact that they are stuck in dead-end marriages with no passion and no rewards. This may play a part in the sexual awakening of the characters, but most people stuck in the same situation will not "turn homosexual". It seems clear from the beginning of the film that the two characters are quite heterosexual -- when Radha does her scene at the end of the movie with Aashok, she makes it quite clear that "without desire she was dead", and the implication was that if he had desired so, he could have fulfilled her quite completely, and also when Sita seemed very disappointed when her husband seemed to not like her. Such situations do not turn people into homosexuals -- they may seek comfort in others in the same position, but inthe film it is not at all made clear that they are lesbians from the beginning -- quite the opposite. Some people are bisexual, it is true, but most tend to be either hetero- or homosexual. In the case of the ladies in the film, both had insensitive jerks for husbands . . . if this had not been the case, would they have naturally found the need to express their desire in a relationship that they may have otherwise not have considered? The film ignores this. The other fault is the naming of the characters . . . the names Sita and Radha seem contrived deliberately to shock and outrage (imagine a film in America depicting a gay relationship between a man named "Jesus" and another named "Paul"!) by using names associated with various Hindoo scriptures. The film is strong enough to stand on its own and needs no such devices in my opinion. At any rate, the faults do not take much away from the power of the movie. It is indeed a very touching and powerful story -- the images and characters will stay with you a long time after you leave the theatre.

One of the best movies ever!!

[Ezekiel-Cheever · 10/10 · 18 August 2007]

I admire Deepa Mehta and this movie is a masterpiece. I'd recommend to buy this movie on DVD because it's a movie you might want to watch more often than just once. And trust me, you'd still find little meaningful details after watching it several times.

The characters - except for the grandmother perhaps - are all very balanced, no black and white. Even though you follow the story from the perspective of the two protagonists, there is also empathy for the other characters.

I think the IMDb rating for the movie is far too low - probably due to its politically controversial content.

Initiated a thought process

[qsteph · 30 September 2003]

THIS MAY CONTAIN WHAT SOME WOULD THINK IS A "SPOILER". PLEASE BE ADVISED.

I will start by saying that I know little about India and it was this movie that caused me to want to change that. I watched the movie "Fire" without any expectations because I had never heard of it when I watched it for the first time (Summer 1999). I thoroughly enjoyed it. My views on life in India were very tainted by the past and watching this made me realize that things have changed. Even if this is not an extremely accurate account of everyday life in India it has made me want to study why I viewed India as I did and possibly change my views.

The comments surrounding this movie deal mainly with agreeing and disagreeing with the controversial issues that were posed. I did not enjoy this movie because of what I agreed or disagreed with. I enjoyed this movie because it brought out a realization in me that acceptance of one's self is the key to happiness. Jatin found that, Sita found that, Radha found that, Julie already knew. Who was unhappy at the end of this movie? The three individuals (Mundu, Biji, Ashok) who lived in the past and did not accept change as what it is. A constant. This is a great message that seems to have been lost in all of the controversy of what is right and wrong. Each character in this movie did what was best for themselves. What human being does not?

There have been comments that this movie makes the men look bad. Well it can also be said that the women are made to look bad as well. They are cheating on their husbands and using them as an explanation for there deception. And while I understand that we are to believe that they have no choice in the situation this does not ring true at the end. Sita and Radha do leave which only shows me that they were not strong enough as individuals to leave when they wanted to leave. Only when there was someone else to bear part of the burden did they take that step. This does not speak well of the females.

The depth of this movie goes far beyond what is being discussed on all the message boards and in chat rooms. As with any movie we need to look beyond the story to find the meaning. What is the meaning that I have found? We live life every day with choices and we all make our decisions based on differing circumstances. Each decision made is the base for the next choice. Whether we are happy or unhappy with our choice of decision is irrelevant. It is how we accept the outcome of the decision that was made that makes life what it is.

Watching this movie has made me think and given me many reasons to want to watch other movies by Deepa Mehta. I think this movie provokes thought in some individuals, fear in others, and makes us all question ourselves. My description of this movie would have to be this: A wonderful depiction of the shallow depth of life and how love causes the reflection of it to waiver.

A Masterpiece

[JulsSavant · 10/10 · 19 January 2020]

I realize the word "masterpiece" is used often, however, in this case the word applies. Deepa Mehta took brave chances with this film, as did the cast and crew. They received death-threats, and filming had to be done secretively. As in any good Asian story, "Fire" is a story within a story, within another story. It does help to know some of the basic Indian folktales to understand the real impact of "Fire." This is not a "lesbian" movie, it's a movie at least 20 years ahead of its time. Don't hesitate to see this film - all the actors are wonderful, and the writing and direction are superb.

Burned on my Mind.

[jehan_mendis · 9/10 · 7 March 1999]

As well as being a portrayal of a lesbian love story, FIRE is also a comic satire of middle-class (?) Indian culture. I find this is a quality which is little appreciated about the movie. These two genres (i.e. deep meaningful alternative-love story and comic satire) usually mix together just as well as oil and water do, but Mehta (somehow) manages to achieve the balance to near perfection. The servant Jatin's behaviour, the family's treatment of him, the bedridden grandmother's constant inescapable presence, Ashok's obsession with a swami's teachings: coming from a culture much like India's, these are things I can immediately identify as being typical. They have been crying out to be pointed out and ridiculed. While developing her primary subject matter, Mehta manages to achieve this secondary theme skillfully. In fact, much of the humour in the film which provides essential relief from the heavy subjects of taboo lesbian love and gender issues, stem from this satire of the seemingly ordinary. The film flows from the comic to the serious with great subtelty.

All in all, brilliant use of symbolic devices (Radha compared to Sita of legend and coming out of Fire unscathed and, therefore pure; the lifelong desire of the young Radha to see the ocean finally achieved when she gains freedom). Kudos to Shabana Azmi(Radha), the lighting crew and Deepa Mehta; their very un-Hollywood-like (and un-Bollywood-like!) talents made this movie special. One criticism: the first scenes seemed rather disjointed to me in that they did not flow into each other very well.

The verdict: 9 on 10. Nothing less for a movie with scenes so burned on my mind.