52 Films By Women: Fire (1996)

Screenshot

By Andrea Thompson

To say that Deepa Mehta’s film caused a stir when it was released in her home country of India in 1996 is an understatement. It was the first mainstream film in the country to depict a lesbian relationship, and the response was explosive. Conservatives practically foamed at the mouth to denounce it, and crowds of protestors attacked theaters where it screened.

There was certainly much to provoke. “Fire” isn’t just a film about two women falling in love, it’s about the various ways women are exploited in a home environment which is enabled by the staunch traditionalism outside of it. Yet a few still manage to take their power back and find happiness, even as some remain complicit.

Conservatives, however, are very right to fear modernity, as Radha (Shabana Azmi) and Sita (Nandita Das) have a hell of a lot more choices than their cinematic predecessors. Much like the women who embrace queer love in “Portrait of a Lady on Fire” and “The Handmaiden,” they fall for each other not exactly because they identify as queer (which doesn’t seem like much of an option for them anyway), but rather, in the sense that they are able to find freedom and understanding only with each other in their stifling patriarchal surroundings. 

Sita and Radha actually have more in common with Carol and Therese of “Carol,” and Wil and Vivian of “Saving Face,” and it’s directly related to its more contemporary 90s setting. If their love stories have a common thread in settings hell-bent on heteronormativity, there are still far more options than the far too fleeting, isolated feminist utopia of “Portrait.” 

That said, Sita and Radha probably never would have connected if not for one of the most traditional structures in existence-marriage. Mere days into Sita’s arranged marriage with Jatin (Javed Jaffrey), she’s already feeling the pain of his cold indifference, exacerbated by the rigid expectations of her new home, where she is expected to serve not only her new husband, but his mute and paralyzed mother Biji (Kushal Rekhi), who is also subject to perverse exploitation by the family servant Mundu (Ranjit Chowdhry), but nevertheless rigidly helps to enforce conservative standards of behavior and dress.

Sita’s consolation is her older sister-in-law Radha, who is unable to bear children and likewise suffers from the emotional abuse doled out by her pious husband Ashok (Kulbhushan Kharbanda), who has fallen under the sway of a local religious leader and believes that desire is the root cause of all unhappiness. To prove his devotion to self-control, he has refused to have sex with Radha for 13 years, and whenever he feels the urge, has her lie motionless next to him while he refuses all touch.

It’s an excruciating way to live, and Radha has resigned herself to it until the younger, more rebellious Sita joins the household. Sita quickly realizes that her husband Jatin would much rather spend nights with his Chinese mistress Julie (Alice Poon), but her pain fades as she and Radha form a close friendship that quickly blossoms into a connection that’s as emotional as it is physical. And neither much bothers with what the men around them think. After they consummate their relationship, Radha is quick to reassure the more forward Sita that they’ve done nothing wrong, and they refuse to put a stop to their affair, which they’re essentially having in plain sight.

When they are discovered, as we know they will be sooner or later, “Fire” only reserves the last fifteen minutes to others’ reactions, and perhaps that might be the biggest insult of all to those who opposed this film and its empowering message. “Fire” never shies away from painful realities, but the emphasis is always on life, and the right to defy those who would try to deprive others of it. It’s a dangerous message for those who insist on adhering to a rigid code at the expense of all else, and that it involves a tender love story between two women might just represent the greatest threat of all.

52 Films By Women: Writing With Fire (2021)

By Andrea Thompson

I might be accused of bias in my appreciation for the remarkable documentary “Writing With Fire,” especially given that Film Girl Film is a Community Partner for it via the Milwaukee Film Festival, where it’s currently streaming.

But I had absolutely no problem enjoying “Writing With Fire” during my first viewing when it premiered at the Sundance Film Festival, and audiences and jurors seemed to agree, with the doc winning both the Audience Award and a Special Jury Award for Impact for Change. 

The magnitude of just what directors Sushmit Ghosh and Rintu Thomas accomplish is partly a testament to the power of timing. They began following Khabar Lahariya, the only newspaper in India which is run entirely by women, just as they were shifting to digital, and more chillingly, as nationalism and religious extremism was rising to greater heights.

The pen is mightier than the sword it’s been said, and the power of the written, or for our modern context, the typed word is allowing the female journalists behind Khabar Lahariya to write their way out of a prison imposed on them by gender, tradition, and most suffocatingly, caste. Many, if not all, of the women are Dalits, or untouchables, who are entirely excluded from the caste system in India, and thus barred from participation in many aspects of life. Most have husbands and families who are less than supportive, and pressure them to quit working.

And yet they persist, to use a newish cliche, despite not only this opposition, but the fact that many of them have barely touched a smartphone, have never used email, and a few don’t even have electricity in their homes.  

Why they persist in the face of such obstacles isn’t exactly explored, but shown, as many experience a newfound sense of confidence in shaping not only their own destinies, but helping to change the lives of others for the better. And “Writing With Fire” wastes little time answering just what drives them, opening with chief reporter Meera interviewing a traumatized woman who has been repeatedly raped, then confronting police about why they have done virtually nothing to prevent these attacks or punish the perpetrators.

She and her colleagues also confront other powerful entrenched interests, such as mining groups running dangerous and illegal mining operations, and spotlight families who have yet to benefit from promised government reforms. And their efforts make a real difference, with rapists being arrested and charged, electricity and infrastructure being brought to some villages without it, and the women themselves outright refusing to be patronized by not only police and government officials, but male journalists.

Even as the profile of Khabar Lahariya begins to rise, with support, views, and impact increasing, the film also doesn’t-and can’t-ignore the other, more regressive forces that are also growing (partly thanks to populist support and social media), that of nationalist and religious extremists who are not only thriving, but winning elections. 

The questions the women routinely ask (and far too many media outlets don’t), such as why these men and their lackeys focus so much on protecting Hinduism rather than education, healthcare, and employment seem extremely prescient now given the horrifically botched response of many of India’s leaders to the COVID crisis (although they’re certainly not alone in that), and Meera and many of her colleagues clearly see journalism as a means to get answers and hold leaders accountable. This documentary might just be a part of that process for them, with the filmmakers being granted access to not just the end results, but the journey, which includes editorial meetings, work retreats, and the home lives of many subjects, where they must often continually justify themselves to husbands and parents.

Needless to say, none of these women are victims, but the directors also ensure that none of them fall into the Strong Female Character trope, with many freely admitting their weariness and even giving in to pressure occasionally and marrying to shield their families from the social consequences of having an unwed daughter.

If “Writing With Fire” leaves out many details, such as just how the paper was founded and the impetus behind it, what it does share is a testament to just what the journey to empowerment looks like, exhausting late nights and all.

52 Films By Women: Bride & Prejudice

Screenshot

By Andrea Thompson

Last week I delved into one of the darker, more bloody species of film to include a romantic storyline, in part so I could fully explore an adaptation of one of the most well-known, romantic, love stories ever: the 2004 musical “Bride & Prejudice,” based, of course, on Jane Austen's “Pride and Prejudice.”

The movie itself is a joy, an example of the universal appeal of love stories across cultures and borders. Granted, the family has four daughters rather than five since it eliminates Kitty, but thanks to director and co-writer Gurinder Chadha, “Bride & Prejudice” mostly comes across as intended, which is as much a tribute Bollywood musicals as it is to Austen. Adaptations of Austen's work that take place in modern times can be a tough sell, mostly because the social forces that played such a huge part in the lives of her characters are either entirely absent or just not as resonant.

Chadha solves much of that problem by setting the film in a modern, yet still somewhat rural India, where there's still apparently a great deal of community involvement in marriage, and which is also still considered a necessary part of a person's life. There's even a song that partially explains why, mostly in how local businesses greatly profit from any big (expensive) wedding that comes to town. In such an environment, it's pretty feasible and believable for weddings to be substituted for balls, which allows “Bride and Prejudice” to more smoothly incorporate much of the novel's events while giving us some truly catchy, energetic songs.

While many (including her fans) often see Austen's writing as little more than harmless romantic fluff, Chadha doesn't forget just how much of Austen's novels were satires, with a whole lot of commentary on the class system of her day. Chadha smartly, if more blatantly, incorporates much of this spirit into the movie by having our two would-be lovers William Darcy (Martin Henderson) and Lalita (Aishwarya Rai Bachchan) butt heads on Darcy's condescending American view of India. When he calls arranged marriages backward, she points out that its modern incarnation is more like a global dating service. When Darcy talks about building a 5-star hotel, Lalita speaks of the phenomenon of people who want to come to India without having to deal with the people who live there, and calls him an imperialist. When Darcy protests that's he's American, Lalita responds, “Exactly.”

Lalita may be literally half a world away from the rural England of the beloved Lizzie Bennet, but she's very recognizable. The same can't be said for Martin Henderson's Darcy. Henderson is just one of those leading men the film industry tries to make happen every now and then when it forgets that you need a charismatic presence far more than good looks in films that depend on the appeal and chemistry of its leads. Compare that to Johnny Wickham (Daniel Gillies), who in this version is a seemingly laid back, open-minded world traveler. Also abtastic. Who wouldn't swoon over this guy? I mean...

Screenshot

Identity is also a big thing in “Bride & Prejudice,” which acknowledges the Indian diaspora, especially of those who leave and forget where they came from, with the Indian-British barrister Balraj (Naveen Andrews), aka Bingley, telling his very Westernized sister Kiran (Indira Varma, who played Ellaria Sand on “Game of Thrones”), not to be “such a coconut.” Not that the movie dislikes modernism of course. Part of the reason Kholi (Nitin Ganatra), its version of Mr. Collins, is so unsuitable isn't just because his success in America has made him lose touch with his roots. He's also a misogynist who shakes his head over the outspoken, career-oriented women in America, some whom are...lesbians! Ganatra manages to make this guy hilariously unappealing though, rather than just unappealing. Plus, he provokes Lalita's most impressive zinger when he talks about how India is too corrupt when she fires back, “What do you think your U.S. was like after 60 years of independence? They were all killing each other over slavery and blindly searching for gold.”

That said, this cosmopolitan emphasis is where the film deflates somewhat once the sisters leave India for London and LA. Appropriately enough, it's in LA where Lalita and Darcy start to connect and fall in love, albeit in a more rushed way, although we do get the song “Take Me To Love,” sung by everything a gospel choir, a mariachi band, and lifeguards. Trust me, it works. Even if you don't know the story, you know there's a fallout coming, in this case when Lalita finds out that Darcy is behind Balraj's sudden, abrupt departure from her sister Jaya (Namrata Shirodkar) and rejects him. Also, (Alexis Bledel's appearance as Darcy's sister Georgie is far too brief!) But the two make up pretty quickly in London, when Lakhi runs off with Wickham. Sure, it's rather hurried, but we also get to watch a dramatic confrontation in a theater where a similarly dramatic Bollywood movie is playing. After that, the movie quickly arrives at its happy ending back in India, which sees a double wedding between Balraj and Jaya, and naturally, Lalita and Darcy in a traditional Indian wedding. It's certainly ends up being a very chaste on-screen romance, since Lalita and Darcy never even kiss, even when they marry.

Nevermind. The musical numbers are fun, the whole cast seems like they're having a blast, and Lalita is always a heroine worth rooting for, even during the few times the movie doesn't do her justice. The fact that Chadha managed to incorporate so many issues about the continuing evolution of the modern India without “Bride & Prejudice” feeling preachy or overstuffed is remarkable. So if you want a different, fun, deeply recognizable kind of love story with a lot on its mind for your Valentine's Day viewing, you could do far worse.