Deepa Mehta's _Fire_

[Michael Rabe]

>Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1999 01:05:45 -0500 (EST)
>From: Maureen Fadem <fademm at castle.beaver.edu>
>To: Michael Rabe <mrabe at artic.edu>
>Subject: Re: Deepa Mehta's _Fire_
>
>michael, in terms of this question,
>
>"To wit: _How, in fact, does the film end?!  Is the final sequence in the
>Nizamudin gardens but a ghostly after image of what might have been, or
>does Radha PHYSICALLY survive the accident unscathed?_"
>
>...i interpreted the final scene literally, that she survives, not
>unscathed, but she survives. i think the filmmaker was giving us a little
>'edge of the seat' drama.  first, we wonder: has radha sent sita away
>because she knows she does not really have the strength to leave her
>husband? then, we later see her profess her love for sita to her husband,
>so there is a question answered, which is immediately followed by her
>catching fire.  next we see sita alone in the garden and we think, 'oh no,
>she's going to think radha just couldn't make the move and really she is
>dead, oh tragedy!' ... next thing we see the alive radha and the film
>ends. so i think this was all basically dramatic intensity, entertainment
>value at bottom.
>regarding underlying meanings: a) the filmmaker does not send radha back
>into the non-arms of her husband; that is an important point. b) the
>filmmaker also allows radha to live thru fire, as did sita [of the
>ramayana]. two things: her purity has been proven, no? just like sita. so
>the filmmaker implies: she is not impure because she loves sita.  two, she
>allows her to live which is a sort of melodramatic way of saying, 'there
>is/can be/should be hope for you, radha and for you sita,' kinda thing.
>
>so, my analysis of this is literal, that radha does in fact live, burned
>and scarred, but she lives. my next question remains unanswered:  the
>filmmaker means to imply a kind of hope by keeping both women alive and
>getting both of them away from their abusive/neglectful husbands. what she
>and her film do not answer, is, what now? after the dramatic-viewer-'phew'
>-relieved garden scene conclusion, what then? how do they live this life
>and survive in the culture that [atleast in terms of gender equality] has
>just been summarily abominated by the film? (abominated is too strong,
>but you get my gist :) this reminds me of the scene in 'amistad' when the
>'heroic british' (??) free the slaves and they all run out in high
>dramatic happy form ... to where? who? how? these aspects are unconvincing
>largely, i suppose.
>just my thoughts,
>maureen.
>*************************
>Maureen Ellen Fadem
>fademm at castle.beaver.edu
>
>Do I dare
>Disturb the universe?
>In a minute there is time
>For decisions and revisions which
>  a minute will reverse.
>                       --TS Eliot
>
>