Chapter Three Mehta‟S Fire and Pullappally‟S Sancharram
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Chapter Three Mehta‟s Fire and Pullappally‟s Sancharram This chapter offers a semiotic analysis of Mehta‟s Fire and Ligy Pullappally‟s Sancharram. Both films deal with female same sex love. As mentioned earlier, this criterion is used to club these films, in this chapter for the structural convenience. No exclusive comparative analysis is aimed at in this chapter. Fire 3.1. Introduction Fire was the first transnational film commercially released at movie theaters in various cities across India. The film was always described through the euphemisms „bold‟, „sumptuous‟, „unconventional‟ and not „lesbian‟ or „homosexual‟. However, most of the criticism that followed its release in India mainly poured out of the undesirability of and the protest against sexual intimacy between two „Indian‟ „Hindu‟ „middle-class‟ „married‟ „women‟ „in kinship‟ that too, by a „Westernised‟ Non Residential Indian film maker, „who lacks an understanding of family life and emotional bonds in India‟ (Kishwar, 1998:03, Ghosh 2008). Sujata Moorti mentions that „it is the specificity of Mehta‟s Western locus of enunciation that has evoked the ire of the religious right. Rather than presenting nostalgia for home, Mehta raises issues that criticize tradition‟ (2000 n.p.). The act of physical intimacy is not perceived merely as a contact of two female bodies. The bodies become territorialized with inscription of nationality, in being Indian (defined by borders) of religion, in being Hindu, probably upper caste and of kinship, in being sisters-in-law. Hence, the act of physical intimacy does not remain just a contact between two female bodies. Many critics describe Fire as the story of “the two unhappy housewives compelled [Researcher‟s emphasis] to seek emotional and sexual satisfaction from each other because their husbands provide none.” (Kishwar, 1998: 3) The film was a political statement of a feminist film maker against an oppressive patriarchal culture. The „sexual‟ choice then becomes merely a token or a medium for the 85 film to make that statement. Before attempting a semiotic analysis abrief look at the story is required. 3.1.1. Story in a Nutshell Fire is a story of two women‟s journey of exploration of the desire. Radha (Shabana Azmi13) is a middle aged dutiful „unproductive‟ housewife in the middle class Hindu family of Kapurs in a suburb of contemporary New Delhi, the capital of India. Radha‟s marital life exists within three confined spaces of the house; living room, bedroom and kitchen; nursing the paralyzed mother-in-law, Biji, serving as a catalyst in bed to her moksha seeking husband, Ashok (Kulbhushan Kharbanda), in his exercise to control his carnal desire (whenever the urge surfaces) and contributing to the family business by working at the take-out food kitchen. Sita (Nandita Das), on the other hand, is a „modern‟ bouncy, lively new bride with a disinterested husband, Jatin (Javed Jaffrey) who has a girlfriend. As a consequence of Radha‟s inability to bear a child due to „no eggs in her ovaries‟, Ashok turns to practising celibacy under the guidance of Swamiji, a Hindu spiritual guru, hoping to attain Moksha. It has been for thirteen years that Radha and Ashok have had no physical relation. Jatin, on the other hand, is preoccupied with his Chinese girlfriend, Julie, who refuses to get married to him. Another male presence in the family is Mundu (Ranjit Chawdhry), a live-in servant. Mundu secretly fancies Radha. He is party to Jatin‟s secret renting out of pornographic videos to his male customers. In his spare time and in the absence of the rest of the family members, under the pretext of showing videos of the „Ramayana‟ to Biji, Mundu watches porn and masturbates despite the disapproving moans of mute Biji. Sita has her first and unpleasant sexual encounter with Jatin, who ruthlessly performs sex as a ritual, necessary to have a child in the family. Further, Radha discovers that Jatin has 13Shabana Azmi, ‘arguably India’s most versatile and talented actress, also social activist and member of Rajya Sabha (India’s Upper House of the Parliament) from 1997 to 2003 was approached for the role of Sita, as Mehta was convinced that only she could do justice to the character. Azmi initially refused to play the role due to her concerns about her political career. However, her husband Javed Akhtar persuaded her to take up the project. 86 a girlfriend whom he continues seeing. Sita starts spending much of her time in the company of Radha. They grow aware of their loveless lives and are drawn closer with compassion. On one such occasion when Radha is consoling Sita an unintended brush of lips ignites a fire of passion between the two. Initially confused and nervous, Radha starts experiencing the power of newly felt desire. Sita‟s continuous transgressions and initiatives make her look „modern‟ in the eyes of other members in the family. The incident sets Radha and Sita on a journey of exploration of their desires. They look happy. Their acts of affection are seen as a family bond. However, Mundu discovers the secret love between the two women. He informs Ashok only after he is threatened by the possibility of Radha, his love interest, being snatched away from him by Sita. Ashok throws him out of the house instead. Ashok, in a shock after seeing Sita and Radha making love in his bedroom, makes a weak attempt to sexually take charge of Radha and fails. In the meanwhile, Sita and Radha decide to leave the house and meet at Nizamuddin Dargah that night. In an argument with Ashok, Radha‟s Sari catches fire but Ashok instead picks up Biji and leaves the room. With bruises and clothes half burnt Radha manages to survive the fire and arrives as the Durgah. Uniting the lovers thus, the story ends. 3.1.3. Analysis Two Scenes, Two Protagonists and One Quest The first two scenes establish expectations in a significant way and set the tone by placing Radha and Sita at the centre of the narrative. The two scenes are disparate both in a temporal and spatial sense; however the non diegetic sound of the opening background score, establishes continuance. 87 Figure 13 Young Radha with her family. FR. The film narrative opens with a story-within-story style deploying focalization. The establishing shot takes the viewers through the mustard fields where a family (parents and young Radha) has come for picnic (figure 13) and the mother is seen telling her young daughter a story of a people who are sad as they can never see the ocean. The mother tells that an old woman in the village comforts the people by saying, “What you can‘t see, you can see. You just have to see without looking.” (FR) The mother asks Radha if she understands what that means, to which Radha nods and the screen fades. We come to know later as the narrative develops that this is the frequently remembered episode in grown up Radha‟s life. Her quest to understand the meaning of “seeing without looking” has not ended yet. The scene serves as a mystery that Radha is able to unravel only after being „tested‟ by the „fire‟ at dramatic turn of events. The second scene opens with a frame within frame shot revealing a young couple in silhouette leaning against the wall to face each other giving apparently an archetypal image of a romantic heterosexual couple formation (figure 14). However, the very next frame preempts this possibility as the woman is seen moved away while the position of the man with a protruding knee has not changed. And as the camera moves to hold the woman, a wide frame Sita standing before the classic monument Taj Mahal is seen (figure 15). 88 Figure.14. Sita and Jatin in an archetypal pose FR. Figure.15. Sita facing the Taj and open sky. FR. This shift from a narrow and crammed frame to a broad frame in a way underlines the possible journey awaiting Sita. Bedroom as Site of Contestation Within the diegetic spaces of the narrative „bedroom‟ is established as a very vibrant spatial signifier. It is marked by a frequently shifting signification. Usually seen as a site of heterosexual union and implied proliferation, „bedroom‟ in the film, becomes a contested space. Sita‟s bedroom is anything than what it implies. Neither recreational nor procreative, it becomes a site of experiments for Ashok to practice control over his desire for Sita. The first glimpse of Jatin‟s bedroom shows posters of Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan and juxtaposed is a bed with rose petals spread on it, suggestive of the suhag raat, the first night when the marriage is supposed to be consummated. Instead, the bedroom is transformed into a trangressive closet for a budding love between Radha and Sita. Figure 16.Radha in one of her transgressive moods. FR. 89 After being ushered into the room, the newlywed Sita pulls off her sari and puts on the oversize male trousers out of fancy. Then lighting up a mock cigarette she turns on an Indi pop number “Mein hoon dilnashi…” and starts performing what Ghosh calls “a vampish dance” (2010:64) before the mirror. Though momentarily mortified by Biji‟s objection, Sita again on an impulse stands before the mirror pulls down her blouse and strikes a seductive pose (figure 16). This out of impulse act by Sita allows the viewers an entry into her transgressive side. However, the „sartorial‟ transgression does not go so far as to give Sita „man‟ like traits usually seen in the Western patterns of a typical „lesbian‟.