Mother India and Fire

I think Katherine Mayo's book was very biased in talking about the culture in India.  In ethics we're taught to respect everyone's culture and acknowledge how each culture's norms are relative to their society.  Not only does she not respect the issue of ethics when talking about India, but she also seems to just make a lot of assumptions up.  It's hard to believe that people were actually recommended to read the book prior to deploring to India on Peace Corps missions.  This not only goes to show where Mayo's head was at, but it showed how there's actually a market for her book.  In order for there to be controversy some people have to agree with her stance, otherwide everyone would just say it's garbage and disregard it.  The fact that people were using this as an actual guide to India is what's really disturbing and says a lot about society and the garbage that is actually supported.   In Mayo's book the people of India are made to look savage,but in Fire we see the total opposite. 

In Fire we see the disenfranchised women of India taking control of their sexuality which represents a push outside of the norms.  It reminds me of the modernist movement, and how many of the pioneering figures in modernism included sexuality in their idea of being liberated.  A prime example of a woman who did this was Frida Kahlo; certain parts of her biographical movie Frida actually reminded me of Fire.  The critique of a patriarchal culture is also a main theme in the modernist movement, the book Pedro Paramo is a good example of a book that is filled with critiques on patriarchal society.  In the novel the main landowner of the town rapes and impregnates several women, and females are depicted as being objects.  It is interesting to see how some countries began to get comfortable with the idea of individual's sexuality at the early part of the 1900's while some other countries have yet to acknowledge this facet of individualism.  It just goes back to the point of ethics and seeing every culture as relative to a certain perspective.  In ancient Greece around the time of Jesus, it was common for wealthy men to have a male concubine that they had intimate relations with.  That was like 2000 years ago, but some cultures still can't break that barrier of sexuality today.

Mother India, Fire, and Male Dominance

                Male dominance is a strong concept that is present in every culture but on different levels. In America, male dominance is present but not over populated. It is almost an underlying truth that women have slowly been breaking since the early 70’s. There is the idea that women can’t be happy without men or male figures can use their muscular power to dominate over women, but many of us women have learned that we are just as powerful but in our own unique ways and that we DO have a say in how are lives pan out. Other cultures are not as lucky, which is exactly what both Mother India and Fire portrayed during their depiction of the lives of women in India. Interestingly enough they both took this concept in different ways, which I will explain below.

                In Mother India there was a women who raised a family on her own under the rule of a dominant male figure – her ‘land lord’ in modern day terms. She gave him almost all of her earnings and food, leaving her family to starve. Although she never really stood up to him and left the land, she did take it into her own hands to farm and feed her children. She pushed the land lord around and did not take his offer to be with him to make her life easier; she wanted to do everything on her own. This was not a typical behavior for women in India. She showed that although the culture she was born into said that women were obedient to men, she did not want any part of it.

                On the other side, in the film Fire, there are two women who at first are very traditional and obey their husbands. They stayed in the house and waited for their men to come home while they cooked, cleaned, or simply sat around waiting. As the film progresses they learn that they do have the choice to be happy, even if it may not fit cultural norms. Unlike Mother India’s assertive tactics of shoving it in the man’s face, the girls sneak around about their new found power. They make it seem as those they are close friends and not lovers so that they are not frowned upon, until finally they are caught. This is when the women stand up for what their heart and soul believes in, throwing away all they have ever known about tradition.

                What I enjoyed about these films is that women stood up for what they believed in and did not let a man (or anyone for that matter) determine their way of living. It is important to remember that society comes with preset boundaries, but it is up to us if we want to follow them. Who says that someone else should determine your love life or your freedom?

Fire/Mother India

Mother India-Fire

            Katherine Mayo basically trash talked Indian women in the book mother India. Indian nationalists believed the book to be nothing but propaganda. According to Sindha “the controversy surrounding Mother India thus marked a crucial turning point in the history of modern nationalism and feminism in late colonial India.” Apparently Mother India is still one of the most popular works when thinking of India. I did not enjoy the film version of Mother India that we watched. I found that Radha was very irritating. She killed her son and then acted all bent out of shape and sad when he was dead. You should not have shot your own son. I understand the whole thing was that she was a woman first, but I do not buy that. That is your own flesh and blood and you killed him, that was just ruthless.

            I think that Fire represents the sheltered opinions of the people of India. You saw how poorly received Radha and Sita’s relationship was received. Biji, Mundu, and Ashok all really looked down upon them. Biji couldn’t speak, but you could tell that she figured it out. Ashok went as far as setting Radha on fire when she rejected coming back to him. Obviously, the patrons of India showed how closed minded they are when they rioted in the theatre and acted completely like animals. I realize they did not approve of the message but there is no reason to cause such havoc in your protests. I thought that the film was very good, it showed that you can’t help who you love, no matter what sex they are.

Anthony Mahalis

Mother India and Fire

I enjoyed watching both "Mother India" and "Fire", because although they had two completely different themes, they offered significant messages relating to feminist issues according to their time periods. Mother India's primary goal was to go against the image that a foreigner gave the world of her take on the country, which was the opposite of how most India's felt about their homeland. It was very interesting how the main character in the film remained loyal to her family and the land she lived on regardless of the tribulations they caused her. Yet, by the end of the story she becomes fed up and in fact kills her son for the sake of her country. The 1950s film depicts the Indian woman to be one of great physical and emotional strength, just as many American films depict the women of our country today.

The fact that the actors and filmmakers behind "Fire" chose to go forth with the film despite the opposing Indian culture was a very brave act. In recent years, the U.S. as become more welcoming of ideas of homosexuality in our media. However, other countries aren't as open to the idea of homosexuality, or for that matter, any subjects that stray away from traditional culture. In the bonus clips, the individuals behind the film discussed their views and the fact that the focus wasn't as much on two women being in a romantic relationship, but more so about them being able to go against Indian customs to do what they choose. I can understand this reasoning when taking a look at the movie in its entirety. Marriage is considered worldwide as a sacred act, yet the central characters in the film are in marriages with the basis of tradition, reproduction, and housekeeping instead of love and compatibility. "Fire" takes a unique approach on issues that not only pertain to the people of India, but tackles issues that could still be considered taboo in most cultures.

Love and Lust

Both “Mother India” and “Fire” were aptly named.  Though both of these pieces were about controversial subjects dealing with female characters, their respective titles reflect the different types of stories being explored by the film makers and the audience as well.  Motherhood and the duties that come with that title are examined in “Mother India” while lust, love and tradition are evaluated in “Fire.”   

            What was interesting in “Mother India” was the modern take on a marriage built on love that was followed by the devastating act of having to kill one’s own child.  Many parents would rather die themselves than see their child die before them so to say that the protagonist of “Mother India” ends as a heroine is debatable.  Even if done for a greater good who can say what inner effects such an act could have on a parent? And not only is the mother killing an image of herself but also an image of the man she loved. 

            The heroines of “Fire” have a more defined type of victory.  They defy their over bearing husbands and the hardnosed tradition that only a man and woman should be physically united and run away to create a new life.  Theirs is the story of people who leave their old families behind to create a new one.  But it must be noted that while they manage to shed the chains of such old traditions they do not have to worry about the future of any children.  They only need to look after each other.

            These female characters were similar in the fact that they were strong willed, forward thinking and fed up with old customs.  But it is the differences that are more interesting.  Rahda enters in the contract of marriage with a man she loves and they have children.  With modern mature relationships like this the passion and physical desire does not completely abate but it does lower its burn because practical things need to occur, like working the fields to feed the children.  For Sita and her lover though they never reach that point in the film.  Their relationship is built out of frustration and unmet physical desires.  It is sharp and warm like a fire but it has a very Romeo and Juliet feel about it.  At the end of the film these woman are being showered with rain; this choice should not be ignored as it signals the different conclusions this love story could have.  The rain could be Sita’s affection as she tends to her lover’s burn wounds or perhaps it is a signal that while they have gained their freedom the sparks of their romance are cooling.

Mother India, Fire -- Cait Collins

In Katherine Mayo's criticism of Hindu she expresses how the patriarchy of India is repressive to it's women. Mayo at that time identified these women as being oppressed by a non-westernized patriarchy. By focusing on another society than her own she was able to simplistically pick out the repressive nature of the geographical area as well as of the religion. When we use our "critical eye" to examine another culture it is very easy for one to point out the weaknesses or the faults of the society. What Mayo should have done is take that same critical eye and use it to examine the oppressive patriarchal christian nation she was apart of. It is so very easy to point out the flaws of others, but not to look at the flaws we each possess.


The response to Mayo's writing with the film Mother India showed that while women are oppressed by a society that puts a man first, this not leave a woman ultimately weak. The female protagonist acts in a similar manner to Brutus in Jacques-Louis David's The Lictors Bring to Brutus the Bodies of His Sons. Brutus had to make the challenging decision to kill his devious sons to protect the good of his people. The female protagonist of Mother India also had to choose to kill her son to protect the people of her town. Ultimately she had a strength that many people whether male or female would not possess.

Deepa Mehta's Fire adds another facet to the identity of the Hindu Indian woman by showing how the religious practices can underwhelm the lives of those following it. These women have to deal with loveless marriages that are based on traditional rather than on love. These women live in quiet desperation, with sexual drives and intimate needs that are not being validated. These women have as much complexity as any other woman from any other part of the world.

What I found to be most interesting when comparing Mother India the text, and Nair’s Fire was the shock and anger both brought about from the Hindu Indian community. Both show elements of the Hindu culture that perhaps society refuses to look upon. While Mayo’s writings were both highly racist and anti-Hindi, they did bring about the revelation that the marriage age was rather low, and that forced marriages of young children was a practice that must fall out of use. Anger against Mayo’s writings is understandable due to her obvious bigoted views as well as due to the fact that she was a Westerner looking into a society she had no understanding of or relationship to. Nair’s situation on the other hand is quite different. Nair has an understanding of the Indian Hindi culture due to being a member within it herself. Yet, her people still rebelled against her due to presenting to them an element of their own society that they wished not to see.

Mother India and Fire- Heather Goslin

            Kahn’s and Mayo’s Mother India is a wild representation of the Indian woman from the earlier 1900s. Even though I do not know hardly anything about Indian women from this time, I can tell that the movie was an over exaggeration of their roles. We see a woman working so hard to provide for her family, willing to do almost anything, but she is also naïve in a way. She is being ripped off by the moneylender and believes one giant turnip can turn her family around (which it does). The film itself was strange, from the singing to the acting to the mother killing her son to protect her community. The piece by Sinha helped me understand this over exaggeration. Mayo studied and knew a lot about public controversy and wanted to show it to prove a point.

            Mehta’s film Fire was much more interesting and, obviously, much more current. We got to see present day issues take place in modern day India. We learn a lot about some of India’s traditions, through marriage, women’s roles as a wife, and family. In marriage, the women in the film seem so trapped and turn to each other for comfort because their husbands are either preoccupied with someone else or are flat out uninterested. This comfort turns into something more, lesbianism, which is something very controversial in India. It was crazy to see the actual reactions of some Indians to the film. This film came out in the 90s shortly after Philadelphia came out in the US. Now, I do not know first hand the reactions Americans had to the film Philadelphia, which I am sure had some negative feedback, but probably not nearly as insane as India towards Fire. We as a community are more accepting of homosexuality whereas in India, it is something that everyone has a blind eye about.

            In Mother India and Fire we see very different lives of women living in India. In Mother India we see a woman who open to fighting for what is right for her and her family, but still lives under the watch of a male (the moneylender). In Fire we see women who are very traditional in public and around family, but sneak around to do what is right for them. The films are kind of opposites but relay very current controversies in India. 

Mother India & Fire

Reading about Mayo's Mother India compared to the film, Mother India, there are obvious and great differences. People were outraged with Mayo's book. She tried to expose women's struggles in India, mainly having to do with sex. Topics such as rape, prostitution, and premature maternity were addressed. The people expressed that it was disrespectful and did not accurately portray life in India. The film, however, showed how powerful women can be. It tries to "take back" the image of Indian women. Radha, the main character, marries a man based off of love, which is rare for India but a great sight to see. She is happy with life and continues to be a strong-willed woman when her husband leaves. She takes care of her children and works hard to keep them fed. This woman's moral values are high, which counteracts the ideas in the Mother India book. The film was one of the most popular films in India, so obviously the people liked this portrayal of their area much better than the book.

It was a little surprising to me how modern Fire is, and how much of an outrage it still was to the people in India. Yes, there were homosexuality issues in the United States at the time of this film, but I'm sure there would not be a riot if a film was made about it. The women in Fire seemed to be very dissatisfied in their marriages. Their husbands did not feel "love" towards them like they felt towards each other. These roles portrayed the typical arranged marriage, where the man has most of the say in the relationship.  Women's rights were less of a topic at this time, but the controversy revolved around the lesbianism in the film. Although there was riots after the film and people were outraged, it had people talking. I'm not really sure of what India's views on homosexuality are now, but it takes one film like this to create a spark, and eventually a Fire.

Jessica Weiss on Mayo's Mother India, Kahn's Mother India, and Mehta's Fire

     Reading about Mayo's criticisms of women in India and watching films like Mother India and Fire further expanded my ideas that feminism has meant different things at different times throughout history. Although the span is only from the 1950's to mid 1990's it is clear from these three forms of media that feminism can mean a variety of things. While Mayo wasn't a true feminist of her time, as she claimed to be, she did disclose some worthy ideas, like the idea of child marriages. While this inspired Western feminists in North America like the Broadway play about a child bride called Madame Nazimova's India ( Introduction by Mrinalini Sinha pg 2), it mostly just created a lot of opposition in India and later in North America, because Mayo's real motive was to justify India's need for British rule. The point here is that under the hat of feminism, Mayo tried to show the injustices of the dirty, disease ridden India.

      In response to the negative representation of Mayo's book, an Indian film artist, Kahn made the film Mother India which depicts the power women in India have and the good they do for their children, their fellow women, and for their village. In the film, the main character is glamorous and beautiful, an overall happy and seemingly satisfied mother and wife. During difficult times, after her husbands death, she struggles yet succeeds in providing for her family. Ultimately, she chooses saving the village's prized daughter over the life of her son. This kind of representation is as problematic to me as Mayo's book because it still keeps Indian women, and more globally, all women into the subservient role. Her whole life is in response to her husband, her male landowner, and her son. Feminist ideas in Mother India are only as relevant as the time period it was made in.

      As for Fire, this film was the most radical of the three as it portrayed women denying their traditional gendered role as wives, as well as played on the idea of female pleasure – both controversial topics in India, and throughout the world by different degrees. I found that this film brought forth the most emotion for me, more than likely because it was made during a more recent time period, so it had relateable dialogue and subject matter that suited me as a consumer. As entertaining as it was, in analyzing the film the major problem I have is that both women come to terms with their lesbianism while dealing with sexual issues with their husbands. Many of the conversations between Radha and Sita are about their husbands. While the book Mother India the film Mother India and the film Fire show some examples of injustices done to women, I'm not convinced they are a good feminist examples.

 

My thoughts on "Fire" - Billy Grandizio

I am going to completely go off on a tangent right now and not follow any of Spring's structure. One thing that really bothered me in the film "Fire" was tradition. I personally hate tradition. Tradition is one of the dominant themes in the film and is represented by Biji, the mother of the family. To me her old age represents the ageing of the ideals her generation strictly lives by. With her age she has lost her voice and must ring a small bell in order to display anger or discomfort. To me this represents the dying off of old customs and the strength of tradition's voice fading out. This allows for a rise of new ideas because the old ways are losing their power and leavening room for a new voice. Sita, who becomes Radha's lover, represents this new voice through youth and resistance to oppression. She is symbolic of the fight against tradition because she openly opposes social issues which Radha has been taught to ignore. As Sita continues to question these traditions Radha finds herself questioning her lifestyle as well. In the end Radha truly realizes that she loves Sita and that her traditional walls have been broken down.

         All of this said I believe tradition can completely ruin someone. I think it is so stupid that we feel like just because our parents have taught us something or we have grown up a certain we, we have to abide by those rules and customs. We our all are own person and we have the choice day in and day out to do and act however we please. No body owns us or can tell us what to do or how to feel. I think about voting, and how if our parents vote a certain way, we end up voting that way. Just taking that example why can’t we research things for ourselves and stop doing things just because they are comfortable and familiar!

Mother India and Fire

Films like Mother India and Fire both show what it is like to be a woman in Hindu society, but do so in different ways. In Mother India, the mother is shown as a strong, heroic woman. She marries for love, which was rare, and had children. She worked in the fields alongside her husband, which showed the equality between man and woman. When her husband died, she carried on by herself and managed to take care of herself and her small children. By the end, she is viewed as a heroic figure because she killed her own son in order to protect the honor of the village. In this film, the lead character was a woman who was strong and self assured. She did the things that she needed to in order to survive, but she did not sacrifice her morals along the way.       

Fire, on the other hand, showed the women as being inferior, meant only for cooking and sex. Sita married Jatin in an arranged marriage, although he is still in love with Julie. Everyone in the house knows that Jatin is going to visit Julie while his wife Sita stays at home. From the get go, the men are put on a higher pedestal. Throughout the film, we see Sita and Radha endure relationships with their husbands that lack affection, honesty, and respect. As a result, Sita and Radha grow closer and begin to fill the void in each other’s lives. Although both women are portrayed as inferior, Sita’s courage and loneliness leads her to a relationship with Radha, which was unheard of. Both Radha and Sita leave their husbands and continue their relationship. Sita and Radha showed courage because they recognized that they were not happy in their lives and instead of moping around, they did something about it.

In the end of each film, the woman was portrayed as heroic, which is a stark contrast from how women in the Hindu religion typically are viewed. Although it took Sita and Radha longer to reach heroism than it did for the woman in Mother India, the women shrugged off the duties that were thrust upon them by their culture and instead created their own. I think that it was interesting that in Mother India¸ the main character was viewed as a strong, independent woman from the beginning while Sit and Radha were not viewed that way until the end of Fire. This was interesting to me because Mother India was made in 1957 while Fire was made in 1996. If anything, I thought the views on women would have been reversed in the films.  

Mother India and Fire Response

            Mother India said both positive and negative things about women in India. This film made the lead woman, Radha, seem empowered, loyal, and intelligent. However, it also placed her into a false over exaggeration of her role as a woman. The bits of the film and reading made her role seem impractical and unlikely to actually be the case. The film was over the top and it made India look like they are covering what the women there do. I say this because the extremity of the film covers any bad views people could have on Indian women. Clearly, not all of these women are empowered like Radha or willing to kill their own son for their community. It makes me want to see for myself how these women really act and behave.

            As for Fire, the film is much more realistic in my opinion. The women are subservient to the men and they are treated as less than their husbands. It is about family pride and behaving appropriately. The film shows the consequences of not following the traditional roles of women. The wife was set on fire because she chose a woman over her husband and shamed him. The men only care about the way they are perceived, which has a lot to do with their families. The women are still intelligent and persistent and empowered in the film Fire. The major difference is that it is realistic empowerment and defiance. They have to be more sly and sneaky to achieve the respect and things they desire. They risk a lot as women to break away from their husbands but yet they are brave and attempt to do so. The men are portrayed as pigs and awful husbands. It makes you see the actual suffering many of these women go through due to arranged marriages and traditional roles. Yes this makes India look bad but it is also more along the lines of the truth to a small degree. They are known for their strict values and expectations and the film highlights these.

 
           The traditional roles are shown differently between these two films. Mother India  shows that women can be respected as single mothers and providers for their family. It shows that women can be happy in an arranged marriage and fight against a marriage they do not agree with. However, in Fire the roles are much different. The women get a bad reputation for divorce or going against men in general. They have little say in who they marry and some do end up unhappy with the outcome. They do not stand as the head providers of a family and usually live with other family members who help care for them. Lastly, They are not supposed to stand up to men and speak their minds openly.

Mother India and Fire--Melissa Hurley

Although Mother India was an older, somewhat goofy film in the eyes of what film is today, I really enjoyed, and was surprised to watch, the girl-power exhibited especially by the mother, in a film made in 1957. When I think of women in America in 1957, I picture housewives raising children, vacuuming in high heels, and having a drink in hand for when their husbands came home from work. Radha was spirited, firey, and displayed a wide variety of emotions, even in the short clips we saw. She is brave, stubborn, loving, intelligent and hard working. I bet if the American women of the 50’s watched that movie they would have a heart attack at the amount of work that she did in those fields. This brings up an interesting question of women in American and/or Western culture. Why do many (but definitely not all) women thrive on being presumed as helpless or fragile by their male counterparts? The desire to be skinny rather than built and strong, obsessing over fashion, nails, hairstyles or purses, and stating “Oh I’m just going to marry rich” are themes and attitudes that are portrayed by Hollywood and in the media. Not every woman is this, but every woman knows somebody who is. Just a thought…

Fire had girl-power in it too, but in a much more subdued way. This was because the two women were restricted by the chains of the patriarchal society, as discussed in Mayo’s article. I found myself rooting for them throughout the entire film though, because being able to love whomever you want is an important cause to me. I was relieved that finally at the end, the women overcame the cultural barriers and left their wifely duties to live their lives in happiness, the way every human should.

Mother India and Fire

Mother India struck me as a non-intended comedy; I'm not quite sure if it was meant to be funny but I am going to presume that its over-dramatization is what made it so. This film, I think, focuses on the honor of womanhood and how capable they are in society. The main character is portrayed working in the fields, raising her children on her own with what little she has, and protecting herself against the landowner. And in the end she shows that she is "first a woman, then a mother" by killing her son to protect the landowner's daughter in order to preserve the town's value. This was very surprising because in most films, especially those based in cultures such as that of India, the women's main duties are to be mothers. Rarely do we see a film based on woman power and their ability to have a voice and control. Fire on the other hand portrays  two very different stories; instead we meet two women who do not seem to be allowed to have a voice, who will not have a kind life without their husbands. It is easy to see why this film caused so much controversy, not only do we have two women who decide to take control of their lives and go against what their husbands want, but two women who also go against society by finding love and desire in each other's arms. Fire challenges every belief that most Indian's hold true: homosexuality is a sin and women are meant to please their husbands. The fact that the film ends with Rhada being set on fire by her husband and yet not burning to ash, signifying that what she has done is not a sin, is a blatant showing that homosexuality is actually not a sin. It shows that it is okay to do what makes you happy, be with who makes you happy, even if others do not agree with it.

Fire and Mother India : Hina Anwar

                The movies Mother India and Fire had to very distinct ways of show women of the Indian culture.  Mother India was more based on “girl power” with the main character working the fields, raising her children alone, fighting off a debt collector, and the finally killing her son to keep the village’s honor as she was a women first and then a mother. This was a strange portrayal because usually, no matter which culture, women rejoice in their motherhood. I don’t think honor comes before that. Fire on the other hand depicted women as having a “knowing what they want” attitude and not a submissive good wife role. The two female leads are at first deal with the lives they lead without complaining, that is until they realize they’re mutual attraction for one another. They went against all that they knew to be together and stopped listening to the husbands that demanded so much of them. The film was about more than just a gay couple, it was about two people who went against cultural norms to be happy.

                The irony of Fire was that the two characters were named after two prominent goddesses in the Hindu religion. I wasn't really sure if this was to make the film more controversial by almost questioning the faith or just a coincidence. The title itself is ironic, with the trial by fire and if the woman turns to ash she has sinned, but if she survives she has not. This was my favorite part of the movie when Radha’s husband sets her on fire because she is leaving him for a woman and that in the end she does not burn to ash implying that she is not sinning. It is not a sin to chase after happiness.

                Although the film Fire made me uncomfortable with all its bluntness towards sexuality, in the end I felt had some really interesting messages. The reading refers to sexuality in India and how it was a male dominant country. So it was interesting to see two women embrace their sexuality and deny their husbands. The men portrayed in this movie were over sexualized in a sense. With Sita’s husband having an affair and only taking an interest in her when she fights back. Radha’s husband tries to prove he can control his sexuality, by keeping his desires to himself but occasionally practicing to show that he still had control. This whole thing was just weird, like he was abstaining and yet still asking for his wife to prove he wasn't out of practice. It just seemed like he wasn't in control at all. The reading also referred to the freedom of women in India. The country was male dominant, so I feel like part of the reason people were so upset with the film was because they didn't like how two Indian women were acting out and not behaving like they were “supposed to”.  The film hit on many different things besides sexuality and that made it more controversial. It commented on feminism and maybe because of this people didn't like it.    

Free India

The controversies that surround the works of Mother India and Fire have much to do with the times of their release. Mother India, beginning its life as a book in 1927 and being reborn as a film in 1957,  tackles the issues of sexism and oppression. Radha is shown as a strong woman, a pillar of the community, who stands up to any man no matter the cost. The role of women in society is challenged here both in a general manner as dictated by global women's rights movements around that time, and specifically targeted towards the duties given to women by Hinduism. Radha also represents India fighting for independence from its colonizers, struggling under the oppression. This also speaks to the affairs of the time, only politically. The passion that Mother India induced fueled the nationalist movement and gave rise to the beautiful slogan: "India cannot be free until its women are free, and women cannot be free until India is free". 

Fire raises a few of the same questions as Mother India, in regard to Hindu women and their duties, but it mainly focuses on the issue of heterosexism or homophobia. I would argue that by 1996, women's rights were no longer an issue of hot debate, but lesbianism certainly was, especially when paired with the sexual beliefs of religion. I was shocked when shown the reactions of the people who saw the film when it first screened, because I do not often encounter religious fanatics and also because I myself don't view homosexuality as something wrong or abnormal. I don't view the adverse reactions to Mother India and Fire as negative, because the haters now realize that the issues they oppose have strong support. Therefore I view these films as strong tools in advocating the rights of women and homosexuals.

- Steffie

Mother India v. Fire + Shakespeare comparison - Chris Prowant

            First something I noticed in the film that I wanted to talk about. In Fire the servant I found to be a very interesting character to look at, not because he was extremely creepy and horrible, but because I could relate him to another character in literature. The character was from Shakespeare's play Othello and his name was Iago. A brief understanding of Iago, he was very manipulative and would turn those around him against each other to get what he wanted. He and the servant are very similar because the servant almost talks to the camera like Iago would, they both pretend to be sub servant of those around them, but once everyone leaves they do as they will. The most interesting connection is that near the end of fire the servant whispers doubt in Ashok's ear, which then leads to him finding Radha and Sita, just like in the play Othello when Iago whispers doubts in Othello's ear. I just found this an interesting connection, because it helps us perhaps get a better understand of the servant and what his role is in the film.

            I thought both films, Mother India and Fire, were both different yet amazing looks into India as a country. Because to be honest they were both made by Indian film makers, which shows us that in India, as like America, they have two different view points. In Mother India It takes the stand that women are powerful, but they know their place in the society. It very much Bollywoods it to make it seem amazing or at least good to be a woman in India. And with respect to that film and some of the interviews we saw, some women their do believe in this. However, when looking at Fire we get a completely different view. It shows that women do not like how their being treated and as Sita says in the film they "...have a button marked tradition and whenever its pressed we can't help but act." This I find very interesting because it shows that perhaps these women, maybe all of them, feel this way, but since they were raised this way it made them become subordinate to men. Hopefully this film and others after it will help India give women more rights, so they can be treated equally.

Mother India

Mother India
I am definitely upset after reading the excerpts from Mayo's Mother India. I feel that this book is so offensive to Indian people. Mayo went to India with the intent of writing about it's poor health conditions but chose to write about it's treatment of women instead. I think it's great to promote equal rights but it is not okay for a country or group of people to impose their views on another country. Mayo chose to focus on Hindu culture and the marrying of young girls and their premature pregnancies.
        The reading bothers me a lot because a lot of American and British intervention was a set back for India. "By overlooking the role of the colonial state in its diagnosis of women's condition in India, moreover, the book neglected conveniently any discussion of the decline in status of women of certain classes and groups in India as a direct result of specific colonial interventions in the Indian economy and in Indian culture."(Mother India:Introduction) A lot of the colonizing by Britain has resulted in casts systems that still exist today all over the world. This casts have people hating each other for things like skin color.
        There are arguments in the book of whether India is fit for self rule or should be ruled by Britain. I just can't see how it's fair or how a nation can even think it's fair to control another nation. There are some things that certain cultures value that others do not and it is not always necessary for people to step in and fix "problems". I think that Western civilizations have the tendency to think they are more developed because they are industrialized and so on. It is important for Western cultures to see that other nations are doing their own thing and can figure it out for themselves. It is not always necessary yo step in especially when we are not really needed or asked for help.
       The movie Fire was awesome! I'm glad to see filmmakers like Mehta pushing the envelope. It was definitely inspiring.

Questions for Kahn's and Mayo's Mother India and Mehta's Fire

What do you think of Katherine Mayo’s North American criticism of Hindu (arguably) women’s realities in 1920? What do you think of the Mehboob Kahn’s reimagining of the role of the  Indian woman in Kahn’s Mother India? In what ways does Deepa Mehta’s Fire (and surrounding controversy) comment upon independent India’s self-representation?

Women’s issues and traditional roles are represented very differently in the films Mother India and Fire. In many ways this is a comment on the passing of time. The film Mother India was made by Kahn in 1957. Fire was made by Mehta in 1996. (North American representations of women’s issues and roles differ greatly between 1957 and 1996, as well.) What is your reaction to these films and their agendas?

Both Saving Face and Fire critique patriarchal culture; can you think of a comparable North American film? I could have chosen to show a Bollywood film or a film like Slumdog Millionaire (co-directed by a British man and an Indian woman). Instead, I decided to have these particular films encourage us to engage in a debate surrounding fundamentalisms and global feminisms. This is not fair to the myriad of Indian and Pakistani films that exist... In my own defense, in designing this course I chose readings and films to complement one another and to attempt to raise certain discussions, and I chose to attach certain issues to certain cultures, although these issues are not relegated to any particular culture, but are global issues. My hope is that you will be inspired to search out other examples of internationally produced films on your own and broaden your own cultural perspectives.

Saving Face and the Rape Epidemic

One of the most interesting topics of conversation that I thought were raised during our discussion of Saving Face was the link between the epidemic of acid attacks in Pakistan and the epidemic of rape in the United States. For us, viewing this film as Americans, we were all shocked by the atrocities that are being commited against women in Pakistan; however, we are experiencing equally horrifying acts of violence against women (and men, for that matter) in our own country. That being said, I think many of us are desensitized to the epidemic of rape in the U.S. because we are too exposed to it. There is seldom a night on the local news that you do not hear about someone getting raped or sexually assaulted. We have become to accustomed to rape occuring in our communities that it hardly even seems like a big deal anymore.

This makes me question the way that acid attacks were being perceived in Pakistan. If, for us Americans, rapes and sexual assaults are often overlooked, then are acid attacks on women being overlooked in Pakistan? It's clear from the documentary that, until recently, there was no law that adequately punished those who commited acid attacks on women in Pakistan. In the U.S., similarly, there are laws that certainly punish rapists and people who commit acts of sexual violence. However, the question that sparks my curiosity is why are these acts being commited in the first place? What is the target against women in so many different societies? As we discussed in class, the differences in the societies of Pakistan and the United States are vast-- so why is it that one of the few similarities is in violence against women? Could these attacks, both in Pakistan and the United States, be considered hate crimes against women? What can be done to ensure that the overall safety of women is more secure all over the world?

Saving Face--Melissa Hurley

For me, Saving Face was just yet another example of how women are persecuted horrendously in the Middle East. I understand that the films and documentaries that we have watched are by no means a broad generalization of the culture, however, it certainly seems to be a common theme that keeps reappearing. This then poses the question of "who are we to judge right and wrong in a culture we know very little about?" I believe that sometimes people take their western beliefs too far and believe that middle eastern countries can be just like the US. Of course this totally discredits any cultural or religious differences that may play a role in that. There is a point though, that it can get too far, no matter what your background is. Universally, I believe that it is a wrong thing to cause bodily or emotional harm to a person, along with taking advantage of someone. This is what happened to the women in Saving Face as well as The House is Black. This is what happens to women in Africa, Italy, China and the United States. This is what has been happening to women as far back as the history books go. Our male-dominated society exudes power over women, therefore portraying them (us) as helpless, not qualified, and an object for men to use. This is a strong statement and is by no means the way that every man feels, it is just representative of issues our current culture is dealing with.

Many people have mentioned being relieved at the "happy ending". I am going to have to play devil's advocate as well as be a bit pessimistic just because I didn't really get the happy ending vibe. Yes, it is wonderful that the legislation got passed, however, these women still live with the scars of the act. Who is to say it won't keep happening? Did/will these men ever learn their lessons? Judging from the one man the film featured, I would like to think not. I have no solution for this, I just feel that although the end of the film did provide closure, I still feel cautious to consider it a happy ending, because I feel like the battle these women will have to face has just begun.

Saving Face

Saving Face was another one of those movies that really made me uncomfortable. I do not deal well with seeing gruesome personal problems with others. It makes my stomach turn when I see things like that. I feel terrible for all of the women that have suffered those acid burns. I had no idea that acid attacks were a real thing to worry about. I could not imagine having to live in a place where you have to worry about that on a daily basis. It is a good thing that the law was passed for harsher and stricter penalties on those who commit the crime. I know that I have said it before, but things like this make me count my blessings every day that I am so lucky. When you look at the grand scheme of things, I have very little to really complain about, and for that I am forever thankful.

I noticed one of the questions was to compare Saving Face and The House is Black. They are both definitely similar. They both portray horrendous things that people have to deal with. They both show the sense of community that people that have leprosy and that have faced acid attacks show with other people who deal with the same thing. The biggest difference is that one is forced upon you and one you can do nothing about. I think in terms of respecting other cultures arts, I think the only way to do so is to keep watching other cultures films and become accustomed to them.

Watching the film Saving Face, made me gain a new-found appreciation for the life I have. It is almost impossible to believe that on the same planet we live on, there are acid attacks going on. As Americans, most of us live a very sheltered life and are unaware of the tragedy that occurs in other parts of the world. The women who suffer the attacks are victims of a sexist and unequal society. Their husbands were throwing acid on them, most likely as a punishment for their disobedience toward a male authority. It is truly astounding in their society that if you disobey or disagree with your husband acid could be thrown on you, and people turn a blind eye. I was in disbelief watching this film that justice was not immediately won. Women in that society are not treated as people, but rather possessions of the male gender. I was shocked when they were interviewing the one woman's husband who threw acid on her, and was now on trial. He looked straight into the camera and claimed it was not him who did it, and he saw another man throw acid on his wife. In reality he threw acid on her for trying to file a divorce against him. He looks into the camera and lies because he feels no remorse, and doubts that he will be charged. It was a relief to say the least when the outcome was a new law giving anyone who commits this crime life sentences, and thankfully this man was the first to receive it. Seeing all the women's faces disfigured by acid was a heart-breaking wake up call for all of the evil that happens outside our free nation.



I was not in the class yet when we watched The House Is Black. However, this movie is also comparable in some ways to Turtles Can Fly. That film illustrates how murder, war, and rape happen so often that the people in Turkey and Iraq are immune to the tragedy. I never knew much about what goes on in countries other than the United States. Watching these films about foreign nations has opened my eyes to the sensored bubble we live in. In these nations where rape and acid epidemics are prevalent, women have no voice. They are victims in male-dominated nations, and continue to suffer. What does that really say? In both of these films, there were cases of women who would rather take their own lives then live the ones that God has given them.

Misogyny and slavery

            Misogyny and slavery are two horrific crimes against humanity that have been perpetuated by other humans for thousands of years.  The film Saving Face did a magnificent job at illustrating how these two age-old travesties are still very much alive and present in the world today. 

            The women in this film were victims of acid attacks and their stories were an eye opening experience for me.  I had heard about men in various countries and sometimes their female family members throwing battery acid or gasoline on unfortunate wives who failed to please their new family, but I had never had a chance to have a deep look into the lives of these victims. The heroines of this movie allowed the filmmakers to examine their lives as they struggled with being physically maimed by truly hideous people.             

            Rakshauna’s story struck me very deeply.  It was dark and disturbing to begin with, but the mood that was created when she opened up the window in her small home and stroked the stonewall that separated her from her daughter was haunting.  Her husband’s continued inane ramblings that he was guiltless of any crime against his wife stirred an immense amount of anger in me.

            I was shocked when the documentary ended on a victorious note.  When the new law was passed the joy was very easy to see on the survivors of these attacks.  And though this movie was filled with emotional trauma and horrifying tales of abuse from a patriarchal society it was able to find the good that can come when men and women join together to protect each other as equal individuals.  

Saving Face - Maggie Varga

Before entering this class, I was truly unaware of how culturally sheltered I was. I thought I had an idea of what was going on around the world, but I only knew the big stories that were broadcasted here, such as wars, riots, and sometimes spreading poverty and hunger. I had no idea there was even such a thing as acid attacks. This form of crime is unheard of in America, and I am never fearful of it happening to me. The women in Saving Face mainly were victims of this crime done by their husbands. These women are devastated by their own appearance, some even too embarrassed to show any part of their face in public. One women even exclaims that her life is ruined due to the acid attack on her.

Yes, there are still some gender inequalities here in the United States, but gender issues are greatly higher in Pakistan. I feel lucky to not have to worry about this issue here. Before these women, and others, were speaking out against these attacks, the punishment for this crime was not a fair one. These women were seeking justice, which was a big deal in this country to speak out against your own husband. Most of the men in this film claimed they were not the ones who attacked their wives, but I'm sure there are other men who claim they had justifiable reason to attack their wife. Most of the men in Pakistan seem to ban together and agree that nothing is wrong with this violent crime against women.

At the end of the film, the woman pressing charges against her husband got the justice she wanted; he was sent to prison for a double life sentence. A new law in Pakistan was also passed, making the punishment for an acid attack more strict. Perhaps since this law was passed, more women will speak out against the violent crimes against them. Maybe slowly, equality will be seen throughout Pakistan, one woman at a time.

Saving Face

As it was discussed in class, Saving Face had a happy ending that has not occurred in most of the films we have viewed so far, and that was a pretty big relief.

The one thing I think I am enjoying most about this class is that it is opening my eyes to films that I can honestly say I would not have watched if they weren't a requirement. But I am very glad to have the opportunity to learn about these issues that go unnoticed by so many people. Until Saving Face I had no idea that acid attacks were even a, for lack of a better term, "thing". I had no idea that something so horrible could happen to people. In terms of The House is Black, I had knowledge of leprosy, but had never really taken the time to learn about it.

The first connection beyond the horrible situations that these people faced that I drew from the movies, was how trapped the victims were. The were (and are) stuck in situations where they could not find very much hope.

But the second connection I made was the hope that could be found in the people dealing with these situations. In The House is Black, the hope was not quite as obvious, but when you looked at the children you could see their pure happiness despite their situation. The children found things to live for and in some ways that inspired hope in the adults of the community and the viewers of the film that things may one day be okay. In Saving Face hope was visible everywhere. Although the situations of the women were terrible and completely unfair, they fought so that other women would not have to face what they faced, and that in and of itself is inspiring.

Saving Face- Heather Goslin

Some people in class said that what we saw in Saving Face was not shocking because they already knew about it or know how some women are treated in Pakistan. For me, I did not know about acid attacks and it was just so shocking to see what humans are capable of doing to another person. It disgusts me to know that something so traumatic was happening to the women in the documentary and most of the men would get away with it. In the end, justice, but I would not really call this a happy ending because women are still suffering from the attacks.

            While watching Saving Face, I actually thought about the woman staring at herself in the mirror in the beginning of The House is Black. The way she stared at herself, thinking, “Who is this woman?” I know many of the women in Saving Face feel the same way. The people with leprosy and the victims of acid attacks have been through extremely traumatic events in their lives. I could not imagine going through either thing. The astonishing thing about most of the effected people is that it seems like the never give up. Yes, some said they wanted to end their lives or are very depressed, but in the end, they pull through. In both films, the camera showed many clips of laughing children, smiling faces, and people playing games. All were amazing to see in the midst of such tragedy.

I actually hadn't thought of comparing and contrasting Saving Face and The House is Black, but I found that not only are the subjects of both along the same lines, but a parallel is also formed by the underlying factors of both films. Although The House is Black focused on an entire colony of people stricken with leprosy, I feel that the male residents were a greater focus than the females of the community. On the contrary, Saving Face focused on the aftermath of the unfortunate attacks that some Pakistani women have to deal with at the hands of the men. In both films, it was inspiring that despite the tragedies that had struck these people they never lost sight of their faith, and that most found the little strength they had left from their religion. Another interesting thing to think about with both films is that in The House is Black the lepers wound up with the disease because of their poor living conditions and lack of medical input, therefore they had little control over the disadvantages they were stuck with. However, the women of Saving Face wound up in their conditions after their loved ones turned on them in quite a horrifying manner.

As for solely looking at Saving Face, like others in the class, I found it as somewhat of a relief that we could finally watch something that had a positive ending. At the beginning of the movie, one of the characters solemnly told us how she had enjoyed taking pictures in her new outfits as a young girl because it made her feel beautiful. Once she reveals her face it's hard to imagine her being transformed back into anything close to her former appearance, but in fact she has surgery and gets a mask-like cover-up for her face to give her a new look to be proud of.

The surgeon who does the operations on the women displays another light of inspiration on viewers. Although he moved from Pakistan years before, he comes back in order to do these free operations for the attacked women.. I feel that even though there is much philanthropy and charity in the world, it sometimes seems that when people become successful and leave their native place, they don't do that much to give back to their community. The doctor does as much that's in his power for the women, free of charge, which is in itself a blessing considering the detailed procedures at hand.

Ally Headings - Saving Face

            While viewing Saving Face, I didn’t immediately make a connection with The House is Black. But now that it’s been mentioned, I can see a few similarities between the two films. I recall discussing how the lepers in the colony in The House is Black were trapped within the colony, unable to leave. And in Saving Face, it’s kind of like the women were trapped behind their acid burns, and the only way to escape from that was through the plastic surgeon and also maybe through the lawsuits. I really was so happy that the new Pakistani law was enforced when that women won the case against he husband. That was such a huge turning point that will hopefully help the decline of these attacks. But it’s so clear in both the movies that these people care deeply about what they look like. The victims of the acid attacks were desperate to have a procedure to correct their face and many of them expressed that the attack “has ruined their life.” It may be a little different for the lepers in the colony, but we still saw them decorating themselves with fingernail polish and brushing hair to look good. I could see that more with the women than with the men.

            I found the comparison of acid attacks and the U.S. rape epidemic very interesting. It also kind of broke my heart. Most times, we interact with people who’ve been raped or sexually abused without even realizing it. I happen to be one of those people. It’s definitely not as obvious as the acid burns and scars that the women wear daily, unless of course, the rape results in a pregnancy. But even then people probably wouldn’t primarily suspect rape. Now I don’t know how easy it is for victims of rape to press charges and win a case in the United States, but if it’s anything like the system in Pakistan up until the change of laws, then that’s a real tragedy. But whether it’s rape or acid attacks, I will never be able to understand why people do these things to one another.
           On a note completely aside from the previous, I found it cool that I was able to talk to my dad about this. He had previously seen Saving Face on HBO last year. It was cool that I was able to enlighten my parents and discuss what we discuss in class every week. I don't know, it was a different experience for me, and very interesting to hear their reactions and opinions. I did really like the film, though. It was well made and like the girl in our class who appreciated the happy ending, I very much did too.