Ultra-Conservative Indians go crazy at the use of religious figures.
Non-Indians immediately think this controversial movie thats unsettling the natives must be worth seeing because its "pushing the boundries"
Overall, great publicity for a movie aimed at the Non-Indian market!
But what is the real problem with Fire? I'm quite confused about what I think of it...
On one hand, compared to "Bollywood", its progress, theres no denying that films should be made that talk about real issues that affect real people.
But on the other, the literally non-stop Hindu references (bashing) are just overbearing. A little subtlety would go a long way.
Indians would be able to appreciate the movie for the content, while Non-Indians would be able to expand their knowledge afterwards (if they wished to) by learning more about Indian culture.
But thats not the case.
The problem with the way it was done, is that it is extremely difficult for a person familiar and comfortable with Indian culture, to not be offended by a movie featuring a lesbian affair between "Sita" and "Radha". Imagine a movie featuring a gay affair between a guys called "Jesus" and "Moses", its just not necessary and really only serves an extremely superficial purpose.
Instead of allowing the audience to think, it comes across like a "show and tell" of what Deepa Mehta thinks is wrong with India. This is by far the worst of her trilogy in that respect, although both Water and Earth do have some features that do seem to serve no purpose other than provide shock value.
I guess the point is, this movie was made with this level (lack) of subtlety around any religious ideology, it would have caused controversy, think of the Midwest or Mideast!
I guess that my problem problem with Fire isn't what it says exactly, moreso, the way it says it.