Dostana Response (Comparison with Deepa Mehta's Fire): Michelle Okereke

Based on premise alone, Tarun Mansukhani’s Dostana (2008) and Deepa Mehta’s Fire (1996) share a common theme—homosexuality—with one blaring difference. While Fire revolves around the development of a real homosexual relationship and the characters’ attempts to conceal it, Dostana revolves around a fabricated homosexual relationship and its exploitation for personal gain. But a simple glance at the two films demonstrates that they are worlds apart. Aesthetically, Dostana boasts bright colors, flashy musical montages with quick cuts, and beautiful beach bodies. On the other hand, Fire offers a saturated but quieter aesthetic, no musical numbers that break from reality, and features a weak and disabled body (that of Biji) in almost every scene. Both have clear Western influences (Dostana takes place in Miami, and Fire was directed by Indo-Canadian Mehta and has dialogue almost entirely in English), but to vastly different effects. Dostana’s fun, upbeat tone is markedly different from Fire’s cerebral one. But most importantly, a closer analysis of these films ultimately leads to the conclusion that neither film is even about homosexuality. Rather, both use the subject as a vehicle for their respective objectives—comedy for Dostana and feminist social critique for Fire.

In Dostana, the depiction of homosexuality is heavily contrived. Sam and Kunal decide to pretend to be a gay couple in order to move into a girls-only apartment. From the beginning, this plan is meant to shock, and this shock value translates into comedy. Moreover, the conflation of male homosexuality and femininity persists throughout the film. Their attempts to “prove” their sexuality almost always involve acting more feminine—most notably when Sam tells the story of their meeting. He borrows tropes from other romantic comedy films, and tells them from the female perspective. At one point, Sam and Kunal even explicitly say they should “think like girls.” Their caricatured performance as “gay” is mirrored back to them through other characters in the film who are actually gay, all of which have the same stereotyped flamboyance. Occasionally, the film includes simplistic lines about tolerance, but by-and-large homosexuality is used as a tool for comedy.

In Fire, homosexuality arises more naturally. Radha and Sita first kiss in a scene where Radha comforts a crying Sita. The kiss is a surprise to both women, and the thought of it lingers before the relationship is further pursued. However, Mehta never imposes the label of “homosexuality” on this relationship. In interviews, Mehta herself said that this is “not a film about lesbians,” but rather “the choices we make in life.” The two leads could be lesbians, or they could be bisexual, or they could be heterosexual and experimenting. It is not clear. But from Mehta’s statement, what is clear is that the film uses homosexuality as a vehicle for the assertion of female choice. In some ways, this message actually goes against modern discourse on sexual orientation, which emphasizes that it is not a matter of choice. But it is in line with some earlier trains of feminist thought, which argued that the only way to fight the patriarchy was to reject it. This would include limiting relations—sexual or otherwise—to other females.

So while Fire is critical of India’s patriarchal values, Dostana largely ignores social context and subtly reinforced these ideals. Fire depicts conceptions of marriage and a wife’s duty in India, and suggests that women should put their own needs ahead of their husbands. Female sexuality becomes a symbol of female liberation. Although Dostana features a career-focused Neha, marriage ultimately becomes the factor that her happiness hinges on. And while the bodies of Neha and Kunal allude to sexuality, any tangible desire for sexuality is absent from Neha. She is celebrated for how her character adheres to traditional female ideals—beautiful, but chaste. So ultimately, these two films “about” homosexuality aren’t really about homosexuality. They feature opposing commentary on how Indian women should behave and feel (explicitly in Fire and implicitly in Dostana), little of which has to do with sexual orientation.