July 27, 2007
Wes Goes East
Ironic Film-making to Gentrify India?
The new trailer for Wes Anderson's latest, The Darjeeling Limited, is making the rounds on-line.
What with all this fish-out-of-water "spiritual" but funny journey in India stuff, please don't tell me I'm the only person who fears this film could be, well, racist? Not so much racist in that Birth of a Nation way, but racist in that exoticized Other, voiceless Herzogian-mob-of-brown-people, non-white-people-as-set-ups-for-stupid-jokes ala Lost In Translation sort of way.
I guess its wait and see, but 'til I've seen it... I'm a little wary. Just the words "sensual landscape of India" in the film's description are enough to set my radar off...
It's due out at the end of September.
Comments
Jeremy Clemmons said...
I'd argue that Lost in Translation isn't racist, so I suppose I'm not really "feeling" this argument. Either way, the imminent problem I see with the film is that it looks so ridiculously clinical.
Posted by: Jeremy Clemmons | July 28, 2007 9:50 PM
Ben said...
I resent your comparing Anderson to Herzog, even if it's fair.
Posted by: Ben | July 30, 2007 12:46 AM
Tram said...
I'm conflicted with Lost in Translation. The stupid jokes about the Japanese being too short and not rolling their Rs right got tiresome over time. But at the same time, I felt Coppola infused the film with a sense of self-awareness and subjectivity that the mythical, self-affirmed "apolitical" Herzog would never surrender to because his view is supposedly so omniscient. Plus, that moment Bill Murray had with that elderly woman (or was it man?) was v. sweet.
Re: Wes Anderson
I would be on the look-out for The Darjeeling Limited had the trailer been more serious. But there's something so kooky about the tone of the film that I just can't see India being depicted as a mecca of Enlightenment. Displacement, maybe. I may be wrong though. I guess we'll just have to wait for the finished product.
Posted by: Tram | July 30, 2007 2:23 AM
Tram said...
Er, Bill Murray with that elderly woman in the hospital, I mean.
Posted by: Tram | July 30, 2007 2:25 AM
Jeremy said...
"The stupid jokes about the Japanese being too short and not rolling their Rs right got tiresome over time. "
Some of the humour may be relatively "low grade", but I don't see it as inherently distasteful; it's more a gentle mocking of obvious differences for philosophical effect. Consider the r-l joke. It's Bob that suffers this, not Charlotte. He is the one that has put himself in the position to be interpreting instructions and to be visited by a female escort laid on by the company. In both these scenarios, he finds himself up against the r-l problem, revealing the awkwardness of his own situation and life choices. I feel this is an important detail. The joke isn't just randomly thrown out in a "let's rip on the Japanese" fashion; it's specifically used to underscore the dilemma of a single character. But the ubiquity of the issue has to be given credence by being acknowledged by another character, so we also get Charlotte bringing it up in a later scene to Bob. This question comes at a significant time in their relationship; it's an innocent question belying a deep curiosity for an essential facet of life itself. Here we have this peculiar situation where Western culture and Western language have bled into Japan, producing various phenomena, including this well-known comical conundrum. In effect, the r-l joke serves as another motif for the film's deeper themes. It may not be insignificant that the camera subtly alters focus in the scene where this question is posed, going between the people in the room and the lights outside: a visual mixing of "r" and "l". From a simple humourous paradigm comes deep meaning. I'm not saying that I entirely have that meaning pinned down, and that will make it easier for negative people to attack, but that's not what the deepest expressions of the human psyche are about -- true art, which I hold LIT to be, functions like a proverbial electron, definitely quantifiable in some way, but forever foggy and impossible to precisely map and explain.
Other than that I pretty much agree with you [about Darjeeling Limited]. Then again, it really does look like he's riffing off his own style -- which seems like a bigger problem to me.
Posted by: Jeremy | July 30, 2007 8:03 AM
Jeffrey said...
Werner Herzog has likely spent more time living and working with "mobs-of-brown-people" than all the white liberals on the east and west coast of the USA combined.
As for Wes Anderson, his films have always suffered from an abundance of fantasy, largely based on class though also, to some extent, based on race. Any "enlightenment" his characters experience is only scalp-deep and hardly earned; I should expect nothing different this time around.
Posted by: Jeffrey | July 30, 2007 3:35 PM
Andrew said...
er... I didn't get any of that from LiT. I guess that's interpretation for you.
Werner Herzog has likely spent more time living and working with "mobs-of-brown-people" than all the white liberals on the east and west coast of the USA combined.
You don't know white liberals, Jeffrey... we love to travel to other countries and wear that as a badge of cultural honor. Ever heard of the peace corps?
But even if it what you say were true, one group of peoples' short comings doesn't justify Werner's. Anyway, it's not about the amount of time living and working as it a matter of representation in cinema.
Posted by: Andrew | July 30, 2007 4:58 PM
Jeffrey said...
I bet Herzog could kick all of your asses and drag your corpses over the nearest mountain... and make a great film of it.
Who rocks the party?
Posted by: Jeffrey | July 30, 2007 9:24 PM
Jeremy said...
Yeah, you really didn't seem to get much out of it, huh? ;)
Posted by: Jeremy | July 30, 2007 9:34 PM
Greg said...
Andrew, I think it is safe to say yes. That is I think that you are the only one who is worried about the racism angle. Not only is the landscape of India very likely sensual, but there was not even a hint of the kind of humor you mentioned in that trailer. If anything, the jokes in the context of India poked fun at the western tourist's perception of India as a place to escape to for mystical, spiritual enlightenment. If the film does occasionally rib the clash of cultures as in "Lost," my only worry will be that the juxtaposition of Indian and American will not pay off comedicly as well as the Japanese, whose culture is broken and hilarious. An examination and comparison of a culture like India's (one in such deep suffering) could very well elicit more pity than laughter. However, I will trust Anderson to find comedy wherever he may look and merely hope that he takes this opportunity to show the Indian people in a dignified and human way, and their stuggle for what it is. I will not worry.
Posted by: Greg | July 31, 2007 4:02 AM
Jeremy said...
Well said, Greg.
Posted by: Jeremy | July 31, 2007 9:29 AM
Andrew said...
OMG Greg.
The point of my post wasn't to conclude Anderson was racist or not (I think all white americans are racist to a degree), but to raise the question of whether this new film - even if its funny or fun - will be problematic.
Greg, your post is problematic - and there's nothing else redeeming about it.
"the Japanese, whose culture is broken and hilarious."
What's well said about that? The only thing broken here is your damaging generalization of an entire country. And that's not hilarious.
"a culture like India's (one in such deep suffering) could very well elicit more pity than laughter."
There's another damaging generalization. India is a huge, diverse subcontinent - with many cultures. I dunno how you can view the whole country as worthy of nothing but pity unless you're seeing it through imperialist blinders.
Posted by: Andrew | July 31, 2007 4:18 PM
:) said...
Well said, Andrew!
Posted by: :) | July 31, 2007 4:48 PM
Ben said...
Isn't calling all white americans racist to a degree also a damaging generalization? White Americans are certainly much more varied and diverse than the all the cultures of India or Japan (# of white americans vs # of different cultures in either country).
Also, the Japanese culture has had more difficulty owning up to its past atrocities than countries like the U.S. or Germany and if one can scoff at anything American pop culture produces then I don't think it's unfair to criticize the cultural output of another country. I wouldn't argue if someone said the American culture was broken and hilarious because in a lot of ways it is. Obviously it's not completely true because a whole nation can't be summed up that way but it's more true than not. At least in regards to the main culture that our country produces and shows to the world. The same can be said of a lot of other culture in my opinion. Greg's criticism might've been a little blunt but not completely out of line.
As for Mr. Anderson: OFF WITH HIS HEAD
Posted by: Ben | July 31, 2007 6:32 PM
Andrew said...
Arguing whose culture is more diverse seems silly to me. Its not a question of diversity, but of institutional power.All white americans benefit from a legacy of white supremacy that gives them certain benefits over others, in the US and globally. It's a damaging generalization, but its true. That's what we - whites americans - have in common; the fact doesn't deny we're all very different.
Maybe the comment about Japan could be valid, but taken together with the line about pitying India, it was pretty stupid.
Posted by: Andrew | July 31, 2007 7:10 PM
Ben said...
I only brought up the issue of diversity because you had used it to point out that it was unfair to criticize all of India due to its diversity. As for all white americans benefiting from racist institutions in both the US and the World, I'm not going to argue with that but I think that's different from all white americans being racist unless you consider the participation in such societies (whether consciously or unconsciously) to be an endorsement of such attitudes?
All in all, I think I was more at issue with your word choice rather than what you were in fact saying but I guess that's the limitation of blog comments.
Good comment thread overall. If only all our posts generated this much discussion.
Posted by: Ben | July 31, 2007 8:29 PM
Andrew said...
Yeah, I'm glad we've got this thread going, though everybody seems to be rushing in to defend their favorite films/filmmakers (Herzog/LiT) rather than debate the matter of whether Darjeeling Limited could be racist or not.
Greg's argument did nothing to salve my concerns about Darjeeling Limited, and I'm bothered by his seeming confidence that the only thing to worry about with the film is that it won't be funny enough!
Greg, maybe you could study up on Western cinema's portrayals of non-Western cultures over history. Then you'd be in a better position to judge whether we have reason to think an American film-maker could portray a culture in problematic ways.
Hell, for all we know, Darjeeling could be an ode to Indian cinema... but I won't hold my breath.
Posted by: Andrew | July 31, 2007 9:08 PM
Ben said...
I too wouldn't hold my breath, especially in light of his use of Indian actors in his previous films.
Posted by: Ben | July 31, 2007 9:27 PM
Jeremy said...
"Yeah, I'm glad we've got this thread going, though everybody seems to be rushing in to defend their favorite films/filmmakers (Herzog/LiT) rather than debate the matter of whether Darjeeling Limited could be racist or not."
Well, in all fairness, I think you redeemed yourself in my eyes, Andrew, with your latter comments. I still can't pull myself to get your LIT (nor do most people I've talked to) but I think I'm pretty much with you when it comes to the possible pedantry of Anderson's take on India -- though I still think it seems like a lesser conern or more of a subcategory of the clinicalness which DL seems rather drenched within.
Well done.
Posted by: Jeremy | July 31, 2007 10:10 PM
Imperialist said...
I would certainly agree that it is possible for any person of the predisposed mind to look down on another culture even if portrayed in the most genuine way in a film. Even if "Limited" shows the Indian culture exactly as it, and shows American tourists dealing with the culture barrier in a very realistic way, I'm sure there are some people in Idaho and The South who will find a way to belittle these other people because they are different. But they ARE different, and the way two different cultures interact can often be funny. If we censor ourselves such that as a culture we discourage any art that could be consumed in a distasteful, backward way we will end up without any movies at all. Some skinhead somewhere is always going to find a way to reinforce his own sense of racism with whatever you put in front of him. Sure, some movies make it really easy for them, but a confused American struggling though the Japanese language barrier is a very far cry from native peoples being shown as mindless savages with bones in their noses ooing and awing at the shinny buttons on the breast of a British sea captain.
Also, India is suffering. I do pity them, but don't put word in my mouth. I never said their entire culture was "worthy of nothing but pity," I just might have trouble laughing at a movie set in a place where people are starving in the millions.
Posted by: Imperialist | July 31, 2007 10:58 PM
lobotomy is the only answer said...
If you're hate every race including your own, does that still make you a racist? I would think that would cancle you out of the term.
Posted by: lobotomy is the only answer | July 31, 2007 11:39 PM
Jeremy said...
"but a confused American struggling though the Japanese language barrier is a very far cry from native peoples being shown as mindless savages with bones in their noses ooing and awing at the shinny buttons on the breast of a British sea captain."
Especially, if we accept that film is allowed to have flawed characters (not that I'm saying that is, for example, is an objective flaw of LIT) and that humor can extend from intrinsic perceptions of characters, as opposed to channeling every thought and reason as that of the director's beliefs. I know I sound like a crazed LIT fanatic but I've never been able to encircle the argument that the Japanese culture is being patronized exactly for that reason and that Bob and Charlotte's journey inches closer towards assimilation or engrossment rather than indifference. I'm not naive to accept that films are going to create archetypal characters and what not (Isn't Spike Lee the king at this?) but I'm also not sensitive enough to drown myself in traps of reasoning.
I can very well see Andrew's argument, but it still seems to me as most likely a byproduct of Anderson's clinical attempts to invoke absurdity, tenderness, and self-discovery rather than an personal attack on the Indian culture.
Posted by: Jeremy | August 1, 2007 12:17 AM
Greg said...
Just so we're clear, this "lobotomy" character is not me.
Posted by: Greg | August 1, 2007 12:20 AM
Ben said...
No worries Greg. We know you're grammar is bad but not THAT bad.
Posted by: Ben | August 1, 2007 9:38 AM
Tram said...
"I bet Herzog could kick all of your asses and drag your corpses over the nearest mountain... and make a great film of it."
Yes. And it would be another grand example of Werner Herzog's hobby of exploiting things on film! ;)
Posted by: Tram | August 1, 2007 10:50 AM
Ben said...
Slightly off topic but kinda not. Another problematic sitation that might be interesting to discuss?
http://kotaku.com/gaming/zombie-racism/black-looks-on-re-5-racism-284725.php
This one involves black zombies and is about the video game series Resident Evil. The latest incarnation of the game involves white characters in Africa battling zombies. As a series that is heavy on featuring zombies, it makes sense that they would go to Africa as that's where the whole concept of zombies originated from. However, as the article points out, white men dressed in uniforms blowing away hordes of black zombies can be pretty problematic no matter which way you cut it (pun definitely intended). Should they have just not gone there? Because in the context of this well established series I assume it makes sense but obviously it looks really bad.
Posted by: Ben | August 1, 2007 1:55 PM
Greg said...
On that RE5 article...
I think it would certainly be possible to make that game with a really inappropriate tone (do the zombies get any nicknames we've heard before?) and give kids the wrong message. Assuming however that the game is done with some forethought I think this is a case of the same oversensitivity. Are we saying that it will just never be ok for certain stories to be told because some minority of the American people might interpret them the wrong way?
Don't get me wrong. I see this becoming a big hit in the Aryan Nations community. Can't you just picture massive LAN parties in those big swastika painted barns? I think though that this is a defect in the player,not the game. The question is who does it "look really bad" to?
Posted by: Greg | August 1, 2007 4:44 PM
Andrew said...
Here is a link to the original blogpost about the video game, from the blog Black Looks.
Greg, its not about interpretation, its about influence. I think your argument assumes that video games and other media don't influence the way people think. As Black Looks points out, "This is problematic on so many levels, including the depiction of Black people as inhuman savages, the killing of Black people by a white man in military clothing, and the fact that this video game is marketed to children and young adults. Start them young… fearing, hating, and destroying Black people." These sorts of depictions have roots in a history of white supremacy that should not be perpetuated.
Also, your argument seems to assume that the only racism that exists in the US is of the avowed racist white power variety. Since the 1960s in the US, only fringe groups are really avowedly racist - aside from them, nobody wants to claim they are racist. The more widespread and sinister forms of racism - like, say, draconian immigration laws, or the millions of black people in prison - do not claim themselves to be racist, though they are absolutely racist to the core.
Posted by: Andrew | August 1, 2007 5:12 PM
Greg said...
It's a censorship issue. Who are you to decide what is going to influence other peoples kids?
If I were a parent I wouldn't let my children consume media which openly endorsed racism. But I would also raise them to know that people are different, and that that's a good thing. So when they come across something that could be misinterpreted (like this game and this movie we haven't played or seen), they will know what to do.
They will be capable of watching people with white skin and huge, deformed noses marveling at the mysticism and poverty of brown people, and other white people with guns mowing down black zombies in droves. They will be able (like me and most Americans) to see these things without getting the distorted impression they they are superior or that other people should be looked down on.
I know that their are many levels and types of racism in this country and that it is still a problem. What we should be doing to combat this is encouraging media which openly influences people in the right way. An emphasis on making movies which show that diversity is positive and that all people have value will be much healthier than censoring any film which might have the slightest risk of encouraging the wrong way of thinking.
Posted by: Greg | August 1, 2007 5:46 PM
Andrew said...
Greg, this is a very liberal feel good argument. I wish it was enough just to simply recognize diversity as a good thing. But its not.
When media is problematic, its not enough to assume most people will interpret it in the best way possible. That sort of "I'm okay, your okay" attitude isn't going to do it. People have to speak up and register the fact that its problematic, or else things will never get improve, representations will never get closer to the truth.
As for censorship - I fail to see where anyone advocated it, so I'm not sure why you proclaim this to be a "censorship issue." Protesting something, vocalizing disapproval of something, is not the same thing as censorship. Censorship would be denying that an on-going dialogue about problematic issues in media is necessary by insisting "people will just know better."
Moreover, what one sees as "peoples' difference" can actually be a wrongful representation. It doesn't matter if you or your kids dont make a negative value-judgment about a culture if what they think they know about that culture is wrong.
For instance, why would you immediately think of mysticism and poverty when you think of India? Because these are the stereotypical cliches that the West has viewed India through for a very long time, with roots in imperialism.
Posted by: Andrew | August 1, 2007 6:10 PM
Greg said...
Again, India does have a heritage of mysticism and a serious and widespread poverty problem. Do I have to include a whole dissertation on the history of the entire subcontinent if I want to mention anything about India?
I AM a liberal, and it does feel good.
Posted by: Greg | August 1, 2007 7:11 PM
Ben said...
http://www.slate.com/id/2174828/
A good article on Slate from someone who feels the same way
Posted by: Ben | September 27, 2007 2:34 PM