MovieChat Forums > The Party (1968) Discussion > making fun of indians?

making fun of indians?

posted 20 years ago by thehighercritic
47 replies | jump to latest

i've noticed a couple people say in the forums that the film pokes fun at indians. i've heard that from folks in the past and i'll say now what i said then - hrundi is one of only two people at that party who behaves with any sense of morality and isn't a hopeless addict of some kind. the only other character who fits that bill is claudine longet's (so tasty! and a wiseguy-killa...).

if you think "the party" is going out of its way to make fun of indians, then i guess it's targeting aspiring french movie starlets, too?

any thoughts?

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Sean102218 20 years ago

The film definitely paints a harsher picture of the self-indulgent and flaky Hollywood types. People shouldn't take this film so seriously!

Especially when it ends with an elephant in a foam party.

[–] darthbater 20 years ago

vee must vash de elephant :)

"Well, if you ask me, I think that monkey is going to eat the sandwich himself."

[–] redowl86 20 years ago

My boyfriend and I are both Indian, and we thought it was too funny for words. The elephant part was a bit sterotypical, but still quite funny. Nothing was offensive. Hrundi was just an overly friendly and bumbling North Indian, and we both enjoyed watching Peter Sellers play the part so well. Also, my friend from Pakistan thought it was funny too, and Pakistanis and Indians are closer than people would think. So, no, the film is not making funny of Indians, just crazy ol' Hrundi.

[–] wgamer2000 19 years ago

I agree with redowl. i didnt find it very offensive. probably the way sellers carried himself in the movie. the whole movie was just light hearted comedy. I think the criticism will more fit "The Guru" and "The Temple of Doom". Stereotyping indians as superstitious, magic believing pagans.

A lot of stereotyping going on in recent hollywood movies and tv shows. Portraying african-americans as very fat fried chicken eating guys or thugs/sidekicks or pizza delivery guys or basketball players or foul mouthed. Very subtle as well.

[–] LondonOnMyMind 19 years ago

I agree with thehighercritic, in that Hrundi and Michele are the only intelligent and moral characters in the film. I have also heard people say that the film mocks Indians, and I disagree 1000%. It mocks the Hollywood establishment all the way - from being shallow and materialistic, to not even knowing the names of guests at their own parties. It is one of the best films and satires ever.

"First he seduced her... then he produced her. - CSI

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] TheBigHarv 18 years ago

Well Raghavsuri. I don't think you speak for all indians but if it offends you that is fine. This is an all time classic if it offends people I really dont care. I like it.

[–] ejavignon 18 years ago

Saw the movie last night for the first time, and was wondering the same thing, so I was glad to see this thread in imdb. Although Hrundi is an awkward bumbler, that is Sellers' trademark. I don't think his character was any more offensive than Inspector Clousseau should be to the French.

I did wonder though why it was necessary for him to play an Indian, and I think it was to give an outsider's perspective into American culture. It is an old narrative device to critique one's own culture by portraying through the eyes of a foreigner (think Montesquieu's Persian Letters). While on the surface the movie was another vehicle for Sellers' slapstick, it is really a story about someone on the outside looking into the shallow, self-centered, vulgar culture of late 60s America.

But then again, maybe I'm reading into it too much...

[–] oy___vi 18 years ago

I think the character is Indian not just because they needed an "outsider", but also because the Indian culture is reputedly "spiritual" and as such a great contrast to the culture that Blake Edwards is commenting on.

As far as him being "offensive", I totally agree that he is basically as bumbling as Cluseau (but without the arrogance).

[–] prashant_87 18 years ago

Well im an Indian but this is one of my all time favorites, far from being offended I really enjoy this movie.. I dont see any religious offense in the movie whatsover...its one fun, easy to like classic comedy that will entertain for decades to come...
ps someone stated that The temple of doom was stereotypical...it most definitely was...I found it really crazy and over the top...the worst of the Gr8 INdiana Jones Triology for sure

You! Off my planet!

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kathiemoffett 16 years ago

Quote:

" by oy___vi (Wed Jan 25 2006 18:34:55)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
I think the character is Indian not just because they needed an "outsider", but also because the Indian culture is reputedly "spiritual" and as such a great contrast to the culture that Blake Edwards is commenting on.

As far as him being "offensive", I totally agree that he is basically as bumbling as Cluseau (but without the arrogance)."

EXACTLY.

if the French aren't insulted...LOL.

Plus, as others have pointed out, Sellers' and Longet's characters are the only decent people in the film, fergawdssakes.

I do think they perhaps chose to make the character Indian because, simply, Bollywood (the Indian film industry) is apparently second only to Hollywood in world profit volume (or maybe they surpass Hollywood, lol, I forget.) Plus, I seem to recall that in the mid to late 60's cinema, Indian filmmakers like Satyajit Ray and all were really coming to world prominence. Makes sense at that point that an Indian actor would be trying to make the jump to Hollywood, and that Hollywood would've wanted to try him out.

[–] rmkbklyn 18 years ago

I am a big fan of Peter Sellers, but as an Indian-American, I was really offended by this movie. I didn't think it was funny at all. If he had been in blackface, there would have been an uproar, but somehow it's ok to do "brownface"...

[–] sun_mig31 18 years ago

i am an indian living in india, and i do not think that this movie is offensive at all to indians,if at all it pokes fun at the upper crust hollywood society, and I think we need a sense of humour to appreciate and the ability to take oneself less seriously. I can imagine why someone would be incensed when they see the depiction of indians in temple of doom, which despite being helmed by a director like spielberg has some of the worst stereotyping of indians, still rather than be offended i would put it down to the ignorance of the makers as well as that of the average viewer.

[–] ejavignon 17 years ago

I think the new Borat movie might be relevant to this thread. One might find his Kazakhstani character to be an offensive (and grossly inaccurate) stereotype, but his real target is western prejudices. Sometimes juxtaposing one set of stereotypes against another can be very enlightening.

[–] TheMagpie 17 years ago

Damn, I was about to make that same intelligent comment.

The use of Hrundi is for the fish out of water aspect and the outside looking in aspect, nothing racial. The same goes for Borat, but it looks as if Kazakhs have a far smaller sense of humour than Indians.

Why do I fall in love with every woman I see who shows me the least bit of attention Joel Barish

[–] Rickieroo 17 years ago

This movie was not attempting to be racist towards indians but instead having the audience understand what immigrants must go through when arriving to different countries.The whole movie was metaphorically stating the fact that the protagonist , Hrundi was a foreigner trying to conform with these stereotypical north americans. His spot in line? Not having a seat on the dinner table? Like thrid world countries not having a spot in certain assemblies because they are not as technoligically advanced and industrialized as we are. Over all the film, was trying to prove a point that immigrants must face these conflicts and stereotypes everyday but learn how to conform to society.

[–] cfire-4 17 years ago

I first saw this film in 1976, a week before the Indian Parliament, showing a regrettable lack of humour, banned the film. Interestingly, the film was running to packed houses as the impending ban was well anticipated. My friend and I had to buy tickets from a scalper and I think we paid about double the official price.

If memory serves me well, I remember the theatre (Aurora at Kings Circle, Bombay) was full to bursting -- they even had people seated in the aisles. And the roof shook with repeated roars of laughter. Far from causing offence, the completely Indian audience loved the film.

If I could make one film that worked as well as this one, I would die a happy man.

[–] juliano66 17 years ago

Thank you for the enlightening description of an Indian audience's reaction to "The Party" as shown in 1976. I am not surprised that the audience enjoyed the film--Sellers' overthetop yet sympathetic performance is even more poignant in
retrospect given the man's complete dedication to his craft and his obvious love for his character and the culture. There is much joy and humour to be had in this movie--Sellers was his own Austin Powers for a gerneration that was not anywhere near retro yet still backwards in many respects. Movies like The Party we're subtle attempts at breaking through racial attitudes that went way beyond stereotypes--- Movies like Ghandi could not have happened without stuff like this
preceding it.

[–] [email protected] 17 years ago

I remember in 1968, when this movie came out, people here in the West were quick to stereotype Indians as possessing spiritual enlightenment and a transcendence of the grubby, venal material world. Sellers' character (easily his most likeable and sympathetic) kind of follows the pattern - if you're going to get stereotyped, better to get a good one, I say.

[–] Grammaw_Oddree 17 years ago

I never really thought about it that much, not being Indian myself, but I think that Hrundi is so likable and harmless that we are actually laughing with him and not cruelly at him. The Beatles movie "Help!" from 1965 is more fitting for the that criticism than this film.

[–] harish-kumar-1955 17 years ago

I think things have changed in India so much that a lot of people would take it as a humorous movie rather than feeling offended....It was stupid to ban this movie in India then.....I laughed my heart out watching sellers speak like an indian....I dont think anybody can do even half of sellers job if there was a remake....

[–] wisable 7 years ago

... well, if there ever was a remake to be done, if I were the casting director I would hire Fisher Stevens, after seeing him in Short Circuit.