Racism
At the time of its release a number of UK reviewers criticized this film for racism, presumably in its portrayal of the Indian characters. Any views on that? Particularly from South Asian people who have seen the film...?
share[deleted]
I never liked the actor Victor Banjeree, him and his character "Aziz" are just the stereotypical oafish/ignorant Indian with the thick accent. Banjeree acts like a little kid in this flick, a horny little kid. He's just a complete moron from start to finish.
Plus the movie is about an Indian guy supposedly raping a White woman, so there is going to be some uneasiness there. Even if Indian men like Asians are usually emasculated and thought of as effiminate in Western culture, there is still something dangerous about a dark, non-White man accused of raping a White lady. Again, Victor Banjeree is just so damn childish and emascualted here.
Of course there's racism in this film...that's the whole point... I'm reading the book now, and the thing with all books and stories about British India is that there is just SO much racism in there...but that's just because there was a lot of racism going on in India at that time...I mean, what do you expect in a colony? This book/film is actually against Britain's weird attitude towards India... Although I agree that Aziz is a bit of a moron in the film...but then again, so are (for example) Miss Quested and Mr Turton...really annoying.
----------
Quickly! Bring me something deep-fried and smothered in chocolate!
The racism in the movie is all from the British point of view, and is therefore an accurate portrayal. The british are deliberately essentialised in the film, to allow the indian characters to fully portray their worth in comparison to the oppressive and often ignorant british colonialists. the racism in the movie is never prtrayed as cool, rather it is shown to be from a base of ignorance and arrogance, and thus is a beautiful and essential part of a movie designed to show the folly of such arrogance and blindness.
share[deleted]
Sorry, I don't agree with you. I think Victor Banerjee is a good actor. His character (Aziz) is not a moron, but a shy man for social reasons. The open end of the movie is delicious and made me dream for a long time about Aziz and Adela's future!
shareI never liked the actor Victor Banjeree, him and his character "Aziz" are just the stereotypical oafish/ignorant Indian with the thick accent. Banjeree acts like a little kid in this flick, a horny little kid. He's just a complete moron from start to finish.
The fact you never liked the actor indicates why you're wrong about his character in this film. He is certainly NOT a complete moron. And, by the end of the film, he has embraced his culture. He is done with the British. In fact, at the very beginning of the film, he makes a bad comment about the British.
Only love, pads the film share
What I originally feel is, there is more to India and Indian culture than what the west knows. As of today, Westerners admire Indian culture because of its richness and complexity. The notion seems to be popular that the Orient seems to have something the Occident doesn't. However, I tend to think of INDIA as a huge spiritual booby trap - unless you are really very careful; and I feel, the point that has been elaborated in the whole movie is that, unless and until you are very careful, trekking through the magnificence of the land called India - you could end up being a spiritual and emotional wreck, even before you know it and you would be thinking that you have attained salvation.
share''Westerners admire Indian culture because of its richness and complexity''.
It seems you don't know much about your own country either. There is no such thing as 'Indian Culture' Particularly. It is a very diverse country - Ranging from the West Asian Looking Kashmiri's (Both in looks & in Culture) - The Sikhs, Tamils, Manipuris. They all act pretty different to one another & have a different set of mannerisms.
One similarity most of India has though is the mystery behind it. Every Region has a past going back to god knows when - And how many things are there & have not been found yet.
It's a shame that it is such a dump now. I blame the past British Colonizers for robbing South Asia's resources along with the of course horrible Indian Government.
I felt the movie put the onus on Adela Quested. The Indian doctor suffered greatly from her accusation, but he was noble, if angry, after the accusation was made. I think the movie portrayed the British-Indian relationship properly.
shareThe era dealt with racism. When India was invaded a lot of Hindu's and Sikhs were treated un fairly. Many people died because of the torture they were put through by the british. So this lead to an armed uprising which eventually lead to freedom at a terrible cost. The cost is still being paid with the wars between India and Pakistan, there little leaving gift or so u could say. This movie basiclly just showed some of the racism people who are offended by history should care you can't change it n e more
What were you expecting something special
The cost is still being paid with the wars between India and Pakistan, there little leaving gift or so u could say. This movie basiclly just showed some of the racism people who are offended by history should care you can't change it n e more
I agree there is a big difference between showing racism in a film and making a film which is itself racist. I thought Lean did the first but not the second here, but some reviewers at the time thought otherwise; I'm interested to see what other people think, particularly those viewing it from the 'other side' as it were. It can be easy to miss things if you are not on the receiving end.
I don't think it's fair to blame the India/Pakistan situation entirely on the British, by the way. Hindus and Muslims were fighting each other long before the British showed up.
"I don’t like the term torture. I prefer to call it nastiness."
Donald Rumsfeld
Have any of you met any Indians??? Just because they are nice it means that they are morons??? C´mon!!! Don´t you understand??? The Indian culture is not based on revenge or anger, but in treating people nicely and being kind to the others. Just because he´s not a rebel that wants to kill all the english it doesn´t mean he´s a moron!!! What then??? The english men in the movie are not morons then??? They don´t want to know anything about Indian culture because they consider theirselves just in a higher standard and they have nothing to learn???
Pleasem do me a favor!!!! Go have some tea!!!!!!
It's ridiculous that a film that criticizes the imperialism is called by stupids as racism.
This film is important and should be treated as it is: a throughout critic.
share[deleted]
When we reached the end of this film, Victor's character did no longer act "moronic". Even the timbre of his voice was suddenly different. I think, after all that happened, he had enough of indulging his white oppressors by playing a dumb Indian.
Alex
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think Indians know people don’t like them and they have never really moaned about it.....this racism in this film is of no surprise.
I am a Caucasian from Switzerland and have a friend who is Indian origins and she says, a lot of British people are trying to hide out the fact that freedom fighters in India drove them out and were gutless to admit many Indians died by the aggressive British - I thought she was lying, but looking at all the facts it seems to be evident she was right.
I have also noticed a lot of other things the British screwed up over there earlier last century.
After reading a facts, I realised the British went to the north – this is when the fighting got horrific. I don’t think any intelligence group with a right mind will go to the North of India and think they will walk forever if they kill innocent people there …..and late 1930 maybe 1940 a northerner came to the UK and shot Michael O’Dwyer – who was in charge of commanding a carnage….this got the British thinking they better run from India otherwise more of these freedom fighters would react.
The Northerners were well established people and couldn’t accept the British trying to change there lifestyle.
I do respect the British for their buildings there – I hear there still intact!
What you have to remember is the E.M. Forster was writing at a time when racism wasn't really cnsidered a bad thing. In addition, the novel isn't that racist - in fact, he's very polite about Indians. After all, he did have an Indian lover.
share[deleted]
I admit that Britain have a pretty dark history of colonial rule across the world
I disagree entirely. The British were the best colonizers in human history. Australia, America, Canada, Hong Kong all are prosperous and stable countries. Even India is rising. All were British colonies.
It's only hubris if I fail share
i think the british and the indians are portrayed equally as fasile caricatures in film.
and yes, aziz does play an "uncle tom" for the first two acts, but he is supposed to be showing the mental slavery of colonialism; like he says in his first scene, "we want to be like the british". he wants their acceptance. notice how he treats his servants through out the film - he is nice to his "social superiors" only, never his "social inferiors", who he hits.
the film is pretty hard on the indians - they are either subservant in their false consciousness, like aziz, uncompromizing white haters, like his famous lawyer, or cute mystics with their superstitions, like the white actor guinness, again doning the dark skin makeup for lean.
but aziz, in the end, is a true hero, for he is able to forgive and break free from his colonial slavery. he and fielding are the real heros. judy davis, ultimately, is a hero as well, for she does the difficult but proper thing in the end as well.
so there are caricatures and heros amidsts the britsh and the indians in this film (though i doubt their were many fieldings in india, but wonder just how racist the british in india actually were), so racism might be a stretch.
but the point about aziz being a child like (he likes porn and sulks quite a bit, prior to jail i mean) is well taken. performing beside davis, he looks like an amateur actor.
Please stop confusing the very able actor Victor Bannerjee with the very confused Dr. Azziz. The fact that he is an irritant is evidence of his fine acting. He's moronic, subservient to the Brits, cruel to his "inferior" servants, and has a stash of pornography. But he changes. After his ideals are shattered he goes through a grieving process to become, not a perfect man, but one of greater understanding. When I first saw James Dean in "Rebel Without a Cause" and especially "East of Eden" I hated him. He disturbed me until I realized later in my life that when he has the breakdown over his father not accepting his present in "East of Eden" I experienced the same embarrasment I do in real life when some one "loses it" in my presence. A good actor makes you confront the awkwardness, embarrasment, the unbearable feeling of life's unfairness and irresolution. The great actors do that whether it's comedy or drama. I can understand that some actors will make you ill at ease with their incompetence but they'll do so whether they're playing flawed characters or Gods.
After all my breast beating I'm left with one thought; I wonder what Dr. Azziz did with his pornography? hmmmmmm...
Huh! That "Britain has a pretty dark history of colonial rule" has nothing to do with their being "the best colonizers in human history". Dark history means a lot more: the colonizers wipe away the entire history of the colonized! The colonized may be prosperous and stable, but most are losing their own culture and historical importance, if they had any and if not already lost.
Well, India is rising, yes, but not *due* to British colonies please, *despite* once being so!