The Darjeeling Limited

What racist comment?

I'm not particularly a proponent of the movie -- I don't care if someone likes it or not, etc -- but I do think most viewers will get more out of a movie if they are able to distinguish between an attitude or trait of a character in the story, and the attitude of the director, or a position taken by the movie itself.

I don't know, I saw Darjeeling Limited and came away feeling like Wes Anderson is probably racist or at least has a lot of "issues" about India and Indians. I thought for a while about whether maybe he was just trying to show us the world through the eyes of racist characters, but if that's what he was attempting I don't think he's successful at it. The movie really seems to reflect Anderson's warped views.

Personally, I would have liked it a lot more if it took place in Europe, or the American midwest, or something (in fact a lot of the same issues were handled much better in Anderson's first film, Bottle Rocket, which has a virtually identical plot and takes place in Texas).

Haven't seen the movie in question, but would have to say Anderson's racist attitudes have eluded me so far

In other words, what racist attitudes? One of the more interesting movie makers of recent times, I thought.

Do you remember what made you think that? I would say I feel sure that the brothers, and Owen Wilson in particular, were drawn as definitely ignorant -- but sincere - jerks (though not entirely unsympathetic jerks, as they're also abandoned children). I remember Owen's character as trip leader talking about various Indian itinerary items in this earnest, minimally informed, pronounced-wrong way.

I myself wouldn't call the character or his attitude "racist," I just see him as an exaggeration (barely) of the usual level of knowledge of people about a foreign culture -- it's assumption-ridden, and he's also not moving in a way where he's going to learn much. It's played for humor, of course, which tells us the filmmaker is standing aside from him.

Then Anderson gives us his imaginary emotionally-grounded village people, who require the brothers to participate in their rites for the dead -- something these boys so clearly have needed from before the story-circumstance that gives rise to this episode. Again I don't see that as "racist" on Anderson's part, his creating his imaginary scenario "using" India -- I don't see it as different from what any artist does with what he knows and what he imagines.

Where I imagine I see the attitude of Anderson himself is in his filming what he finds as he goes, like the small temples and shoeshine people -- I see him himself as a real traveler who's going along and experiencing what's there, while he tells a story about people who pretty much are too damaged to do that themselves.

All this said, I am not finding myself wanting to see this again right away, though I am sure I will. I guess it's mostly Bollywood I want to see again right away, and that's mostly for the spectacle parts which you can't absorb on one viewing.

I should begin by saying that in general I like Wes Anderson's films so maybe I'm biased, but I didn't feel the film was racist and I'd be interested to know why you thought that as I will watch it again with your points in mind.

I'm particularly interested that you said you'd have enjoyed it more if it took place in Europe or America- do you mean with the same racism in it? Or do you mean that had he located it there there would not have been that racism?

What made them seem like Muslims? I didn't think they were. Besides which, what religion was Preity Zinta supposed to be in Veer-Zaara? I couldn't work it out at all, it didn't look like Islam or Hinduism to me. Was that film offensive to Indians?

I saw Chak De India recently, and it had the "English" team in an England strip coming on and playing, but the scoreboard stating that the team was "Great Britain". Oh, and their captain had a distinct Australian accent, despite speaking in British slang. Sometimes, films are not accurate about other countries/cultures. I wouldn't get offended by it (unless it's as blatantly chauvinistic as Namaste London...uck).

I saw this film because I had free tickets. It was worth every cent I paid for it. If I'd paid more I might have wanted my money back.

The three brothers were really annoying characters and I didn't care what happened to them at all. The scene with the stewardess was unpleasant. Making the scene preceding into a separate movie "Hotel Chevalier" was pretentious nonsense. Maybe I just didn't "get" the Darjeeling Limited.

I did laugh at how Brendan had set up an office in a 2AC carriage. And I enjoyed the countryside in Rajasthan. The scenes with the villagers were interesting and quite moving.

Overall about a 4 out of 10 from me.

I think unless you are venturing into South Indian mythologicals, most movie religion is just that, movie religion.
I follow Hindi movies and news about them pretty closely, and I don't read complaints about that from India. Audience accepts the shorthand.

In Hindo weddings in movies, the priests intone random Sanskrit usually, for example.

Re: Australian accents - Most Hindi movies in recent times have been dubbed, i.e. not recorded in synch sound (though this is changing, some recent movies do have synch sound). Actors dub their own parts, and there must be an Australian or two in Bombay who do non-Indian English-language voice-overs, as virtually all "foreigners" in Hindi movies, whether they are British sports announcers or New York City casting agents (Jaan-e-Mann) have an Australian accent.

As Om Puri said in Bollywood Calling, (apparently) "Indian audiences don't mind!!"

In Veer Zara Preity's character is Muslim from Pakistan, taking the ashes of an elderly relative to the Ganges if I remember correctly -- the elderly relative would have been born in India before the partition of Pakistan. You can usually identify Muslim women in Hindi movies by their silver jewelry.

The Australian accents of the British/English team in Chak De are because they were actually Australians. That part was filmed here in Melbourne, and the members of all the "international" teams were Australians.

Sounds as if this was an instance in which dubbing by someone else would have increased verisimilitude! But - do you know if we hear the actual voices of the actor/players used? or is it the work of the Bombay All-English-Characters Australian dubbing team?

I was present at some of the filming, and we had to be quiet during the takes. I think it is one example of a film which is not all dubbed.

@ Machadinha -- I'm talking about the attitudes he shows in the film. If you haven't seen it yet, you won't know what I'm talking about.

In general - the major reason I saw the film as being "racist" is that even though it takes place in India, Anderson manages not to include almost any speaking roles for Indians. And the Indian characters he includes aren't exactly multi-dimensional, hell, they don't even get proper names! I felt that in the movie, Indian people were basically props. Also, he uses a lot of stereotypes about India, without really "playing" on them or poking fun at them - he just goes with it.

The reason I ultimately determined that he's not just showing us the world through flawed characters' eyes is that in order to perceive it that way, the viewer has to be able to see how racist/ignorant the brothers are. Anderson shows us all sorts of other unsavory aspects of the brothers, but he doesn't manage to show us "racist" or "culturally insensitive" or "terminally ignorant". Which implies either that he failed at what he was trying to do, or he simply wasn't trying to do the thing we all want to think he was.

Regarding liking it better if it took place in Europe or America, I think that if it took place somewhere that isn't so easily "othered" by Western culture, he wouldn't have to work so hard at countering his own obviously unexamined prejudices. A film about a journey through France would have French characters in it, with actual names, who get more than like 5 minutes of screen time. If he were trying to show some kind of "anti-french" bias in the American characters, it would be really easy, since the average American knows a hell of a lot more about France than they do about India.

It's funny how mega sensitive the Indians can be about Western movies being "disrespectful".
I've been in a few Indian movies (I was the British policeman in HEY RAM for example) but it seemed to me that there was always something a bit "suspect" about my roles - I always had to be some kind of sad victim, idiot or bastard. Then, I really started looking at how Westerners are portrayed in Bollywood - they're all drunks, thugs, sluts, Facists etc. ! Before you beat me down for saying this, please keep an eye out in Indian movies - you'll find I'm right 99% of the time. Is this racism?

Oh, and regarding Veer-Zaara, it's definitely not the Ganges she's immersing the ashes in -- the film takes place in Punjab. And, yeah, lots of "Bollywood religion" in that film. But, really, all Bollywood films I've seen have "Bollywood religion", just as most Hollywood films have their own completely warped ideas about Christianity. Why is everyone in American movies always Catholic, for instance? Oh, wait, I know -- Catholicism is really picturesque with lots of cool props and costumes, and therefore provides a lot more "production value" than if the characters were just plain old Methodists or whatever.

And Spirit of Havelock, don't worry, I have no illusions about portrayals of Westerners in Indian films. But since Anderson is an American director who makes American films, that's neither here nor there. Two wrongs don't make a right, as they say.

That's it, I'm off to India to dub lines in an Aussie accent.
Maybe I could be Tania Zaetta's "Hindi voice"?