PDA

View Full Version : Indiana Jones films: racist?


Pages : 1 2 [3]

Stoo
03-14-2013, 04:35 PM
I look forward to your monkey brains smeared on this thread!

Just don't go all Jan Brady on me!BWA-HA! "Jan Brady" - Your insult that broke the fights between us back in 2009. Marsha! Marsha! Marsha!:D

For anyone who doesn't get the joke, here's a visual aid:

http://i210.photobucket.com/albums/bb262/Stoo65/Various/JanBrady_zps4a468324.jpg
...and knowing neither of us require smilies or apologiesNoted and logged but I like to use "smilies" and try to be polite when it's deserved.;)

Anyway, you've mentioned a couple of times that "Chatter Lal's proclamation of Pankot Tradition" is a sign to the audience that the dinner scene isn't "normal" and, therefore, shouldn't be offensive.

Indeed, Chatter Lal does announce the Maharaja as the "Guardian of Pankot tradition" but Pankot isn't just the palace, it's an Indian STATE (albeit fictional). In those days, the size of a maharaja's state/kingdom could vary from small to large. Judging from the size & rich splendour of Zalim Singh's palace and number of guards within, it's safe to say that his area of rule was relatively extensive and most likely included the village of Mayapore and several others.

All of this to say: If that type of meal was a Pankot tradition, then having Eyeball Soup and eating Living Baby Snakes would be a REGIONAL tradition and not confined to just the palace nor the (fictional version of) Thuggee. Hence, those 4 words of dialogue CANNOT be used to further the "not racist" view because they don't stand up under scrutiny.

(It's also possible that the dinner guests are not Thugs but I'll save that theory for later.;))

AndyLGR
03-14-2013, 05:45 PM
I don't see that a line of dialogue that was cut or could of been added would of placated someone who felt the banquet scene was offensive or racist towards their religion or nation or fellow countryman.

Vance
03-14-2013, 06:06 PM
I don't see that a line of dialogue that was cut or could of been added would of placated someone who felt the banquet scene was offensive or racist towards their religion or nation or fellow countryman.

Shockingly, I'm going to disagree, with a bit of a caveat. If there had been some attention drawn to the scene with Indiana Jones telling the Colonel "These aren't Hindi," it may have helped dramatically. If we had also learned that Chatter Lal or Mola Rom's 'Western Education' had allowed them to corrupt local teachings (thus making Indiana Jones more of a champion of Kali, which would make his angry challenge make more sense at the end) it would have helped.

Again, something to highlight the 'there's something very very wrong here' for the dinner scene rather than play the whole thing up for laughs with Willie and Short Round.

Stoo
03-14-2013, 06:09 PM
offensive ≠ racism.True. However...

Rasicm = offence
I don't see that a line of dialogue that was cut or could of been added would of placated someone who felt the banquet scene was offensive or racist towards their religion or nation or fellow countryman.It's already been mentioned in this discussion before but there was an exchange in the script between Blumburtt & Indy that would've helped.

Blumburtt: Rather bizarre menu, wouldn't you say?
Indy: Even if they were trying to scare us away, a devout Hindu would never touch meat. (Looking around) Makes you wonder what these people are...

AndyLGR
03-14-2013, 06:49 PM
True. However...

Rasicm = offence
It's already been mentioned in this discussion before but there was an exchange in the script between Blumburtt & Indy that would've helped.

Blumburtt: Rather bizarre menu, wouldn't you say?
Indy: Even if they were trying to scare us away, a devout Hindu would never touch meat. (Looking around) Makes you wonder what these people are...
I just think that if someone is going to be offended by the banquet then they will be and even if they added a disclaimer type line during the meal people would still say that's racist, and that one line Indy disclaimer doesn't get you out of the fact that you are still showing Indians eating insects and monkey brains. I suppose I'm trying to say that people who do or want to get offended by such stuff would still ignore the caveat.

I will say that line should of been kept in, it adds a real sinister feel to the scene I think.

Vance
03-14-2013, 07:08 PM
I will say that line should of been kept in, it adds a real sinister feel to the scene I think.

The dinner scene is actually my biggest problem with the movie, not just because it comes off as extremely culturally insensitive, but also because it ruins the ****ing narrative! Seriously, there's a big and important conversation with Chatter Lal going on (where the evil plot (TM) is actually discussed), but it's nearly muted and largely ignored so we can get more gross-out takes from Willie and Short Round.

RKORadio
03-14-2013, 09:41 PM
Lucas has a tin ear for scripts:
http://www.rockford.volny1.com/pic/Benny-Hill.jpg

Stoo
03-14-2013, 09:55 PM
I just think that if someone is going to be offended by the banquet then they will be and even if they added a disclaimer type line during the meal people would still say that's racist, and that one line Indy disclaimer doesn't get you out of the fact that you are still showing Indians eating insects and monkey brains.Agreed, Andy, sort of. Had that bit of dialogue been included, there would have been *2* disclaimers, since Blumburtt's line is just as important as Indy's (and they both would've helped the 'not-racist' stance).
I suppose I'm trying to say that people who do or want to get offended by such stuff would still ignore the caveat.There is a lot of 'ignoring' in this discussion so ignorance can work both ways!:D

Henry W Jones
03-15-2013, 08:02 AM
From Lone Ranger Thread: I have Native American friends that find it highly offensive that Depp will be playing a Native America in this film.(The Lone Ranger) I have not seen it yet but I know many will take issue. Is it racist since some Native Americans are offended?

P.S. I believe my friends are being overly sensitive since they have not even seen the film and are already offended. I also told them they were being sensitive and none of them decided to stop talking to me. Luckily my friends are mature enough to hear another opinion without freaking out and taking it personal

Also I can actually provide links to these conversations should one question my comment.

Also, I love your new Indiana Jones thread RKO. Indy title, usual empty post. At least this time it was about IJ. Out of curiosity, which racist character do you like better? Mola Ram or Lao Che?

Lucas has a tin ear for scripts:
http://www.rockford.volny1.com/pic/Benny-Hill.jpg

Sorry to say it but, your writing leaves a lot to be desired. Let's say tin ear for posting. Pretty harsh attacking the man. He has written full stories for several blockbuster movies while you normally can't even provide a paragraph with any relevancy. Sorry for pointing out the obvious. I would think as much as you dislike people being poorly treated, you could at least give the man a little credit. He did create the original character that we all are here for. (Well most of us are here for)

Attila the Professor
03-15-2013, 10:13 AM
I'm putting on my moderator's hat for a moment to urge you all to quit posting multiple times in a row. Combine multiple replies into a single post. It's not hard. You all know how copying and pasting works. Use that methodology.

And Henry? You're getting closer and closer to attacking the poster, and not the posts. Piling on doesn't make anybody look good.

Incidentally, folks, I'd also love to place a moratorium on pictures on their own masquerading as discourse, especially since this most recent one is going to put "Yakety Sax" into my head for hours. Think more in the future about whether the picture you're going to use is <I>really</I> worth a thousand words, and about whether those thousand words are at all relevant.

Henry W Jones
03-15-2013, 10:17 AM
I'm putting on my moderator's hat for a moment to urge you all to quit posting multiple times in a row. Combine multiple replies into a single post. It's not hard. You all know how copying and pasting works. Use that methodology.

And Henry? You're getting closer and closer to attacking the poster, and not the posts. Piling on doesn't make anybody look good.

Afterthoughts, not attacks. I am on a cell phone and it make it hard to cut and paste. Sorry.

RKORadio
03-15-2013, 10:25 AM
Sorry, Atilla.

They're repeating The Benny Hill Show on Aussie pay-TV and it just seemed a good choice.

Besides, Harrison Ford is the one who pointed out Lucas's tin-ear.

Attila the Professor
03-15-2013, 10:47 AM
I am on a cell phone and it make it hard to cut and paste. Sorry.

That's all right then, in those cases.

Anyhow, back to your regularly scheduled programming, all.

Sorry, Atilla.

They're repeating The Benny Hill Show on Aussie pay-TV and it just seemed a good choice.

Besides, Harrison Ford is the one who pointed out Lucas's tin-ear.

And I don't disagree that Lucas has a big tin-ear, but that's something that's said of dialogue, which Lucas didn't write for these films.

It's these folks, the alleged India experts, who are to blame and to credit for the dialogue:

http://www.dvddrive-in.com/images/i-m/messiahofevil7.jpg

(You're not the only one who does the photo thing, but you're newer here, so bad habits and all. Besides: longer-term members can afford to be reminded. It's not a rule; it's just good practice.)

RKORadio
03-15-2013, 10:58 AM
Ah. I'm reminded of those people that say they're an expert on a country - or acquire an accent - after spending two hours in an airport transit lounge!

Attila the Professor
03-15-2013, 11:12 AM
Ah. I'm reminded of those people that say they're an expert on a country - or acquire an accent - after spending two hours in an airport transit lounge!

I wouldn't be so sure. I know I'm the one who introduced "alleged" into the conversation a few moments ago, but Gloria Katz, at the very least, claims that the gross-out elements of the dinner are not the work of her and her husband:

The four brainstormers were temporarily stumped trying to devise a scene that would keep the audience awake while a human-sacrifice cult was explained. Huyck and Katz proposed a tiger hunt. "There's no way I'm going to stay in India long enough to shoot a tiger hunt," Spielberg said. They finally settled on a dinner scene. "Steve and George both still react like children, so their idea was to make it as gross as possible," says Gloria. Thus the banquet of beetles, monkey brains and baby snakes was cooked up.

Apart from that, they had a somewhat significant collection of Indian paintings for quite some time. Mola Ram, in fact, is the name of an 18th century Indian painter. As Grantland (http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8321331/explaining-indiana-jones-temple-doom#footnote2) tells us:

Katz and Huyck supplied details about India: They'd traveled the subcontinent, collected Indian art,2 and even had photographs of the Thuggee demonstrating their strangling technique.

Oh, and from the same Grantland piece:

Spielberg was slightly baffled. "The Sankara stones, the Eastern religion, a lot of the stuff in there — he didn't fully grasp what it was," Lucas said. "So it was harder for him to sort of interpret that into something we have a stake in. And let's face it: It's my fault."

Rocket Surgeon
03-15-2013, 04:33 PM
Anyway, you've mentioned a couple of times that "Chatter Lal's proclamation of Pankot Tradition" is a sign to the audience that the dinner scene isn't "normal" and, therefore, shouldn't be offensive.

Indeed, Chatter Lal does announce the Maharaja as the "Guardian of Pankot tradition" but Pankot isn't just the palace, it's an Indian STATE (albeit fictional). In those days, the size of a maharaja's state/kingdom could vary from small to large. Judging from the size & rich splendour of Zalim Singh's palace and number of guards within, it's safe to say that his area of rule was relatively extensive and most likely included the village of Mayapore and several others.

All of this to say: If that type of meal was a Pankot tradition, then having Eyeball Soup and eating Living Baby Snakes would be a REGIONAL tradition and not confined to just the palace nor the (fictional version of) Thuggee. Hence, those 4 words of dialogue CANNOT be used to further the "not racist" view because they don't stand up under scrutiny.

(It's also possible that the dinner guests are not Thugs but I'll save that theory for later.;))

I appreciate the care and effort with which you've crafted your points...:hat:

...and your deductions are reasonable but not definitive.

My initial argument using the Pankot Tradition lines was to draw the distinction between the film characterizing India as a country and the reality of the film portraying in your view a province in mine and the confines of the film a Palace.

In effect telling the audience in no uncertain terms what you are seeing is not an indictment of the entire culture of India...

...telling might not be accurate, how about proclaiming in a loud voice?

My inclusion of his proclimation was merely tacked on to a series of moments in the film which sum up the point: It's not a portrayal of India, but an Indian State as you would put it.

Please quote where I would have said the dinner wouldn't have been offensive...I clearly remember posting that I wouldn't be surprised if people felt so, just that it doesn't substantiate racism.

Not that I would ever question your judgement, (;) ) but you are engaging in some estimation, and in mine racism is too serious an accusation to blur lines.

Not that you're painting an Edvard Munch tribute, but a consideration is time. How long have they been reviving Pankot Tradition for this "new evil" to spread?

A generation? A year? Two?

The most important aspect is the distictin between the Indian Nation (racism) and a state.

Do you judge the United States based on Mississippi Tradition?

Does 1907 Vancouver speak for all of Canada?
Has it b

Henry W Jones
03-16-2013, 12:51 PM
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-racist-films-of-all-time-2012-5?op=1

Quote from article. 'Just so everyone is clear, Hindus are not human-sacrificing creepy idol-worshipping people. And sure, "Temple Of Doom" is not saying they are, but for people who don't know about the religion, it sure looks that way.'

So, even in this article calling it racist states it is not made to look as if all Indian people act this way. The author basically says to the uneducated of the religion, hence ignorance to the culture and the assumption everything you see on screen is true, it sure looks that way.

Attila the Professor
03-16-2013, 02:54 PM
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-most-racist-films-of-all-time-2012-5?op=1

Quote from article. 'Just so everyone is clear, Hindus are not human-sacrificing creepy idol-worshipping people. And sure, "Temple Of Doom" is not saying they are, but for people who don't know about the religion, it sure looks that way.'

So, even in this article calling it racist states it is not made to look as if all Indian people act this way. The author basically says to the uneducated of the religion, hence ignorance to the culture and the assumption everything you see on screen is true, it sure looks that way.

So that would, at the very least, seem to make the film irresponsible, right, seeing as, in answering a 2001 survey by the Opinion Research Corporation (http://www.vnn.org/world/WD0109/WD07-6876.html), 95% of Americans reported little or no knowledge of Hindu belief or practices and 71% said they had no contact with their Hindu neighbors. 75% were unaware of their positive contributions to their communities. Another article (http://www.rediff.com/us/2001/aug/21us1.htm) reports that 59% of respondents in the same survey were not interested in learning further.

And that's a survey from 2001, 17 years after Temple of Doom and yet prior to 9/11, so you can't attribute it to confusion about which brown people are which. I'm not saying Temple of Doom is responsible for the 2001 state of ignorance, but rather that I would guess that the figures for the mid-1980s were in the direction of even greater ignorance. Even if there were problems with the survey - always a distinct possibility - those percentages are striking even with some suspicion about their precision.

JuniorJones
03-16-2013, 06:01 PM
In terms of the view I have been advocating this leads quite nicely to concept of acceptable "Passive Racism". In TOD case is based on a misrepresentation of a race by either ignorance, a cheap larrrf or worst - knowingness.

This type of racism can only be identified if someone is offended, whether they are right to be offended is another question but it is clear from the sloppy narrative that TOD is offensive to Hindu.

Indiana Jones is....Guilty! Guilty! GUILTY! That and it not being a tenth of Raiders.

http://i609.photobucket.com/albums/tt176/juniorjones2009/guilty.jpg

Henry W Jones
03-16-2013, 06:08 PM
So that would, at the very least, seem to make the film irresponsible, right, seeing as, in answering a 2001 survey by the Opinion Research Corporation (http://www.vnn.org/world/WD0109/WD07-6876.html), 95% of Americans reported little or no knowledge of Hindu belief or practices and 71% said they had no contact with their Hindu neighbors. 75% were unaware of their positive contributions to their communities. Another article (http://www.rediff.com/us/2001/aug/21us1.htm) reports that 59% of respondents in the same survey were not interested in learning further.

And that's a survey from 2001, 17 years after Temple of Doom and yet prior to 9/11, so you can't attribute it to confusion about which brown people are which. I'm not saying Temple of Doom is responsible for the 2001 state of ignorance, but rather that I would guess that the figures for the mid-1980s were in the direction of even greater ignorance. Even if there were problems with the survey - always a distinct possibility - those percentages are striking even with some suspicion about their precision.

Where do we draw the line for who is responsible? Is it a film makers job to make sure everybody in that country is represented? Is it up to the viewer to realize it is fiction? I could see it if their race was depicted as a whole a murderous cultists. So, if a movie where made where a group of people from India, at the beginning of the film are shown broke down on the side of the road, on a tour bus in America. Along comes a family of psycho's a they offer help. They accept. Unfortunately, after a disgusting meal of rabbif brains, frog eyes and dog testacles served by the American psycho's, they start being murdered one by one. After the first few die they start to fight back. By the end of the film, the last two alive are an Indian man and woman. No racial slurs where used in the entire film and no other Americans are represented in any way. Is it a racist film towards Americans?

Le Saboteur
03-17-2013, 05:34 AM
Think more in the future about whether the picture you're going to use is <I>really</I> worth a thousand words, and about whether those thousand words are at all relevant.

http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/dsvelte/7199/v-molafrown.jpg

Side note: Apparently the most direct route to India from Shanghai is over the Great Wall of China. In all the years of watching the flick, I can't believe I missed that little geographic error. It's sort of like flying from Seattle to San Francisco via Chicago. Or, for our European friends, from London to Berlin via Rome.

Which is to say that it's about a fifteen hour trip from Shanghai to the nearest section of the wall in Beijing. Not exactly the most direct route.

It's these folks, the alleged India experts, who are to blame and to credit for the dialogue:

Errors in geography aside (given ceiling limits on prop engine planes, wouldn't a more southerly route into India make more sense?), I don't feel they did a particularly bad job as "experts". While Stoo is generally correct in that Kali is never represented as she is in Temple of Doom, a lot of the detail work is accurate.* That even includes the "magic powers" Mola Ram, and Indy himself, later displays.

*-I'm currently rewatching the movie on Blu-ray (for the first time!) to prove a point to myself, and to make a larger one on the subject at hand.

Rocket Surgeon
03-17-2013, 08:47 AM
With regard to your proposal of mitigating factors:

The Stone wouldn't have recovered itself, but Indy was able to use it - and his knowledge of Hinduism - to defeat Mola Ram.

It is true that he had to go native a bit to achieve his goals, what with the incantation on the broken bridge.

Don't these examples mitigate the idea that Indiana Jones represents a white savior?

Clearly he's not employing his white culture or faith in these examples to establish "white" superiority, moral or otherwise...

...and where he has previously failed...


I just think that if someone is going to be offended by the banquet then they will be and even if they added a disclaimer type line during the meal people would still say that's racist, and that one line Indy disclaimer doesn't get you out of the fact that you are still showing Indians eating insects and monkey brains. I suppose I'm trying to say that people who do or want to get offended by such stuff would still ignore the caveat.

I will say that line should of been kept in, it adds a real sinister feel to the scene I think.
Couldn't agree more, including the effect of keeping the line.

Lucas has a tin ear for scripts:
http://www.rockford.volny1.com/pic/Benny-Hill.jpg
Irony abounds...but wouldn't this have been a better choice:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v449/ssssnake/benny132.jpg

God knows junior knows what I mean...

While Spielberg since then has made a remarkable effort to be more 'fair' to other cultures, Lucas has shown absolute contempt towards any criticism levelled at him.Spielberg was slightly baffled. "The Sankara stones, the Eastern religion, a lot of the stuff in there — he didn't fully grasp what it was," Lucas said. "So it was harder for him to sort of interpret that into something we have a stake in. And let's face it: It's my fault."

Which is to say that it's about a fifteen hour trip from Shanghai to the nearest section of the wall in Beijing. Not exactly the most direct route.

*-I'm currently rewatching the movie on Blu-ray (for the first time!) to prove a point to myself, and to make a larger one on the subject at hand.
Intrigued...

Attila the Professor
03-20-2013, 12:01 PM
With regard to your proposal of mitigating factors:

The Stone wouldn't have recovered itself, but Indy was able to use it - and his knowledge of Hinduism - to defeat Mola Ram.

It is true that he had to go native a bit to achieve his goals, what with the incantation on the broken bridge.

Don't these examples mitigate the idea that Indiana Jones represents a white savior?

Clearly he's not employing his white culture or faith in these examples to establish "white" superiority, moral or otherwise...

They certainly do. I hoped I'd indicated as such.

Where do we draw the line for who is responsible? Is it a film makers job to make sure everybody in that country is represented? Is it up to the viewer to realize it is fiction? I could see it if their race was depicted as a whole a murderous cultists. So, if a movie where made where a group of people from India, at the beginning of the film are shown broke down on the side of the road, on a tour bus in America. Along comes a family of psycho's a they offer help. They accept. Unfortunately, after a disgusting meal of rabbif brains, frog eyes and dog testacles served by the American psycho's, they start being murdered one by one. After the first few die they start to fight back. By the end of the film, the last two alive are an Indian man and woman. No racial slurs where used in the entire film and no other Americans are represented in any way. Is it a racist film towards Americans?

Leaving apart the fact that American isn't a race (they could be Indian-Americans!), it could depend on a few things.

A) Who is the film made by?
B) Is it a commentary on Americans themselves, or on a set of films or cultural depictions?

Of course, films like this have been made in America, but without Indian protagonists. I think it's reasonable to find something like Deliverance or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, as great as they are, to contain objectionable depictions of Southerners. But, then, the creepy redneck is a trope too, just like the helpless native village and the demonic cult.

I just think that if someone is going to be offended by the banquet then they will be and even if they added a disclaimer type line during the meal people would still say that's racist, and that one line Indy disclaimer doesn't get you out of the fact that you are still showing Indians eating insects and monkey brains. I suppose I'm trying to say that people who do or want to get offended by such stuff would still ignore the caveat.

I'm relatively indifferent to those who go out of their way to be offended. Yes, dialogue can often be used to brush away what seems like the fuller intent of a piece; sometimes it seems irrelevant, or as though it's there to protect the film from controversy.

But I absolutely think that an acknowledgement within the film that the meal was unconventional within an Indian context, and not just the context of the viewer or the film's American and Chinese outsiders, would be an asset. An asset because it would be more responsible than allowing two unpalatable meals to be shown in India, with nothing else than some conventional, familiar fruit offered up as acceptable cuisine, and because it would give the meal a point beyond just (lame) comic relief. As you say, it would add a sinister feel to the scene.

Rocket Surgeon
03-20-2013, 02:14 PM
True. However...Rasicm = offenceWouldn't it really be Offence ≨ Racism?

That is: a subset of?

Racism is certainly more than offensive.

I'm certainly not offended by racism, I've gone on to being bemused by it and somewhat amused at the idiocy of it all.
In terms of the view I have been advocating this leads quite nicely to concept of acceptable "Passive Racism".Oh jeeze...:rolleyes: ...here we go!

In TOD case is based on a misrepresentation of a race by either ignorance, a cheap larrrf or worst - knowingness.The premise is so wrong. If any thing was misrepresented its the menu...and even that is still being debated. Surely you've read the testimonies regarding Indian fare.

Here's a spark for the tinder box:

Would endulging in cow urine be more to your taste than beetles?


How about bugs, brains or, DOG!?:

Bizarre Indian Dishes! (http://www.rockying.com/a/88)

1. CHICKEN'S BLOOD FOR CURRY? :This is a scintillating food story. Ever heard of Jadoh? Cooked and eaten by the Jaintia tribes of the North East, it is a dish that has pig intestines and blood of the chicken as the ingredients. With this food on your plate, it sure does get crazier!


2. PIG'S BRAIN GARNISHED: We play so safe with our usual dal and roti that it is time we explore the weirder side of food in our own land! Doh Khlieh, a Meghalayan cuisine, will definitely push you out of your comfort zone. Made of pork and garnished with pig’s brain which is steamed, it is considered to be a delicacy. Dare to eat?


3. DOGS! THE NAGA WAY: People in Nagaland love dogs and eat them too! Someone surely said, “Indian food is like Indian dialect… it changes by the kilometers of the land you cover”. This is true! We can take a dislike towards what we choose to eat. But here is the best part. When we say British food, all sorts of breads and croissants come to our mind, with India it is the spice and the curry that the world is crazy about! The difference in eating habits spanning the nation makes it so interesting.


4.CHILLY AS ANTS? :For those bravehearted hoggers, here is something new that you can try. Make your dish spicy by garnishing it with small dried fish, tomatoes and little Portuguese chillies. This sauce can be a sore for your nose but when it comes to setting your tongue on fire, yes, it is guaranteed! Also, delicious red ants cooked along with their eggs into heady and hot chutney, Chaprah is Chattisgarh’s dish that the people are crazy about. Ready for some unearthly experience?

My favorite line, if you failed to notice: “Indian food is like Indian dialect… it changes by the kilometers of the land you cover”.


WAIT! They DID do bugs and brains!

This type of racism can only be identified if someone is offended, whether they are right to be offended is another question but it is clear from the sloppy narrative that TOD is offensive to Hindu.Were the Thuggee offensive to Hindu?

What is your definition of "Passive Racism"?

None of the characters indicate the Indians are inferior...they just don't share the same tastes.

Indiana Jones is....Guilty! Guilty! GUILTY! That...it[s] not being a tenth of Raiders.

http://i609.photobucket.com/albums/tt176/juniorjones2009/guilty.jpg

This we can agree on!

They certainly do. I hoped I'd indicated as such.I thought as much, but its surrounded by so many if, ands, and buts, I felt it important enough to make that point stand proud.

Henry W Jones
03-20-2013, 03:04 PM
They certainly do. I hoped I'd indicated as such.



Leaving apart the fact that American isn't a race (they could be Indian-Americans!), it could depend on a few things.

A) Who is the film made by?
B) Is it a commentary on Americans them. lves, or on a set of films or cultural depictions?

Of course, films like this have been made in America, but without Indian protagonists. I think it's reasonable to find something like Deliverance or the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, as great as they are, to contain objectionable depictions of Southerners. But, then, the creepy redneck is a trope too, just like the helpless native village and the demonic cult.

But it still depicts Americans only in a negative light whether it is a "race" or not. Is the commentary on Indians themselves in TOD other than the location? What if the cult is christians in my scenario and have American flags in their home? Does who directs the film change the content? I

Attila the Professor
03-20-2013, 03:43 PM
But it still depicts Americans only in a negative light whether it is a "race" or not. Is the commentary on Indians themselves in TOD other than the location? What if the cult is christians in my scenario and have American flags in their home? Does who directs the film change the content? I

Who directs the film doesn't change the content but it may change the intent. If an Anglo-American directed the film you describe, there's probably satire or commentary, however hackneyed, in mind. If an Indian, American or otherwise, did, there'd be a slightly higher burden of value.

I <I>don't</I> think Temple of Doom seeks to be commentary on India or Indians. I <I>do</I> think that the two primary groups of Indians portrayed, however, or either evil or helpless, and neither group has food that most of those in the viewing audience would find acceptable.

I thought as much, but its surrounded by so many if, ands, and buts, I felt it important enough to make that point stand proud.

That's reality for you. It doesn't often deal in absolutes.

Even if some such foods do occur in parts of India, representing only those - along with the fly-ridden meal offered by the villagers - would be tantamount to the film Henry W Jones suggests including only some small varmint stew complete with buckshot, extremely rare beef, and foodstuffs processed beyond all recognition in their culinary cross-section. It's not exactly inaccurate, but it's not flattering either. It's not a generous interpretation of a culture.

I'd like to interpret Temple of Doom generously, if possible. But there's just so little restraint demonstrated on this particular point, and so little reason to have included it in the fashion it was, other than, as Katz says (http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=22855), "George and Steven [reacting] like children" and "making it as gross as possible."

replican't
03-21-2013, 05:58 AM
If George Lucas went to a classroom and showed these films to the kids, he'd be hung drawn and quartered by the teachers and ethnic communities and pressure groups.

I'll email him. Could be worth a try.

CodySolo
03-22-2013, 08:22 PM
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is also racist towards black people.

By portraying Indiana Jones as being willing to offer up his skills to help the Indian villagers to overthrow the Thuggee, the implication that the film makes is that no black person from the western world either would or could do so.

It is also racist towards Hispanics for the same reason. In fact, it is racist toward any race that isn't white.

Intra-racially, it is also offensive to any white person who isn't of Irish, German, or Jewish descent.

Mickiana
03-22-2013, 08:46 PM
It's also racist to every extraterrestrial race that has ever been or ever will be in the whole universe, which means it is infinitely racist, since it didn't include those generous and justice seeking aliens in the plot to save the villagers and their children.

It did imply Shiva was involved, but that is only one god, so what about all the other gods? Let's not quibble here, there are many gods who feel not just a little miffed at being left out, so a little bit of godism there too.

What are we to do about this terrible atrocity that was unleashed upon the whole good fabric of reality in 1984? Maybe that's it!!!!! 1984!!!!! An Orwellian subterfuge hatched by Hollywood to brainwash us all. Oh my god(s)!

CodySolo
03-22-2013, 08:59 PM
There are indeed very subtle traces of godism in the film, but only those few of us who have done a cursory study of interracial, intercultural, interstellar, and inter-deital sensitivity and have written the appropriate undergrad-level dissertations are capable of seeing it.

Mickiana
03-23-2013, 03:46 AM
There are indeed very subtle traces of godism in the film, but only those few of us who have done a cursory study of interracial, intercultural, interstellar, and inter-deital sensitivity and have written the appropriate undergrad-level dissertations are capable of seeing it.

Love it. You know, in all of the arguments about racism, I'm reminded of W C Fields for some reason.

CodySolo
03-23-2013, 05:29 AM
In somewhat seriousness, Temple of Doom is the first Indy film I grew up with as a kid (my Dad bought it for me as part of a combo meal at McDonalds? It was a different world back then), so my recollections of the impressions I at least got from the film are still very retrievable for me because it was such a large part of my childhood.

The one scene in particular that I am sort of surprised to see people have such a different take on from me is the dining scene. I've always registered it as a joke on Willie, and at her expense. She is a stranger in a strange land...not only is she a westerner in India, but her whole personality is also foreign to most viewers, I would imagine, or at least most viewers of the Indiana Jones demographic.

So the joke to me was always seeing her unrelatabley high level of prissiness come into conflict with this foreign (to her) environment and eating habits. She and Short Round (a child) are contrasted by our hero, Indy, who at the other end of the table shows no aversion to the menu. And the movie doesn't seem to suggest to me, and never did, that people in India now or then dined on snakes, bugs, and monkey brains--it's hyperrealistic like everything else in Indiana Jones or any other pulpy story, designed to play the Willie gag out to its fullest possible extent. Her reactions are the joke...we're making fun of her, not the diners.

Attila the Professor
03-23-2013, 03:55 PM
Now we're talkin'! I was worried you were just here to make jokes. (As an aside, before we get into it: it's far preferable to edit your post to add whatever else you've thought of rather than just post a new one.)

In somewhat seriousness, Temple of Doom is the first Indy film I grew up with as a kid (my Dad bought it for me as part of a combo meal at McDonalds? It was a different world back then), so my recollections of the impressions I at least got from the film are still very retrievable for me because it was such a large part of my childhood.

I grew up with it too. I find it hard to honestly evaluate things like that, but not impossible. Still, I feel like part of it is trying to figure out how I'd respond if I were seeing it for the first time. The village only bugs me a little instinctually, but has the potential to annoy more in the big picture. That's the macro stuff, the "Great White Hero" questions and whatever goes along with it. That's more just the form of storytelling that the film has opted for, and that's <I>okay</I>; they're all adventure tropes being engaged in, and at least some effort is put in to subvert them. The hero learns from the third-worlders, he relies upon a native god to achieve his goal, etc. (Yeah, you can find a bunch of these subversions, including the little ethnic sidekick, in all kinds of stuff. But I'm okay with bracketing it for now.)

The one scene in particular that I am sort of surprised to see people have such a different take on from me is the dining scene. I've always registered it as a joke on Willie, and at her expense. She is a stranger in a strange land...not only is she a westerner in India, but her whole personality is also foreign to most viewers, I would imagine, or at least most viewers of the Indiana Jones demographic.

I wonder how foreign a personality she really is. I think there are plenty of people who, more than anything, care about their appearance and their personal level of comfort. They want to be catered to in familiar ways. I certainly agree that the joke is <I>in part</I> on her. She's the one who needs to eat food with flies on it that repulses her. She's the one who's confronted with a "simple" bowl of soup that contains eyeballs.

So the joke to me was always seeing her unrelatabley high level of prissiness come into conflict with this foreign (to her) environment and eating habits.

But it's not just equivalent to the sort of fish out of water story that happens where the context itself is familiar to the viewer, as when there's an Eastern greenhorn who makes his way out West and is confronted with wild horses and tough gunslingers. The context is foreign <I>to us</I> too. The joke is definitely on Willie but, weirdly, she (and Shorty) seem to be our viewpoint character in that half of the sequence too.

She and Short Round (a child) are contrasted by our hero, Indy, who at the other end of the table shows no aversion to the menu.

Good point, although it may be that they're eating something else. He doesn't even seem to notice the snakes/eels, even though Blumburtt does. Perhaps Chatter Lal or the Maharajah have different tastes, and serve their most honored guests accordingly?

And the movie doesn't seem to suggest to me, and never did, that people in India now or then dined on snakes, bugs, and monkey brains--it's hyperrealistic like everything else in Indiana Jones or any other pulpy story, designed to play the Willie gag out to its fullest possible extent. Her reactions are the joke...we're making fun of her, not the diners.

The mustache on the fellow who's excited about the Snake Surprise always made me feel differently.

http://www.wearysloth.com/Gallery/ActorsE/53418-9435.jpg

But we do know, or at least know that Gloria Katz claims, that Lucas and Spielberg were into the idea of "making [the meal] as gross as possible." I don't think the joke is just on Willie.

CodySolo
03-23-2013, 10:31 PM
The village only bugs me a little instinctually, but has the potential to annoy more in the big picture. That's the macro stuff, the "Great White Hero" questions and whatever goes along with it. That's more just the form of storytelling that the film has opted for, and that's <I>okay</I>; they're all adventure tropes being engaged in, and at least some effort is put in to subvert them. The hero learns from the third-worlders, he relies upon a native god to achieve his goal, etc. (Yeah, you can find a bunch of these subversions, including the little ethnic sidekick, in all kinds of stuff. But I'm okay with bracketing it for now.)


It's the "Great White Hero" thing that I was sort of addressing in my joking posts earlier--in a serial style adventure, Indiana Jones is a hero in the mythical sense, he's one in a million, whether he's amongst Indians, Europeans, Americans, etc.. For the Great White Hero issue to be problematic, it seems to me, the implication would have to be that his being a white man is what makes him able to accomplish what the Indians he is aiding weren't able to accomplish on their own--that would be the delineation that would indicate racism in the story structure.

But this damning evidence seems to be absent, in large part because we've already been on one adventure with Indiana Jones in Raiders where we see that the reason he is able to accomplish the things he does is because he is especially gifted, regardless of his race. In Raiders, he fights the Hovitos, Germans, Egyptians, and Toht's Nepali henchman (a pretty racially diverse list of enemy combatants for one film), and trounces them all by the skin of his teeth due to sheer individual skill and craftiness.

The only implication I see in the films is that everyone from any race, nation, or culture who has some sort of insurmountable problem ought to pray to their respective gods for aid from Indiana Jones, because he always wins in the end, because he is Indiana Jones, not because he is white.

replican't
03-25-2013, 05:11 AM
George Lucas is anti-human.

Raiders112390
03-25-2013, 08:34 PM
George Lucas is anti-human.

Trolling much?

replican't
03-26-2013, 03:31 AM
Trolling much?

No, don't think he's that into trolls.

Raiders112390
03-26-2013, 09:41 PM
No, don't think he's that into trolls.

Do you have anything better to do in your life than troll on the boards of a series you don't really like? Can't you read some Batman slash fiction or something?

Le Saboteur
03-27-2013, 03:23 AM
Do you have anything better to do in your life than troll on the boards of a series you don't really like? Can't you read some Batman slash fiction or something?

He can no more stop 'trolling' than you can stop recreating the same threads over and over again.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tB_ykGf-x7c/UGYe8_Pnh4I/AAAAAAAAG-0/1F3sNI5Exjk/s1600/Indiana-Jones-and-the-Temple-of-Doom-Mola-Ram-Amrish-Puri-heart.png

Point of order: I just finished watching Temple of Doom for the second time today. At no point during the movie is the term Hindu/Hinduism/whatever mentioned. By anybody. Which is important because the more demonstratively inclined members here are, like with the cuisine of India, conflating Hinduism with a monolithic set of values. This is, of course, a false assumption.

But first, it should be mentioned that geography is our first clue that Temple of Doom doesn't take place in India. No, it takes place in an "India" of the popular imagination; a concept rather a concrete physical place.

Note the movie's lone travel sequence (http://home.comcast.net/~ervind/ijfilmmaps.html): The Ford Tri-Motor takes off from Shanghai, flies over the Great Wall despite being nowhere near it, and ostensibly refuels in Chungking (modern spelling: Chongqing) before heading west. Each place is specifically mentioned on the map. Yet the rather infamous red line peters out and disappears somewhere over Tibet/Bhutan. This happens nowhere else in the series. Even the unnamed island where Belloq & Co. meet their demise is given concrete representation on the map; i.e., the red line has its terminus on the island's shore.

But let's get back to Hinduism for moment...

Hinduism has no central authority and as a result has no set of tenets that followers must adhere to. In order to make headway into the disorder, it has been broken down into four major denominations: Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Smartism, & Shaktism.

Vaishnavism

Vaishnavites venerate the Lord Vishnu as supreme God. No other god is above him; though, like other denominations, they recognize many other lesser gods and demi-gods.

Shaivism

Shaivism is the second largest congregation in contemporary India. Shaivites, of course, consider Shiva to be the supreme deity. It's also the oldest set of beliefs in Hinduism and can be found throughout the sub-continent and Southeast Asia.

Smartism

Smartism is the true polytheistic denomination amongst Hindus. Adherents of this tradition viewed all gods and goddesses as equals and individuals. Despite this, one particular deity (usually Ganesh, Vishnu, Shiva, Devi, or Surya) could be venerated above others depending on the individual practitioner's preference. And as a non-dualistic tradition, there is no difference to adherents between the actual self and transcendental self.

Shaktism

Shaktism concerns itself with venerating Devi (lit: "the Goddess); by and large, the Goddess is the ultimate, absolute deity. Devi can take the form of one of several goddesses -- Mahadevi, Durga, Saraswati, Shri-Lakshmi, Parvati, & Kali.

There are aspects of all four denominations on display in the Thuggee's worship of Kali, but there is an older form of religion that heavily influences the film's spirit. More on that next time. I need to flip through a few more vedas.

I've only recently delved into the whole podcast phenomenon, but this subject could make a very interesting Indycast if it hasn't already been attempted.

replican't
03-27-2013, 03:56 AM
You're all reading way too much into this.

Basically, its just a bunch of Americans doing what they always do - thinking they're the centre of the universe, invading other countries, laughing at their cultures and nicking their shiny gold stuff before going back home. Where they all live happily ever after.

CodySolo
03-27-2013, 06:00 AM
Way to fight alleged generalities with...definite generalities?

replican't
03-27-2013, 06:30 AM
Way to fight alleged generalities with...definite generalities?

Nope. My point is that you're picking nits off a carcass that is clearly infested.

JD2008
07-10-2013, 11:11 PM
Temple of Doom certainly had more than a few racist overtones in it (particularly in Pankot) ... and some of the behind the scenes commentary about George Lucas certainly reinforces at least his racism. If you don't believe the film was racist against Indians, India would disagree with you, since it was banned in that country for that reason for a number of years.


Ever since the British colonized, many Indians have become hypersensitive to the Western cultural perspective. The government's banning of the film, better reflects the bitterness that has lingered in their culture, because there is no element in Temple of Doom, which a rational person can take much offense to.

In fact, it is quite the contrary, Speilberg's portrays Jones as rather sympathetic to the Indian plight (in the end he is a hero to the villagers), and clearly conveys the movie's antagonists (the cult) as a small sect. There are no generalizations of character, which is a hallmark of racism.

Sure, there are few neutral stereotypes (like the asian kid doing karate), but those go to make the movie more believable. Temple of Doom is largely devoid of 'racist overtones'.

Montana Smith
07-11-2013, 12:10 AM
In fact, it is quite the contrary, Speilberg's portrays Jones as rather sympathetic to the Indian plight (in the end he is a hero to the villagers)...

...because the film reiterates the theme of the 'white man's burden', an affirmation of racial and cultural stereotypes which places white society in a patriarchal role.

In fact Marhan the shaman insists that Indiana take up his burden, for without him the village is helpless.

We prayed to Shiva to help us find the stone. It was Shiva who made you fall from sky. So you will go to Pankot Palace... and find Shivalinga... and bring back to us. Bring back to us. Bring back to us.

An imbalance caused by dissident natives must be put right by the outsider.

Temple of Doom is a fairy tale told in the tradition of adventure stories which, by 1984, was largely outdated.

That was its intention.

JD2008
07-11-2013, 12:40 AM
an affirmation of racial and cultural stereotypes which places white society in a patriarchal role.

In fact Marhan the shaman insists that Indiana take up his burden, for without him the village is helpless.



One has to consider the fact that the franchise is about an archaeologist, whom (naturally) often finds himself in distant and foreign lands, and it's adventure story, which happens to have a white character, as the protagonist. In Raiders of Ark, which proceeded it, the (White) Nazis were the enemy, and it was the entirety of the human race, which depended on Jones. Given that as an introduction to our character and the franchise, there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that Temple of Doom is racially motivated.

Montana Smith
07-11-2013, 01:23 AM
One has to consider the fact that the franchise is about an archaeologist, whom (naturally) often finds himself in distant and foreign lands, and it's adventure story, which happens to have a white character, as the protagonist. In Raiders of Ark, which proceeded it, the (White) Nazis were the enemy, and it was the entirety of the human race, which depended on Jones. Given that as an introduction to our character and the franchise, there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that Temple of Doom is racially motivated.

One has to consider that Temple of Doom was partly inspired by Gunga Din, which was based upon the poem by Kipling, who also wrote White Man's Burden.

The point of the Indiana Jones series is that it's not just about an archaeologist, but an 'archaic' attitude to adventure, told in a style motivated by Lucas and Spielberg's fondness for pulp serials.

If this series was about an "archaeologist" we would see Indiana Jones conducting "archaeology", rather than theft and destruction.

Archaeology was the excuse created to get the main character into a certain kind of adventure and locations.

He could just as well have been a mercenary and had the same adventures.

The artefact is the initial goal. Getting to it before his rivals is the game. Indy creates his own justifications for claiming it, as he did when he stole from the Hovitos.

It's a microcosm of the greater picture - the white man's right to the lands and possessions of the 'savage' races. The squabble between international powers for resources. (Indy vs. Belloq - though Belloq learnt Hovitos to make his claim more valid).

Lucas and Spielberg were recreating old-fashioned adventure with authentic old-fashioned attitudes. I don't see them as endorsing those values, but merely the values of the storytelling itself.

Naturally, the authenticity breaks down because creators are influenced by the time they live in and the audience they are creating for. Indy is enlightened, yet he's also a conflicted rogue.

JD2008
07-11-2013, 07:50 AM
If this series was about an "archaeologist" we would see Indiana Jones conducting "archaeology", rather than theft and destruction.

If the series was just about archaeology, then they would be damn boring. The directors had the good sense to include the adventure element, to capture the interest of the audience.

Archaeology was the excuse created to get the main character into a certain kind of adventure and locations. He could just as well have been a mercenary and had the same adventures.

Yes, that's one of the points I've made. It's not like ToD was about a (white) U.S ambassador, sent on a mission to help a clan of Bantus kill a lion. Indy is , ultimately, in pursuit of artifacts in the interest of saving the entire world. Even the white race relies on the prosperity of his adventures, as this is also conveyed in ROTC and LC.


It's a microcosm of the greater picture - the white man's right to the lands and possessions of the 'savage' races. The squabble between international powers for resources. (Indy vs. Belloq - though Belloq learnt Hovitos to make his claim more valid).

You're seeing things. Most of the franchise involves Indy in a race against the Nazis and power-thirsty characters (belloq, lao che) - not against any 'savage race', as you assert. This has less to do with the 'white man', than you have suggested. The hero happens to be white.

Montana Smith
07-11-2013, 09:30 AM
You're seeing things. Most of the franchise involves Indy in a race against the Nazis and power-thirsty characters (belloq, lao che) - not against any 'savage race', as you assert. This has less to do with the 'white man', than you have suggested. The hero happens to be white.

The comment was in specific reference to Peru, 1936:

The artefact is the initial goal. Getting to it before his rivals is the game. Indy creates his own justifications for claiming it, as he did when he stole from the Hovitos.

It's a microcosm of the greater picture - the white man's right to the lands and possessions of the 'savage' races. The squabble between international powers for resources. (Indy vs. Belloq - though Belloq learnt Hovitos to make his claim more valid).

This is the first time we see Indy, what he does, and how he does it.

Then it's curious to go back a year to 1935, to see him come to terms with this attitude, shun fortune and glory for doing the right thing...and then revert the following year.

But then that's what Lucas has done with characters after appearing to have initially gone too far down the roguish path.

With Temple of Doom it's more the framework of the storytelling than Indiana himself which follows the idea of the patriarchal 'white man's burden'. Indy's a reluctant hero until faced with the plight of the Indian boy returning to Mayapore. I see him as a man too self-possessed with his own sense of pride and the race to be first, to be consciously 'heroic'.

Acts of violence and bravery are the by-products of his quests. Such as the reckless chasing of a German convoy on horseback or leaping into the sea after a submarine.

In chronological order we have the reluctant hero of 1935 and the temple thief of 1936. Even in light of a 1930s serial what Indy does in Peru might be associated with the role of a villain. He's not there to protect the Idol, but to steal it. At that moment Belloq would be correct in assuming that he and Indy are similar in nature.

Lucas elaborated on the idea in the 1978 story conference:

Lucas: He really started being a grave robber, for hire, is what it really came down to. And the museums would hire him to steal things out of tombs and stuff. Or, locate them. In the archeology circles he knows everybody, so he's sort of like a private detective grave robber. A museum will give him an assignment... A bounty hunter.
...

The thing is, if there is an object of antiquity, that a museum knows about that may be missing, or they know it's somewhere. He can go like an archeologist, but it's like rather than doing research, he goes in to get the gold. He doesn't really go to find cheap artifacts, he goes to gather stuff. And the other thing is, if something was taken from a tomb, stolen and sort of in the underground, sometimes they may send him out to get it. Essentially he's a bounty hunter. He's a bounty hunter of antiquities is what it comes down to. If a museum says that there is this famous vase that we know exists, it was in this tomb at this time. It may still be there, but we doubt it. We think maybe it's on the underground market, or in a private collection. We'd like to have it. Actually it belongs to us. We're the National Museum of Cairo or something. He says okay and he tracks it down. If it's not in the thing, he finds it, finds out who's got it. And he swipes it back.

A lot of times it's sort of legal. All he has to do is get it. It's not like he steals things from collectors, and then gives them to other collectors. What he does is steal things from private collectors who have them illegally, and gives them back to the national museums and stuff. Or, being that his morality isn't all that good, he will go into the actual grave and steal it out of the country and give it to the museum. It's a sort of quasi-ethical side of that whole thing...Anything that's quasi-legal, or amorphous, he'll do. He's not a totally corrupt person, where he'll steal. But if it's sort of fair game, then he comes in. As a result he's essentially an anthropologist and an archeologist.

Yet I think in Raiders Indy actually goes beyond the "quasi-ethical". It wasn't a matter of merely robbing a tomb, but of actually stealing directly from a native people who valued and protected that artefact. The Hovitos are of no consequence to Indy, though Belloq goes as far as learning enough of their language to ingratiate himself among them.

This introduction to the character is very much in the tradition of nineteenth century values, such as the time when it was okay for Americans to steal the land and resources of native Americans. Hence the 'racist' element in the storytelling, committed by a character who is enlightened by the standards of the day. And therefore I see Indy as a conflicted rogue, sometimes conforming to standards no longer acceptable, and at others exceeding the standards: such as the Chinese friend and the Chinese orphan at a time when the Chinese in Shanghai were often treated as sub-human by the British, French and American community there.

Indy himself is therefore an enigma. But explicable through the notion that Lucas and Spielberg were writing a 1930s character in the style of an earlier time with different attitudes, but doing so from the perspective of the 1970s and '80s. On top of that, they employed a shorthand technique with regards to history and culture, since their main objective was high adventure.

Pale Horse
07-11-2013, 10:38 AM
This is the first time we see Indy, what he does, and how he does it.

Then it's curious to go back a year to 1935, to see him come to terms with this attitude, shun fortune and glory for doing the right thing...and then revert the following year.
...

Treading lightly here. Let's go back to film canon. "It belongs to Coronado, it should be in a museum." (1912)...

All this before the Fortune and Glory of 1935. And then the flip flop you note above. It would seem Indy doesn't know where he stands on artifacts.

Montana Smith
07-11-2013, 10:54 AM
Treading lightly here. Let's go back to film canon. "It belongs to Coronado, it should be in a museum." (1912)...

All this before the Fortune and Glory of 1935. And then the flip flop you note above. It would seem Indy doesn't know where he stands on artifacts.

As Lucas grows older and more responsible in relation to his audience he feels the need to make Indiana more of a positive role model?

We saw it with the Han Solo shooting first/last/simultaneous debacle.

But to make matters worse with Indy, Lucas does it out of chronological sequence.

It comes to the point where we might have to admit that it's no good trying to over think this series: high adventure outweighs rationality, as we see with the liberal way with which history and culture are treated throughout.

If they missed the point of what Lucas and Spielberg were doing, it's understandable that some cultures weren't pleased with the results.

Pale Horse
07-11-2013, 11:03 AM
thread killer

Dr. Gonzo
07-11-2013, 12:49 PM
As Lucas grows older and more responsible in relation to his audience he feels the need to make Indiana more of a positive role model?

We saw it with the Han Solo shooting first/last/simultaneous debacle.

But to make matters worse with Indy, Lucas does it out of chronological sequence.

It comes to the point where we might have to admit that it's no good trying to over think this series: high adventure outweighs rationality, as we see with the liberal way with which history and culture are treated throughout.

If they missed the point of what Lucas and Spielberg were doing, it's understandable that some cultures weren't pleased with the results.

Playing devil's advocate for a second...
<iframe width="640" height="480" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/D44YUfi92ls?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Okay where was I? Yeah...

One could view this from the prism of -- (from Coronado to some other adult period), like all young adults, Jones was a pretty naive guy... optomistic...
Then at some point reality hits him (as Jim Morrison said, "Money beats soul") so Jones the adult goes out into the world as a quasi archeologist/grave robber. Then "Doom" happens... these stupid rocks apparently carry voodoo magic powers and Jones accepts that...

...now you're at Raiders and to Jones (and many other people I would imagine) voodoo magic rocks have no correlation with the judea/christian Ark of the covenant. It could be argued that he's always sort of skeptical at first with a new region or religion... and by the time you get to crusade its easier for him to make that leap because he has seen the power of the judeo/christian god before...

In the X-Files, Mulder and Scully always saw **** that defied belief. Yet after every episode Mulder was the believer and Scully was the skeptic... It's plausible that Jones is just skeptical by his very nature.

As for "fortune and glory" well it seems that is something that only partially dies in Doom... he realizes the people of the village need it more than he does. I'm sure if it was any other circumstance we would be seeing that rock in a museum...

Then again you are trying to peg a character with a set guide or rules of behavior and morals -- and technically thats not the case... people change their minds or opinions all the time...

*Or we can throw that out the window and say strictly (in terms of screenwriting) Our hero must be skeptical at the beginning so his faith or non faith is put to the test at the end... or in the case of doom a selfish grave robber becomes a generous archeologist saving a village as opposed to getting his glory. it's all about the arc... (pun intended) character arc.

Pale Horse
07-11-2013, 01:11 PM
Playing devil's advocate for a second...

(edit)
As for "fortune and glory" well it seems that is something that only partially dies in Doom... he realizes the people of the village need it more than he does. I'm sure if it was any other circumstance we would be seeing that rock in a museum...

So what about the line: "Now you understanh, da powah of da Rok" to which Young(Er) Jones says..."Yes, I understand"

Are you Dr. Gonzo, saying that Jones was simply mocking them all along?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1nVZluKdaA

Dr. Gonzo
07-11-2013, 01:52 PM
So what about the line: "Now you understanh, da powah of da Rok" to which Young(Er) Jones says..."Yes, I understand"

Are you Dr. Gonzo, saying that Jones was simply mocking them all along?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1nVZluKdaA

Hahaha... naw, just playin' devil's advocate...

but if I was to continue down that line of thought (here we go again http://www.sherv.net/cm/emo/funny/2/devil.gif (http://www.sherv.net/emoticons.html) ) ... Jones (after doom) is more in it for the thrill of the chase... before it was fortune and glory -- and what I meant by "it partially dies" is the fortune part. Jones still digs the glory... He receives praise from the villagers and has been given the moniker Indiana Jones obtainer of rare antiquities by the archeology community.

In Raiders its the idea that he would be going after one of the most important artifacts in history that motivates him, not for the money per-say but to be the man who finds the greatest of the great lost finds. Hell money is no object to him. He doesn't even bat an eye when throwing thousands at Marion just for a piece of the puzzle.
And at the end of Raiders his concern is definitely not the money... you sort of get the feeling that he would have done it for the hell of it... it's that the discovery is going to be kept under wraps by the government. "Yeah, yeah, the money is fine, but the situation is totally unacceptable."

And furthermore in Crusade they take the final step -- it has nothing to do with money... or with glory. it's about finding pop... and that is the true end to the trilogy technically because after he has saved his dad there is that moment with the grail when he can still get the glory... but he lets the glory go... "let it go" and he does... that's why, in part, Crusade always felt like the last Indiana Jones film. He let go of all his vanity. The cycle reduced to nothing. If that makes sense.

From Fortune and glory -- to glory -- to... well, lets leave that up to you...

*but then again I'm just playin' devil's advocate...

Montana Smith
07-11-2013, 01:54 PM
One could view this from the prism of -- (from Coronado to some other adult period), like all young adults, Jones was a pretty naive guy... optomistic...
Then at some point reality hits him (as Jim Morrison said, "Money beats soul") so Jones the adult goes out into the world as a quasi archeologist/grave robber. Then "Doom" happens... these stupid rocks apparently carry voodoo magic powers and Jones accepts that...

...now you're at Raiders and to Jones (and many other people I would imagine) voodoo magic rocks have no correlation with the judea/christian Ark of the covenant. It could be argued that he's always sort of skeptical at first with a new region or religion... and by the time you get to crusade its easier for him to make that leap because he has seen the power of the judeo/christian god before...

In the X-Files, Mulder and Scully always saw **** that defied belief. Yet after every episode Mulder was the believer and Scully was the skeptic... It's plausible that Jones is just skeptical by his very nature.

As for "fortune and glory" well it seems that is something that only partially dies in Doom... he realizes the people of the village need it more than he does. I'm sure if it was any other circumstance we would be seeing that rock in a museum...

Then again you are trying to peg a character with a set guide or rules of behavior and morals -- and technically thats not the case... people change their minds or opinions all the time...

*Or we can throw that out the window and say strictly (in terms of screenwriting) Our hero must be skeptical at the beginning so his faith or non faith is put to the test at the end... or in the case of doom a selfish grave robber becomes a generous archeologist saving a village as opposed to getting his glory. it's all about the arc... (pun intended) character arc.


It can all be made to work!

Though I'm suspicious about the timing of the various reveals. As real time progresses Uncle George makes his anti-hero a little less radical.

My image of Indy is coloured (pun un-intended) by my first contact with him through the Raiders novel. From the beginning he was up to no good, and the moment he turns the tables on Barranca he became like that other anti-hero, the Man With No Name, whom Lucas noted as another character inspiration.

Campbell's writing was very reminiscent of Frank Chandler or Forrest Carter:

Before he could finish his sentence he saw, as if in a slowed reel of film, Barranca reach for his pistol. He saw the thin brown hand curl itself over the butt of the silver gun-and then he moved. Indiana Jones moved faster than the Peruvian could have followed; his motions a blur, a parody of vision, he moved back from Barranca and, reaching under the back of his leather jacket, produced a coiled bullwhip, his hand tight on the handle. His movements became liquid, one fluid and graceful display of muscle and poise and balance, arm and bullwhip seeming to be one thing, extensions of each other. He swung the whip, lashing the air, watching it twist itself tightly around Barranca's wrist. Then he jerked downward, tighter still, and the gun discharged itself into the ground. For a moment the Peruvian didn't move. He stared at Indy in amazement, a mixture of confusion and pain and hatred, loathing the fact that he'd been outsmarted, humiliated. And then, as the whip around his wrist slackened, Barranca turned and ran, racing after the Indians into the jungle.


So I never thought of him as a hero in the modern sense, which made him all the more interesting.

For the skepticism issue Lucas spoke about that in the conference in the same breath as the bit I quoted:

So he just got into this crazy business. Now, on top of that, I have added, I thought it would be interesting to have him be a sort of expert in the occult, as an offshoot of the anthropoligical side of this thing. He has a tendency to get into situations where there are taboos, voodoos, things, especially when you start dealing with pyramids you get into all that. So he sort of studies it because he's gotten mixed up with it. A study of ancient religions and voodoo and all that kind of stuff. He's a guy who sort of checks out ghosts and psychic phenomenon in connection with the kind of things he does. He's a sort of archeological exorcist. When somebody has a haunted house, or a haunted temple, and nobody will go near it, he is the one who will go in there and do it, and he has dealt with... [B]Assuming that he believes in the supernatural because he deals with it, he is the one they send into the haunted house. Like one of these haunted house professors who try and figure out why a house is haunted. He does that. He gets involved with sacred temples and curses and all that stuff. [B]And actually some were real, he came across some real curses and stuff. He said hey, this is really interesting. A lot of the times they are hoaxes. And he can figure it out...Because he's an intelligent professor, he knows his science and he can sort of deduce a hoax...When he confronts his antiquities and stuff, half the time he's dealing with hoaxes. Not only hoaxes in terms of taboos and things, but also hoaxes in terms of the antiquities. They send him out to get them, but they also send him out to deal with the supernatural.

Dr. Gonzo
07-11-2013, 01:55 PM
Damn must have posted at the same time...

please see previous post...

JD2008
07-11-2013, 02:36 PM
The comment was in specific reference to Peru, 1936:

Then leave it as a reference to the 1936 Peru. There is no need to extrapolate the notion of 'racism'.


With Temple of Doom it's more the framework of the storytelling than Indiana himself which follows the idea of the patriarchal 'white man's burden'. Indy's a reluctant hero until faced with the plight of the Indian boy returning to Mayapore. I see him as a man too self-possessed with his own sense of pride and the race to be first, to be consciously 'heroic'.

And that's exactly the problem. Your perception of racism, is merely a perception. (Of course in the end, Indy rightfully, returns the rock to the villagers - not exactly in line with racist or imperialistic decision making) How one justifies the notion of 'racism' in the series, has yet to be seen.


Lucas elaborated on the idea in the 1978 story conference:

"Yet I think in Raiders Indy actually goes beyond the "quasi-ethical". It wasn't a matter of merely robbing a tomb, but of actually stealing directly from a native people who valued and protected that artefact. The Hovitos are of no consequence to Indy, though Belloq goes as far as learning enough of their language to ingratiate himself among them"

This introduction to the character is very much in the tradition of nineteenth century values, such as the time when it was okay for Americans to steal the land and resources of native Americans. Hence the 'racist' element in the storytelling, committed by a character who is enlightened by the standards of the day. And therefore I see Indy as a conflicted rogue, sometimes conforming to standards no longer acceptable, and at others exceeding the standards: such as the Chinese friend and the Chinese orphan at a time when the Chinese in Shanghai were often treated as sub-human by the British, French and American community there.



Stealing from indigenous people, though unethical, is not synonymous with racism. Indy's goes between being an archaeologist and, at worst, a treasure hunter, but never an imperialist (or a racist). And again, ROTL is almost entirely concerned with fighting evil Nazis (white people), which is in direct contradiction to the idea that Indy possesses any racial motivations.

The fact that you find yourself confused as to the nature of Indy's character, is evidence that you are grasping at straws. While there are circumstantial parallels between imperialism (racist) and adventurism, Indy never conforms to the paradigm of former.

Montana Smith
07-11-2013, 02:41 PM
Then leave it as a reference to the 1936 Peru. There is no need to extrapolate the notion 'racism'.




And that's exactly the problem. Your perception of racism, is merely a perception. (Of course in the end, Indy rightfully, returns the rock to the villagers - not exactly in line with racist or imperialistic decision making) How one justifies the notion of 'racism' in the series, has yet to be seen.





Stealing from indigenous people, though unethical, is not synonymous with racism. Indy's goes between being an archaeologist and, at worst, a treasure hunter, but never an imperialist (or a racist). And again, ROTL is almost entirely concerned with fighting evil Nazis (white people), which is in direct contradiction to the idea that Indy possesses any racial motivations.

The fact that you find yourself confused as to the nature of Indy's character, is evidence that you are grasping at straws. He never conforms to the paradigm of an imperialist or a racist.


And the fact that you understood nothing that I wrote is the reason this post is so short.

JD2008
07-11-2013, 02:54 PM
And the fact that you understood nothing that I wrote is the reason this post is so short.


Keep grasping...

Montana Smith
07-11-2013, 02:56 PM
Keep grasping...

:sleep:

<ten characters>

Stoo
07-11-2013, 03:18 PM
Ever since the British colonized, many Indians have become hypersensitive to the Western cultural perspective.British control of India began in the mid-to-late 1700s (after the battles of Plassey and Buxar) which was almost 300 years ago. Please bestow upon us your insight about the average Indian's frame-of-mind towards "Western culture" before that period.
Sure, there are few neutral stereotypes (like the asian kid doing karate), but those go to make the movie more believable.How do "neutral stereotypes" go to "make the movie more believable"?:confused: (And why do you label the "asian kid" as neutral, when he is a good guy?:confused:)
One has to consider the fact that the franchise is about an archaeologist, whom (naturally) often finds himself in distant and foreign lands, and it's adventure story, which happens to have a white character, as the protagonist. In Raiders of Ark, which proceeded it, the (White) Nazis were the enemy, and it was the entirety of the human race, which depended on Jones. Given that as an introduction to our character and the franchise, there is no reason to jump to the conclusion that Temple of Doom is racially motivated.If you read the entire thread, you'll find that nobody is claiming ToD to be "racially motivated" (as in; a mean-spirited, intentional slandering of India's people). It's been well stated, multiple times, that any controversial, racist aspects were NOT intentional.
Most of the franchise involves Indy in a race against the Nazis and power-thirsty characters (belloq, lao che) - not against any 'savage race',"Most of the franchise"?:confused: Not as far as the Nazis are concerned:
- THEATRICAL FILMS: Only 38% (approx.) of the 4 movies are about Indy against the Nazis. That's definitely not "most"!:rolleyes: :p :whip:
- TV SERIES: 0% - No Nazis.
- FRANCHISE: (Novels, Comics, Role-playing games): I haven't bothered to figure out the % for these stories...but Nazis are NOT the villains in the large majority of these extra, franchised tales.

Nazi presence in the overall "Indy franchise" is minor, when weighed against everything else that's been released under Dr. Jones' name.

Montana Smith
07-11-2013, 03:30 PM
If you read the entire thread, you'll find that nobody is claiming ToD to be "racially motivated" (as in; a mean-spirited, intentional slandering of India's people). It's been well stated, multiple times, that any controversial, racist aspects were NOT intentional.

thread reviver


:up:

JD2008
07-11-2013, 03:43 PM
British control of India began in the mid-to-late 1700s (after the battles of Plassey and Buxar) which was almost 300 years ago. Please bestow upon us your insight about the average Indian's frame-of-mind towards "Western culture" before that period.

Ok, wise guy - contemporary Indians are hyper-sensitive to the critique of Westerners.


How do "neutral stereotypes" go to "make the movie more believable"?:confused: (And why do you label the "asian kid" as neutral, when he is a good guy?:confused:)

You certainly are confused. I never label the Asian kid, as 'neutral', with respect to his motives, but rather the (neutral) with respect to the stereotype that he reflects. My point is that the reality of such things as the popularity of the martial arts among Asians, Americans in Shangai through the period, and poor villages among Indians, and all go to give the movie a more realistic atmosphere. However, Speilberg is careful not to cast negative generalizations.

If you read the entire thread, you'll find that nobody is claiming ToD to be "racially motivated" (as in; a mean-spirited, intentional slandering of India's people). It's been well stated, multiple times, that any controversial, racist aspects were NOT intentional.

If you read the entirety of the thread, you will see that there are some who clearly feel the movie has racial overtones. In fact, this thread is based on a poll, in which a certain (but small) percentage of folks are, somehow, convinced the series involves racism.


"Most of the franchise"?:confused: Not as far as the Nazis are concerned:
- THEATRICAL FILMS: Only 38% (approx.) of the 4 movies are about Indy against the Nazis. That's definitely not "most"!:rolleyes: :p :whip:
- TV SERIES: 0% - No Nazis.
- FRANCHISE: (Novels, Comics, Role-playing games): I haven't bothered to figure out the % for these stories...but Nazis are NOT the villains in the large majority of these extra, franchised tales.


Since we are in the Trilogy sub-forum, I think it's fair to exclude TV Series and Franchising, from any referencing (not to mention the fact that such series were not purely Speilbergian). And while , Crystal Skull is not part of the trilogy, that movie involves Indy fighting yet, another group of white people - the Russians. And that fact goes to even weaken the idea, that the series involves racism. (3 out of 4 antagonists being white people, 75%, as opposed to 2 out 3, 66%, in the trilogy)

Stoo
07-11-2013, 03:46 PM
So what about the line: "Now you understanh, da powah of da Rok" to which Young(Er) Jones says..."Yes, I understand"

Are you Dr. Gonzo, saying that Jones was simply mocking them all along?Be careful, Pale. This might be used against you in order to call you a racist, as was done to me (http://raven.theraider.net/showpost.php?p=543600&postcount=436) in this very thread, 4 months ago. I was very close to dropping down on that person like a tonne of bricks but decided to leave it alone. Now that this thread has been revived, however...

@Henry W Jones: Internet arguments aren't something to be proud of but I want to talk you about this instance and don't wish to create any bad blood between us. Will you be cool with it?:cool:

Attila the Professor
07-11-2013, 06:41 PM
If you read the entirety of the thread, you will see that there are some who clearly feel the movie has racial overtones. In fact, this thread is based on a poll, in which a certain (but small) percentage of folks are, somehow, convinced the series involves racism.

Saying that the movie has racial or racist overtones is not the same as saying that those overtones were <I>intentionally</I> meant to slander or demean a given people or culture. They can be there without negative intent involved. That's the distinction that is being drawn.

Since we are in the Trilogy sub-forum, I think it's fair to exclude TV Series and Franchising, from any referencing (not to mention the fact that such series were not purely Speilbergian). And while , Crystal Skull is not part of the trilogy, that movie involves Indy fighting yet, another group of white people - the Russians. And that fact goes to even weaken the idea, that the series involves racism. (3 out of 4 antagonists being white people, 75%, as opposed to 2 out 3, 66%, in the trilogy)

You can't really bring in the other films to exonerate this one though, as if to say that since the bad guys are often as white as the hero, the portrayal of Indians in Temple of Doom is obviously fine, because they're the minority of the bad guys in the films. Temple of Doom is its own thing. Even that can be broken down further: certain moments in the film may be in dubious taste, others may not.

And who the bad guys are <I>isn't</I> the only question involved in whether the film or films have racist or racially-dubious elements. Portraying a people as too helpless to solve their problems isn't all that flattering.

Henry W Jones
07-11-2013, 10:20 PM
Be careful, Pale. This might be used against you in order to call you a racist, as was done to me (http://raven.theraider.net/showpost.php?p=543600&postcount=436) in this very thread, 4 months ago. I was very close to dropping down on that person like a tonne of bricks but decided to leave it alone. Now that this thread has been revived, however...

@Henry W Jones: Internet arguments aren't something to be proud of but I want to talk you about this instance and don't wish to create any bad blood between us. Will you be cool with it?:cool:

What Pale said is a direct quote from the film. Your Asian people at Disneyland thing was very a stereotypical way of portraying Asians. I don't want to fight with you and I have nothing to be ashamed of. I don't bash Canadians like some people bash Americans.Your American bashing is not racist, but it is still on the same basic page. It is stereotyping others because of where they live. I don't want bad blood between us either. I say this cool as the other side of the pillow.:cool: I actually find you interesting most of the time my friend.

<img src="http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2879/9264616939_870b373005.jpg" width="500" height="281" alt="Untitled"></a>

Now, what shall we talk about?

JD2008
07-12-2013, 07:45 AM
Saying that the movie has racial or racist overtones is not the same as saying that those overtones were <I>intentionally</I> meant to slander or demean a given people or culture. They can be there without negative intent involved. That's the distinction that is being drawn.

Aside from the 'overtones'. The poll specifically asks, if the movies were racist. And some people responded YES.



You can't really bring in the other films to exonerate this one though

This shows how assumptive the allegation of racism (as this is what you are implying) can be. It can be reduced to the equivalence of suggesting that that any non-white antagonist ever portrayed in film, reflects some form of racism. If there is no pattern in our hero's behavior, than there is no reason to establish a generalization of his character.


And who the bad guys are <I>isn't</I> the only question involved in whether the film or films have racist or racially-dubious elements. Portraying a people as too helpless to solve their problems isn't all that flattering

And a lot of those helpless folks, happen to be white people.

Montana Smith
07-12-2013, 08:19 AM
Aside from the 'overtones'. The poll specifically asks, if the movies were racist. And some people responded YES.

I can say for certainty that at least 33.33% of that vote was 100% satirical.

I strongly suspect that at least a further 33.33% was based on misinformed judgement.

This shows how assumptive the allegation of racism (as this is what you are implying) can be. It can be reduced to the equivalence of suggesting that that any non-white antagonist ever portrayed in film, reflects some form of racism. If there is no pattern in our hero's behavior, than there is no reason to establish a generalization of his character.

The question wasn't even about the character, but the films themselves.

The only behaviour Indy has is the mood Lucas and Spielberg happen to have been in at the time they settled on a piece of dialogue or action, or something Ford brought through his acting.

The films don't promote or condone racism but play with ideas, by nature of their intent and storytelling, from a time before political correctness ruled the roost.

Attila the Professor
07-12-2013, 06:24 PM
This shows how assumptive the allegation of racism (as this is what you are implying) can be. It can be reduced to the equivalence of suggesting that that any non-white antagonist ever portrayed in film, reflects some form of racism.

It <I>can</I> be, I suppose, but that's not an argument I, or Stoo, or Montana, is interested in making. No slippery slopes here.

If there is no pattern in our hero's behavior, than there is no reason to establish a generalization of his character.

As Montana says above, whether Indy is racist isn't the question. It's whether elements of the body of work featuring the character of Indiana Jones are.

And a lot of those helpless folks, happen to be white people.

Not in Temple of Doom they aren't. (Okay, there is a deeply helpless white woman involved.)

Showing the pathetic, superstitious Indian village, with its bug-ridden food and occasionally ominous shaman, is a far cry from any of the undepicted victims, potential or otherwise, in the other Indy films. We never get any German Jews being used as fodder for jokes.

Stoo
07-13-2013, 06:57 AM
Ok, wise guy - contemporary Indians are hyper-sensitive to the critique of Westerners.That's a pretty sweeping statement. You obviously aren't Indian but seem to be "hyper-sensitive" towards the mere suggestion that the films could possibly contain some racist elements. It's irrational to think that "there is no element in Temple of Doom, which a rational person can take much offense to".
You certainly are confused. I never label the Asian kid, as 'neutral', with respect to his motives, but rather the (neutral) with respect to the stereotype that he reflects. My point is that the reality of such things as the popularity of the martial arts among Asians, Americans in Shangai through the period, and poor villages among Indians, and all go to give the movie a more realistic atmosphere.A kung-fu-fightin' Short Round may not be a negative portrayal but it is still racist because it's a stereotype based on his race.

Speaking of "reality", several Asian people have told me that the number of them who practice martial arts is miniscule in proportion to their population. In reality, it's something like 1% so the belief that a kung-fu-fightin' Asian kid helps make the movie "more realistic" is wrong. It would be more realistic if Shorty DOESN'T know any martial arts!
However, Speilberg is careful not to cast negative generalizations.Have you read the transcripts of the 1978 story conference for "Raiders"? It's sprinkled with negative generalizations, by Spielberg and Lucas, all over the place.
If you read the entirety of the thread, you will see that there are some who clearly feel the movie has racial overtones. In fact, this thread is based on a poll, in which a certain (but small) percentage of folks are, somehow, convinced the series involves racism.I've been following this thread since it began and am very familiar with its contents & poll. Nobody here has claimed that any perceived racism was INTENDED by the filmmakers (which is what you implied with your "racially motivated" comment). As Atilla already stated, that is the distinction being made but your reply to him (and me) shows that you're completely missing (or ignoring) this point.
Since we are in the Trilogy sub-forum, I think it's fair to exclude TV Series and Franchising, from any referencing (not to mention the fact that such series were not purely Speilbergian). And while , Crystal Skull is not part of the trilogy, that movie involves Indy fighting yet, another group of white people - the Russians. And that fact goes to even weaken the idea, that the series involves racism. (3 out of 4 antagonists being white people, 75%, as opposed to 2 out 3, 66%, in the trilogy)Hey, it was you who kept referring to the "franchise". If you meant only the film series than you should have specified that.;)

Anyway, the claims of racism aren't exclusively confined to who the villians are. That said, your percentages are off.

1 of 4 - Raiders: Amerindians, Arabs, Asians, Whites
0 of 2 - Doom: Asians, Indians
2 of 4 - Crusade: Whites (Panama Hat's gang), Turks (Cruciform Sword Bros.), Whites (Germans + Elsa & Donovan), Turks (Hatay military)
1 of 2 - Skull: Whites, Amerindians
-------
4 of 12 = 30%
Only 30% of the antagonist groups in the 4 films are "white".:gun:

Tibor
07-14-2013, 09:10 AM
Well, it has been argued that to study another culture, the observer must see himself as somewhat above the culture in question. Someone from a more developed country studying someone from a less developed one..

I don't think cultural anthropologists would support that notion. Mostly, the fieldwork centers around learning what being part of the culture means, understanding how they organize their world to solve their problems. What is often discovered by cultural anthropologists is that other cultures often answer their needs better than urban industrial nations, and in more sustainable ways, with better mental health, etc.

Now when it comes to archaeological technique, Indy is a bit lacking to say the least. ;)

RKORadio
07-14-2013, 03:41 PM
Actually we do get something at German Jews expense. In Last Crusade, Donovan offers the Sultan riches "donated by the finest families in Germany", meant by the filmmakers to reference the confiscation of assets from wealthy German Jewish families by the Nazi government.

Montana Smith
07-15-2013, 12:18 AM
Actually we do get something at German Jews expense. In Last Crusade, Donovan offers the Sultan riches "donated by the finest families in Germany", meant by the filmmakers to reference the confiscation of assets from wealthy German Jewish families by the Nazi government.

DONOVAN

Precious valuables, Your Highness, "donated" by some of the finest families in all of Germany.

This isn't so much at the German Jews' expense, but in their defence.

Most viewers would be aware that racism figured prominently in Nazi ideology. It was one of the cards Hitler played to ensure his victory in 1933.

Did those lines actually make it into the film? I can't remember.


What Donovan says comes from actual historical record. Much valuable property, both movable and immovable, was appropriated through force or fear.

Though this doesn't form part of the answer as to whether the films have racist elements, since that's down to the structure of the stories: the ways in which Lucas and Spielberg portray the world of Indiana Jones.

Fictional worlds often have an internal logic. A set of rules that the audience/reader will learn. Without limitations a fantasy world can become chaotic. The totally unexpected can become jarring or 'world-breaking', such as it was for some when they nuked the fridge or introduced aliens into an otherwise alien-free environment.

The rules in Indiana Jones define the limits of the characters - just how far can Indiana go down the path of a thief and still maintain the air of respectability associated with a good role model? Because the world belongs to an older time than our own the laws are less restrictive in that regard. Who's going to take up the rights of a jungle tribe over those of two highly educated white men who will argue that they were merely expanding the knowledge of the civilized world through exploration?

The rules also permit for a corrupt native group to oppress a weaker native group. The helpless natives are forced to look to foreigners for help. At the climax even Indy requires the help of the British Empire to finally re-establish law and order on their terms.

If Temple of Doom had been set in 1984 there's a chance that Mayapore wouldn't have been so helpless, due to the growing pressure of political correctness. Yet the film is set in the past, in an age when it was normal to read about and see white men and women dominant over natives. Many stories and films from those times enforced stereotypes of race (the black man as childlike chauffeur or fearful jungle porter; the white woman as childlike maid).

Lucas and Spielberg avoided such specific stereotypes, and in many cases elevated the 'native' characters themselves. Yet their stories are still concerned with Euro-American dominance, depicting a time when South American natives were at the mercy of foreign burglars; the champion of Cairo was a sword-wielding poser; Egyptians were diggers - Sallah being the "best digger in Egypt"; the Chinese were gangsters, kung-fu fighting orphans or bullet fodder; weak Indian villagers only had recourse to the gods and the imperial powers; the Indian elite was corrupt and possessed of 'uncivilized' dining habits; and sultans were buffoons interested in British horsepower.

As for the whites, they're directing the 'natives' whether it's in the jungle or in the sand

The 'natives' exist to populate a world in which Indiana Jones can flourish.

And, you may say, "what if the 'hero' wasn't white?"

Well, that generally didn't happen in the old tales concerned with reasserting a certain worldview.

Lucas and Spielberg attempt to be authentic to those stories, while making adjustments to avoid endorsing the worldview they promoted. It's a very fine line. It's impossible not to break a few eggs. Indy can't catch them all. ;)

Stoo
07-16-2013, 12:49 PM
Most viewers would be aware that racism figured prominently in Nazi ideology. It was one of the cards Hitler played to ensure his victory in 1933.

Did those lines actually make it into the film? I can't remember.There was some dialogue from Col. Dietrich to Belloq (though it's not "fodder for jokes", as Attila noted):

Dietrich: "Monsieur,...I am uncomfortable with the thought of this...Jewish ritual. Are you sure it's necessary?"

Lucas and Spielberg attempt to be authentic to those stories, while making adjustments to avoid endorsing the worldview they promoted. It's a very fine line. It's impossible not to break a few eggs. Indy can't catch them all. ;)Eggzactly & precisely put, Smiff.:hat:

Stoo
08-05-2013, 02:33 PM
What Pale said is a direct quote from the film. Your Asian people at Disneyland thing was very a stereotypical way of portraying Asians.A line from the film is no reason for excuse because Pale's quote sure wasn't written that way in the script. I suppose that my example of an Asian talking English can be called racist but it was using phonetic spelling to approximate a Short-Round-type speech, which has been done here before in numerous threads. It's not unusual for people to use phonetics here at The Raven (one member even had the screen name, 'so wah mu', which is Ke Quan's pronunciation of, "Short Round more") and a common usage is when writing as a German speaking English. Writing like zis is a schterheotypikal vay of portrhaying ze Germananic rhace becauze zat iz not zee vay zey all schpeak Englisch, ja? Now, you being part German yourself, are those types of instances offensive & racist, too?:confused:

To be honest, I used to be awfully racist but that has changed over much time and I try harder every day to be more considerate. Maybe sometimes not enough but my Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese, Egyptian, Tunisian, Jamaican, and African-American friends certainly think that I'm O.K.
I don't want to fight with you and I have nothing to be ashamed of. I don't bash Canadians like some people bash Americans.Your American bashing is not racist, but it is still on the same basic page. It is stereotyping others because of where they live.OUTRAGEOUS. Henry W, you are the 1st person anywhere to accuse me of "American bashing". I like the States and have been there many, many, many times. Heck, more than half of my relatives are American (living in 8 different states, including your own) and friends & colleagues of mine are scattered all over the U.S. Please reflect on these facts, eh?;)

What I wrote in this thread was:
"One thing I don't like about reading posts here at The Raven or listening to the IndyCast is discovering how naive & ignorant some folks are (mostly Americans...and I'm sorry to say that...but it's a real & identifiable observation). :( "

I didn't say that you, personally, were naive & ignorant (as you implied 5 months ago) nor did I ever say that Americans are "stupid" (as you implied). Even intelligent people can be naive & ignorant. It could've been worded better but what I meant was 'unaware & uninterested in Indian culture' and was SPECIFICALLY REFERRING to the fan community at the Raven and the IndyCast*. Please note that I wrote "some folks" and that American fans were "most" of that "some". This is an extremely miniscule portion of the entire country. I also wrote "sorry" and added a sad face emoticon to show that the remark wasn't malicious (not to mention that people from other countries were included in that "some"). It was nothing more than a comment based on what certain Indiana Jones Fans have said + noticing where they are from. This is definitely not a case of "stereotyping others because of where they live".

*If you want examples & statistics, they can be provided.

Hope that makes things clearer. However, if you're thinking about this remark (http://raven.theraider.net/showpost.php?p=543210&postcount=15), that is just friendly ribbing, yo!:cool:

Your umbrage is irony at its best. If my observation offends you and is "on the same basic page" as racism, then it should help illustrate how some people consider "Temple of Doom" to have racist elements. See how that works?:p:gun:
I don't want bad blood between us either. I say this cool as the other side of the pillow.:cool: I actually find you interesting most of the time my friend.

<img src="http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2879/9264616939_870b373005.jpg" width="500" height="281" alt="Untitled"></a>

Now, what shall we talk about?Fitting image and, yes, everything is cool. The Fonz told me so. :cool:

http://www.blastmedia.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/fonzie-on-bike.jpeg

RKORadio
08-14-2013, 09:25 AM
An Indian would probably say that white people don't have the final say on whether TOD has negative or insensitive racial overtones and that the final word on such things should go to the Indian people.

Henry W Jones
08-14-2013, 09:50 AM
A line from the film is no reason for excuse because Pale's quote sure wasn't written that way in the script. I suppose that my example of an Asian talking English can be called racist but it was using phonetic spelling to approximate a Short-Round-type speech, which has been done here before in numerous threads. It's not unusual for people to use phonetics here at The Raven (one member even had the screen name, 'so wah mu', which is Ke Quan's pronunciation of, "Short Round more") and a common usage is when writing as a German speaking English. Writing like zis is a schterheotypikal vay of portrhaying ze Germananic rhace becauze zat iz not zee vay zey all schpeak Englisch, ja? Now, you being part German yourself, are those types of instances offensive & racist, too?:confused:

To be honest, I used to be awfully racist but that has changed over much time and I try harder every day to be more considerate. Maybe sometimes not enough but my Korean, Japanese, Chinese, Taiwanese, Egyptian, Tunisian, Jamaican, and African-American friends certainly think that I'm O.K.
OUTRAGEOUS. Henry W, you are the 1st person anywhere to accuse me of "American bashing". I like the States and have been there many, many, many times. Heck, more than half of my relatives are American (living in 8 different states, including your own) and friends & colleagues of mine are scattered all over the U.S. Please reflect on these facts, eh?;)

What I wrote in this thread was:
"One thing I don't like about reading posts here at The Raven or listening to the IndyCast is discovering how naive & ignorant some folks are (mostly Americans...and I'm sorry to say that...but it's a real & identifiable observation). :( "

I didn't say that you, personally, were naive & ignorant (as you implied 5 months ago) nor did I ever say that Americans are "stupid" (as you implied). Even intelligent people can be naive & ignorant. It could've been worded better but what I meant was 'unaware & uninterested in Indian culture' and was SPECIFICALLY REFERRING to the fan community at the Raven and the IndyCast*. Please note that I wrote "some folks" and that American fans were "most" of that "some". This is an extremely miniscule portion of the entire country. I also wrote "sorry" and added a sad face emoticon to show that the remark wasn't malicious (not to mention that people from other countries were included in that "some"). It was nothing more than a comment based on what certain Indiana Jones Fans have said + noticing where they are from. This is definitely not a case of "stereotyping others because of where they live".

*If you want examples & statistics, they can be provided.

Hope that makes things clearer. However, if you're thinking about this remark (http://raven.theraider.net/showpost.php?p=543210&postcount=15), that is just friendly ribbing, yo!:cool:

Your umbrage is irony at its best. If my observation offends you and is "on the same basic page" as racism, then it should help illustrate how some people consider "Temple of Doom" to have racist elements. See how that works?:p:gun:
Fitting image and, yes, everything is cool. The Fonz told me so. :cool:

http://www.blastmedia.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/fonzie-on-bike.jpeg

The Fonz is a smart man. Have a good day Stoo. :hat: also, I can see why somebody might find Temple of Doom racist but I also think everybody takes things a step too far as far as calling things racist. I also don't think there was any malicious intent when writing the movie.

The Drifter
08-14-2013, 11:56 AM
An Indian would probably say that white people don't have the final say on whether TOD has negative or insensitive racial overtones and that the final word on such things should go to the Indian people.

Than why are you here claiming that it is indeed racist? Are you Indian?

Mickiana
08-14-2013, 06:15 PM
I've watched ToD several times since its release, but I have never seen this racism in it that some people claim is there. Can they point out which scenes and precisely what is the racism depicted? Thank you very much.

Henry W Jones
08-14-2013, 07:24 PM
I've watched ToD several times since its release, but I have never seen this racism in it that some people claim is there. Can they point out which scenes and precisely what is the racism depicted? Thank you very much.

Good luck there.

Mickiana
08-14-2013, 09:53 PM
Good luck there.

My thoughts exactly.

RKORadio
08-15-2013, 02:51 PM
I just agree with the Indians that have said TOD is racially insensitive.

Henry W Jones
08-15-2013, 04:41 PM
I just agree with the Indians that have said TOD is racially insensitive.

But I thought only East Indians had the final say. :p Do you watch and join a lot of fan sites for films you find to be racist?

Dr. Gonzo
08-15-2013, 07:11 PM
I just agree with the Indians that have said TOD is racially insensitive.
Once again... are you an Indian?

RKORadio
08-15-2013, 08:25 PM
I'm not Indian but I'm against racism and/or racial insensitivity.

Much of the depiction of Indians in TOD was brownface short of actually browning up - as the Indian government said at the time.

Henry W Jones
08-15-2013, 09:59 PM
I'm not Indian but I'm against racism and/or racial insensitivity.

Much of the depiction of Indians in TOD was brownface short of actually browning up - as the Indian government said at the time.

What part? What do you find racist about it? (And please do not evade with East Indians find it racist) What scene do you find racist and why? And if you are against racism/racial insensitivity, again, why are you at a web site for fans of a film series you find racist/racially insensitive? Or a fan of the films for that matter. :confused: :confused:

Dr. Gonzo
08-15-2013, 10:08 PM
I'm not Indian but I'm against racism and/or racial insensitivity.

Much of the depiction of Indians in TOD was brownface short of actually browning up - as the Indian government said at the time.

Surely you must also be opposed to "Die Hard" as that films depiction of European Germanic terrorists isn't a very tasteful view of that race... right?

Right?

Come on guy... you're barking up the wrong tree.

I said it earlier in this thread (December 2012), the only Indiana Jones film that is racist is Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
By definition Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is the only entry that is "racist".

"...A race of supreme beings..." :up:

Henry W Jones
08-16-2013, 12:20 AM
Surely you must also be opposed to "Die Hard" as that films depiction of European Germanic terrorists isn't a very tasteful view of that race... right?

Right?

Come on guy... you're barking up the wrong tree.

I said it earlier in this thread (December 2012), the only Indiana Jones film that is racist is Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.
:up:

Guy is a gal and she is a one trick pony. It is always, "someone says it is racist, so I agree". She does not want to provide examples in the film. I don't think she knows the film well enough to provide them.

RKORadio
08-17-2013, 02:28 PM
The only depiction of Indians we get are superstitious villagers who worship Indy and the "educated" Indians we see - such as the Oxford-educated Prime Minister - are shown as evil. The only "good" Indians - the soldiers under the British - are shown but don't speak.

That enough for you?

Dr. Gonzo
08-17-2013, 03:10 PM
The only depiction of Indians we get are superstitious villagers who worship Indy and the "educated" Indians we see - such as the Oxford-educated Prime Minister - are shown as evil. The only "good" Indians - the soldiers under the British - are shown but don't speak.

That enough for you?

Actually no.

"Educated" Indians? Plural? NO. The only "educated" one, as you put it, is the Prime Minister. Mola Ram didn't get his PHD in Sociology at Oxford. The "snake surprise" guy sure as **** didn't go to LeCordon Bleu culinary school. Your statement that the Educated Indians in the film are shown as evil is a false one madam.

This adventure took place in rural India in the 30's. Not in Dehli. Not in a major city. That's how many of them lived.

Was portraying the Hovitos in loin cloths racist in Raiders, even though there are several tribes in the amazon who still to this day live secluded and unadulterated like the yanamamo?

Hell we've got rural folks here in the states too. Ever heard of the Ozark mountains?

Folks with your demeanor really get under my skin. Looking to call anything racist... and if it's not racist they claim, reverse racism! Blanket statements.

All right... we're going about this the wrong way.
How would you restructure Doom to be racially sensitive in your opinion madam?

Can't wait for this response.

RKORadio
08-17-2013, 03:30 PM
Mola Ram had to have had some education as he was no illiterate villager.

Just because it wasn't a city didn't mean that they had to use the stereotype of the humble and gods-fearing peasant who worships the white hero.

Again, why are people ignoring what the Indian government said at the time? As the elected representatives of the Indian people, their opinion should carry some weight.

Mickiana
08-17-2013, 06:35 PM
Who cares what the Indian government of the time said. They could have said anything. Even Roshan Seth, who played Chattar Lal, said, "Indians are very sensitive about foreigners criticising anything in their country." That was a diplomatic way of saying, "Indians are very sensitive about foreigners saying anything about their country."

Mola Ram was educated in a fanatical cult, obviously. And let's not forget the School of Cardiology!:rolleyes:

But where is the racism in the film? Where oh where could it be? It still remains a mystery...to me!

Henry W Jones
08-18-2013, 09:32 AM
The only depiction of Indians we get are superstitious villagers who worship Indy and the "educated" Indians we see - such as the Oxford-educated Prime Minister - are shown as evil. The only "good" Indians - the soldiers under the British - are shown but don't speak.

That enough for you?

No, still extremely vague. You still can't provide examples beyond the indian government says so and the stereotyping you speak of portrays Indians 3 different way according to your post above.(it does show that indians can be different from each other at least 3 ways) I don't think they were saying all indians are evil if educated or all indiana are helpless. Dr Gonzo is right, in the 1930's you don't think there were villiages all over the world with uneducated and superstitious people in them? And again, if the films are soooooo racist and you are sooooooo against racism, why watch them and participate in a Indiana Jones fan site? Do you like the KKK too but hate their racist side?

Le Saboteur
09-04-2013, 04:49 AM
The only depiction of Indians we get are superstitious villagers who worship Indy and the "educated" Indians we see - such as the Oxford-educated Prime Minister - are shown as evil. The only "good" Indians - the soldiers under the British - are shown but don't speak.

1.) In a very recent survey -- May, I believe -- 87% of all Indians identified themselves as religious. Congratulations. You've managed to insult some 870-million people because science.

2.) Ritual killings do, and have, made the Indian papers in the 21st Century. As recently as 2012, a young girl was ritually murdered and her liver offered to the gods to improve crop yields. In 2010 a twenty-something male's decapitated corpse was found outside a temple dedicated to Kali in the state of West Bengal.

3.) "India" didn't exist before the 20th Century. Hindustan in Northern India -- the modern Indian states of Haryana, Delhi, Uttar Pradesh, and some parts of Madhya Pradesh & Bihar -- was essentially the only clearly defined unit in Urdu sources. Outside of this region, with Delhi as its capital, were a lot of principalities, fiefdoms, and whatnot that were exploited by the British.

I had a fourth point about the the "power of the rock" being vindicated, but opted to delete it. Perhaps I'll address it at a later point in time.

Attila the Professor
11-26-2013, 08:03 PM
From the November 4, 2013 food issue of <I>The New Yorker</I>, an excerpt from the one-page piece "Butter" by Akhil Sharma, a 1.5 generation Indian-American whose family had an ambivalent relationship to American patterns of food consumption outside the home.

We had moved to the United States, from Delhi, when I was eight, settling first in Queens and then in New Jersey. There weren't many other Indians in my middle school. Those of us who brought Indian food from home all sat at the same table in the cafeteria. Boys would wander by our table and sing, "<I>Shiiit</I>. I smell <I>shiiit</I>." They would lean over our shoulders, look at our food - spicy potatoes, okra, bitter gourd - and gag. Things became worse a few years later, when "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" came out: the movie shows Indians eating snakes and monkey brains. At lunch one day, a black boy asked me what I was eating, and I said snake. "Snake!" he began yelling. He sounded both happy and proud. Soon I was surrounded by a crowd. I wanted to fit in, of course, but even more I wanted to lash out.

Henry W Jones
11-27-2013, 08:09 AM
So, it got worse when the film came out or when he told the other kids he was eating snake? It also sounds like they were teasing about the food (while not right, most kids do that) before the film came out.

Le Saboteur
11-30-2013, 06:29 AM
From the November 4, 2013 food issue of <I>The New Yorker</I>, an excerpt from the one-page piece "Butter" by Akhil Sharma, a 1.5 generation Indian-American whose family had an ambivalent relationship to American patterns of food consumption outside the home.

Apropos of nothing. Now this (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/26/gap-ad-featuring-an-indian-model-goes-viral-after-racist-vandalism.html), on the other hand, perfectly exemplifies the casual relationship with racism towards Indians segments of the United States still have.

http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2013/11/26/gap-ad-featuring-an-indian-model-goes-viral-after-racist-vandalism/jcr:content/body/inlineimage.img.800.jpg/1385489807120.cached.jpg

The gentleman with the awesome beard is Waris Ahluwahlia. You might have seen him in one of Wes Anderson's twee flicks. If not there, you might be aware of his budding jewelry empire and general cult of personality. Not sure who the girl is, but the focus is obviously on the dude with the turban. Where in the cultural zeitgeist the turban became wrongly associated with Muslims, I couldn't begin to say.

While I've wasted a lot of time over here (http://raven.theraider.net/showthread.php?t=23119) detailing the financial concerns with bringing a new Ford-led Indy picture, this entire thread is another very large concern.

Attila the Professor
12-01-2013, 03:24 PM
So, it got worse when the film came out or when he told the other kids he was eating snake? It also sounds like they were teasing about the food (while not right, most kids do that) before the film came out.

Sure, they were teasing him beforehand. But he says it got worse after the film. I won't put words into Sharma's mouth, but presumably he said it was snake because he'd be dealing with the teasing having gotten worse since the film.

* * *

Now this (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/11/26/gap-ad-featuring-an-indian-model-goes-viral-after-racist-vandalism.html), on the other hand, perfectly exemplifies the casual relationship with racism towards Indians segments of the United States still have.

Yeah, I've been following this story a bit. It's pretty awesome that Gap's employed him as a model. I first saw the image earlier in November in a Gap window, but didn't hear anything further about it until looking to see if there'd been any controversy and finding the article you linked to. The scrawled commentary on the ad isn't surprising, but there honestly doesn't seem to be much of a broader uproar, other than a few "the gap trying to make terrorist look hip" [sic] comments on Twitter, and this note (http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/197nswi7l94lrpng/ku-large.png) that somebody left in a shirt at a Gap store.

Would a fear of being seen as racially or culturally insensitive hinder a fifth film? Well, I guess that depends in part on whether it hindered the fourth film. Crystal Skull definitely spent less time on exotic locals than the prior films, which might suggest some apprehension about it. That said, we also had the Ughas, who weren't that different than the Hovitos in presentation.

But a fifth film would also be obliged to go somewhere other than the Americas. It also wouldn't be forced to spend so much time getting us up to speed on the era and our older hero, leaving it with more room to spend overseas, and thus more time to be potentially offensive. The Middle East and China are already likely out of the question for political reasons.

Udvarnoky
01-12-2015, 10:04 AM
Sorry for the bump, but didn't somebody once have a pretty damning screenshot from the Raven shootout that exposed how the Nepalese/Mongolians were played by Caucasian extras with their eyes taped or something? A search of this thread yielded nothing.

Montana Smith
01-12-2015, 10:11 AM
Sorry for the bump, but didn't somebody once have a pretty damning screenshot from the Raven shootout that exposed how the Nepalese/Mongolians were played by Caucasian extras with their eyes taped or something? A search of this thread yielded nothing.

There's a reference to it on IMDB:

When Toht is menacing Marion with the hot poker from the fire, one of the Sherpa henchmen is clearly wearing prosthetic makeup around his eyes, presumably to make the Western actor's rounded eyes look more Asian in appearance.

If it's true it shouldn't be too hard to find a screenshot.

From TheRaider.net's stash there's this one:

http://www.theraider.net/films/raiders/gallery/dvdscreenshots/129.jpg

Udvarnoky
01-12-2015, 10:20 AM
Hmm. Well, this guy...

http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20080616201853/indianajones/images/e/ee/Ratty_Nepalese.jpg
http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/7/74/ROTLA_310.jpg/600px-ROTLA_310.jpg

...is played by regular Lucasfilm stunt guy Malcolm Weaver. Here's a picture of him from 2008:

http://www.jamesbond007.se/stars/195a.jpg

Yikes.

Montana Smith
01-12-2015, 10:28 AM
Before:

http://www.jamesbond007.se/stars/195a.jpg

After:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7517/16078777057_e37e03528e_o.jpg



And in Star Wars:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v428/showmasters/weaver02.jpg


EDIT: You found the real him before I did!

Mickiana
01-13-2015, 02:01 AM
I don't see how Malcolm Weaver playing a Sherpa Henchman could be viewed as racist. Just because he had prosthetic eyelids to look more Asian, so what?

Udvarnoky
01-13-2015, 07:18 AM
I could certainly see that being objectionable to some. You wouldn't do that now, at any rate.

Mickiana
01-15-2015, 05:06 AM
I could certainly see that being objectionable to some. You wouldn't do that now, at any rate.

It is true that we are more PC than ever.

Lao_Che
01-15-2015, 07:29 AM
I could certainly see that being objectionable to some. You wouldn't do that now, at any rate.

Rob Schneider in I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry

InVader
01-15-2015, 08:47 PM
I don't think they're racist, but people will complain because they want to.

Lao_Che
01-18-2015, 09:43 PM
I don't see how Malcolm Weaver playing a Sherpa Henchman could be viewed as racist. Just because he had prosthetic eyelids to look more Asian, so what?

This (http://www.racebending.com/v4/campaigns/airbender/history-of-yellowface/) mostly.

Second attempt at posting.

Edit: Most of the pictures are still on the Internet Archive (http://web.archive.org/web/20110324033103/http://www.racebending.com/v4/campaigns/airbender/history-of-yellowface/) which is, well, useful.

mrman7
06-15-2015, 04:09 PM
The Indy flicks are a throwback to a time in cinema that was, yeah, pretty racist. Spielberg and Lucas fall back on a lot of stereotypes from that era to flesh out their characters. It's a narrative shorthand that you can't get away with anymore in mainstream film --- probably for the better. Is it mean spirited? Probably not, both Spielberg and Lucas have made films about overcoming racial adversity such as A Color Purple, Amistad and Red Tails so I think they're on the right side of history in terms of equality. Are they particularly culturally sensitive artists? Eh, probably not. I don't think Steve or George have it out for India for instance, but if I was a young boy from India and I saw my country portrayed as a place where people eat snakes, enslave children and rip each other's heart's out, I'd probably be upset.:rolleyes:

gabbagabbahey
03-16-2016, 08:00 PM
"Like most millennials, I’m absolutely psyched that Steven Spielberg is making a fifth “Indiana Jones” movie. The 1980s trilogy was a staple of my childhood, and after the disappointment of 2008’s “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull,” I’m hoping with bated breath that this new (and presumably final) chapter will offer a fitting close to the Harrison Ford-helmed series.

That said, there is something the existing Indiana Jones films contained that I hope Spielberg will be circumspect enough to omit this time around — namely, the copious quantities of racism and sexism"


My opinion is oh shut the hell up! Pulps played in stereotypes because of the very nature of the genre. Your thoughts?


http://www.salon.com/2016/03/16/how_to_make_indiana_jones_5_the_best_of_the_series_kill_off_the_racist_sexist_tropes_the_series_is_steeped_in/

Lao_Che
03-17-2016, 01:44 PM
in another scene, while listing pros and cons about having her around, he includes “speaks her mind” under both sections.

Someone's been using the Indiana Jones wiki for their research and they haven't been reading it properly.

Major West
03-17-2016, 05:29 PM
None of the films are racist. There's some stereotyping, but stereotyping isn't racist unless it's portraying that race in a negative way. For something to be racist the intention to be racist has to be there. It's as simple as that. Do you really think the man who made the color purple and Schindler's List is racist? Exactly. No further questions your honor.

The Man
03-17-2016, 05:44 PM
None of the films are racist. There's some stereotyping, but stereotyping isn't racist unless it's portraying that race in a negative way. For something to be racist the intention to be racist has to be there. It's as simple as that. Do you really think the man who made the color purple and Schindler's List is racist? Exactly. No further questions your honor.

Indeed. TOD may seem blatantly racist to the uninitiated, but it's a deliberate piss-take on people's preconceived stereotypes of Indians and their cultural leanings...

JollyGreenSlugg
03-18-2016, 06:40 AM
the left likes to say that intent isn't magic.

Dr.Sartorius
03-18-2016, 01:21 PM
There's a reference to it on IMDB:



If it's true it shouldn't be too hard to find a screenshot.

From TheRaider.net's stash there's this one:

http://www.theraider.net/films/raiders/gallery/dvdscreenshots/129.jpg

I always thought Toht looked Asian.

The Lone Raider
04-09-2016, 02:29 PM
Honestly, in today's society, anything that a white male does is racist or sexist. Political correctness is ridiculous.

The Indiana Jones movies aren't really racist, but most any millennial will find a way to argue. All I know is that when Indiana Jones 5 hits the theaters, I do not want it to be a politically correct Indiana Jones. I want to see Indy shooting bad guys and globetrotting to find a supernatural relic, not making a political statement.

What makes Indiana Jones so great is that it's gritty. It needs to stay that way for the fifth installment.

Mickiana
04-09-2016, 07:57 PM
What is needed to be done to make the movies not racist? If you want a Mongolian character, do you actually hire a Mongolian actor? And then the same for every nationality represented in their respective roles?

What about John Rhys-Davies' Sallah, a Welshman acting as an Egyptian? That should come under fire if you think Malcolm Weaver's portrayal of a Mongolian character should.

But why would you do that? This is acting and movies. Not a National Geographic documentary which requires some sort of authenticity and in a totally different context.

Are we to represent no definable national or racial characteristics at all, just to achieve 100% Political Correctness? Whose agenda would that serve???!!!

Major West
04-11-2016, 03:30 AM
Exactly. The point of being an actor is you transform into somebody else. In the theatre this is even more so the case. Making a movie isn't an equal opportunities program. You cast the best person for the job. It's different these days, but if you need a Mongolian stuntman in 1980 it's easier to cast a good stuntman and put some makeup on him.