Indiana Jones films: racist?

Are the Indiana Jones Films Racist?

  • No

    Votes: 61 79.2%
  • Yes - all of them

    Votes: 4 5.2%
  • Raiders of the Lost Ark

    Votes: 2 2.6%
  • Temple of Doom

    Votes: 9 11.7%
  • Last Crusade

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

    Votes: 1 1.3%

  • Total voters
    77

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
That's bullsh!t. Indy came out and said it: "...that's what scares me." He was weary, hesitant and fearful.

You may just as well substitute "meat eater" because it has as much relevance.

Meat eater and leather wearer.

You're actively avoiding the obvious.

Rocket Surgeon said:
No Indy is just the next in line. A zero sum sacrifice for the village.

That's a leap of faith. This is Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, not The Next Person Who Falls From The Sky and the Temple of Doom.

Rocket Surgeon said:
You can't know that...unless you let the rest of us read his journal as well.:rolleyes:

You don't need to read his journal. Just listen to his words, and the words of Shorty and Indy which substantiate their meaning.

Why else would Marhan be so insistent? Why not just wait for the next person to fall from the sky? They might be even more willing and more capable.

Rocket Surgeon said:
The "process of the miracle", subverted.

Please expound on your class in creative parsing.

Marhan sees Indy as the key. But the outsider isn't a one man army. Without nuisance Willie Indy would have been impaled before he got a chance to be enslaved, and without Chinese Shorty he wouldn't have been freed.

And even if Marhan sees all three as the key, it's still outside assistance. It's the Seven Samurai, or the Magnificent Seven, supplanted to India in the form of the 'Unlikely Trio'.


Rocket Surgeon said:
Which is?

Impoverished, helpless natives at the mercy of a stronger native (this really is The Magnificent Seven), in need of outside assistance, calling on a miracle and receiving two Caucasians and an Asian martial artist.


Think about it. Marhan calls on Krishna for help. Krishna doesn't find an Indian hero, because Lucas and Spielberg weren't making a Bollywood movie, and neither were the directors who made the films and serials that inspired them.


The Indiana Jones films follow a tradition which often promoted white heroes, while relegating non-whites to inferior positions.

The difference with Indy is that the passing of time and changing of attitudes lead to a modification of the standard storylines.
 

Goodeknight

New member
Montana Smith said:
Can orientalism be applied to South American native indians? Occidentalism won't work as that's views of the west by those of the east.

Yes. It's an (intentionally) extremely broad term. It essentially covers anything non-American/British/Soviet, from China and Japan (the actual Orient) to India, Egypt/Middle East, South America, Africa, and beyond. Said's focus was mainly on the near and Middle East, but the terminology and theories apply elsewhere.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
goodeknight said:
Yes. It's an (intentionally) extremely broad term. It essentially covers anything non-American/British/Soviet, from China and Japan (the actual Orient) to India, Egypt/Middle East, South America, Africa, and beyond. Said's focus was mainly on the near and Middle East, but the terminology and theories apply elsewhere.

Okay, then. I'll go with Lucas and Spielberg's 'Orientalist Indiana Jones films'. And being homages to earlier Orientalist films and serials, the term may deal with any perceived negative aspects that arise.

Lucas and Spielberg have a defence: the movies display certain stereotypes because that's the point of them.

:hat:
 
goodeknight said:
Yes. It's an (intentionally) extremely broad term. It essentially covers anything non-American/British/Soviet, from China and Japan (the actual Orient) to India, Egypt/Middle East, South America, Africa, and beyond. Said's focus was mainly on the near and Middle East, but the terminology and theories apply elsewhere.

If this is a definition:

Orientalism is a term used by art historians, literary and cultural studies scholars for the imitation or depiction of aspects of Middle Eastern, and East Asian cultures (Eastern cultures) by American and European writers, designers and artists.

Then I agree, it applies.

That it's not specifically pejorative, all the better.


Monty, you're doing a fine job stating, (representing) the lowest, most vile interpretations of the race blame game! :hat:
 
Montana Smith said:
You're actively avoiding the obvious.
For better or worse you're going to have to spell it out for me, I'm not obliged to chase your phantoms...
Montana Smith said:
That's a leap of faith.
For an athiest like you it's untoward/inappropriate...but a leap of faith is most satisfyingly in-line for a Shaman...

Montana Smith said:
This is Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, not The Next Person Who Falls From The Sky and the Temple of Doom.
You are conflating a title and a plot/theme, much the way you tried to equate the thread title, poll question and the actual thread's question. They're not the same thing, they serve different purposes.

Montana Smith said:
You don't need to read his journal. Just listen to his words, and the words of Shorty and Indy which substantiate their meaning.
The finished film, one of the script revisions, the novel, the comic book or the illustrated screen play?

What words?

Montana Smith said:
Why else would Marhan be so insistent? Why not just wait for the next person to fall from the sky? They might be even more willing and more capable.
To paraphrase Indy: He was the next man...

How, when was Indy not "willing"?

Montana Smith said:
Marhan sees Indy as the key.
No, he sees Indy as the village's next chance.

Montana Smith said:
But the outsider isn't a one man army. Without nuisance Willie Indy would have been impaled before he got a chance to be enslaved, and without Chinese Shorty he wouldn't have been freed.
Without Shorty he may never have needed Willie.

Montana Smith said:
And even if Marhan sees all three as the key, it's still outside assistance. It's the Seven Samurai, or the Magnificent Seven, supplanted to India in the form of the 'Unlikely Trio'.
However much I would love to persue that one, the BIG difference is that the men of Mayapore didn't find Indy in Shanghai and hire him to help them. One is active and the other passive. It's an important distinction.

He IS outside assistance as you put it...though success is not certain. He's not the outside SAVIOR and the Shaman's own words support this:
"We know you are coming back when life return to our village."

Montana Smith said:
Impoverished, helpless natives at the mercy of a stronger native (this really is The Magnificent Seven), in need of outside assistance, calling on a miracle and receiving two Caucasians and an Asian martial artist.
Fate (Temple) and not strategy (Seven). Passive vs Active.

Otherwise I'm with you. It's a great observation...I'm almost jealous.

Montana Smith said:
Think about it. Marhan calls on Krishna for help. Krishna doesn't find an Indian hero, because Lucas and Spielberg weren't making a Bollywood movie, and neither were the directors who made the films and serials that inspired them.
Prayer isn't akin to filling out a form and waiting 6-10 business days. "Petitioning the Lord" is not some formal application. There are all sorts of considerations to weigh when dealing in faith and intercession.

From the villages being punished for some transgression they brought upon themselves to proving they are deserving of assistance...Once again the story serves the hero.

As you imply, and by (of all things), the title, it's Indy's journey but there is no indication that they were NOT actively trying to save their children/magic rock. I already proposed that the sacrificial victim is potentially a village father who was captured by the same villains Indy was.

That idea is far less ugly minded and incindiary than assuming other such ugliness.

Which is to point out the baggage you're unpacking...it's subjective and your own (or anyone who would propose it) and racist. There's a simple answer which is far better and apropos.

Montana Smith said:
The Indiana Jones films follow a tradition which often promoted white heroes, while relegating non-whites to inferior positions.
I think the B Movie Serial traditions were not so strictly or specifically conformed to as you enjoy proposing...in fact it seems the:

Montana Smith said:
modification of the standard storylines.
...made impressive strides (consciously or not) to address such content and ideas. IF your claims that the serials were as racist you contend are true, specifically the reels they often cite.
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
The finished film, one of the script revisions, the novel, the comic book or the illustrated screen play?[

What words?

The words from the screenplay quoted are little different from those spoken by Marhan in the film:

No, no, no. 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.

Rocket Surgeon said:
How, when was Indy not "willing"?

He didn't want to go to Pankot.

Rocket Surgeon said:
However much I would love to persue that one, the BIG difference is that the men of Mayapore didn't find Indy in Shanghai and hire him to help them. One is active and the other passive. It's an important distinction.

Marhan is persistent. He just isn't paying for the service.

SHAMAN

On the way to Delhi, you will stop at Pankot.


INDIANA

Pankot isn't on the way to Delhi.


Rocket Surgeon said:
He IS outside assistance as you put it...though success is not certain. He's not the outside SAVIOR and the Shaman's own words support this:

"We know you are coming back when life returns to our village."

Marhan sounds pretty certain there that Indy's coming back, and when he does his mission will have been successful, because life will have returned to the village.


Rocket Surgeon said:
Prayer isn't akin to filling out a form and waiting 6-10 business days.

It was for Marhan. He asked. He got. That's the structure of the story from his persective.

Rocket Surgeon said:
As you imply, and by (of all things), the title, it's Indy's journey but there is no indication that they were NOT actively trying to save their children/magic rock. I already proposed that the sacrificial victim is potentially a village father who was captured by the same villains Indy was.

Even if they had been, they failed. If Marhan was certain of the village solving its own problems, he wouldn't have called upon a god.


Rocket Surgeon said:
That idea is far less ugly minded and incindiary than assuming other such ugliness.

You're making assumptions buried deeper than the main storyline, which is clearly set out by Lucas & co.

For the general viewer the picture is of an Indian village on the verge of disaster; a shaman calling on a god for help, and then equating that call with the arrival of Indy, Shorty and Willie.

Rocket Surgeon said:
Which is to point out the baggage you're unpacking...it's subjective and your own (or anyone who would propose it) and racist. There's a simple answer which is far better and apropos.

More racist to pack it back up again and defend any impropriety by claiming Marhan didn't mean what he said about Indy being brought to Mayapore by Krishna/Shiva.

Rocket Surgeon said:
I think the B Movie Serial traditions were not so strictly or specifically conformed to as you enjoy proposing...in fact it seems the:

The jungle stories are full of the traditions I refer to. And out of the jungle they surface in other areas.

Think how many 'white queens' of black tribes there were. Or Tarzan himself, the 'white king'.

The origins lay in written stories, such as Edgar Rice Burroughs' own, or H. Rider Haggard's She, wherein 'She' is Ayesha, the white queen who rules over primitive natives.
 
Last edited:
Montana Smith said:
The words from the screenplay quoted are little different from those spoken by Marhan in the film:
No, no, no. 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.
That doesn't "reinforc[e] caucasian supremacy in the heart of darkness: fleeing natives vs. stoic white hero."
Montana Smith said:
He didn't want to go to Pankot.
He never said that.
Montana Smith said:
Marhan is persistent. He just isn't paying for the service.
...as such it denotes a far different dynamic. He doesn't ask for help either.
Montana Smith said:
Marhan sounds pretty certain there that Indy's coming back, and when he does his mission will have been successful, because life will have returned to the village.
That quote is from the end of the film, which indicates they didn't know Indy would come back at all.

It also puts much of the other dialog into perspective.
Montana Smith said:
It was for Marhan. He asked. He got. That's the structure of the story from his persective.
HA! Is that how it works? They didn't pray but once and BAM! there's Indy?!

That's funny! :D

Montana Smith said:
Even if they had been, they failed. If Marhan was certain of the village solving its own problems, he wouldn't have called upon a god.
What exactly is your experience / understanding of prayer?

Wait:Fill out a Form Sv3.Hlp7 and wait 6-10 business days for salvation.

Montana Smith said:
You're making assumptions buried deeper than the main storyline, which is clearly set out by Lucas & co.
You opened the door and I stepped through...you're proposing racism by association.

I figure to propose a more simple and sensible answer.

Montana Smith said:
For the general viewer the picture is of an Indian village on the verge of disaster; a shaman calling on a god for help, and then equating that call with the arrival of Indy, Shorty and Willie.

...and? That hardly precludes any other form of intercession.

Montana Smith said:
More racist to pack it back up again and defend any impropriety by claiming Marhan didn't mean what he said about Indy being brought to Mayapore by Krishna/Shiva.
I'm glad we agree that approach is racist, now to negotiate how deep...MARK TWAIN!

The sunshine, the rain, everything comes from Shiva doesn't it?

The Shaman's final words are proof that there were no forgone conclusions as you continue to claim.

Montana Smith said:
The jungle stories are full of the traditions I refer to. And out of the jungle they surface in other areas. Think how many 'white queens' of black tribes there were. Or Tarzan himself, the 'white king'.
Tarzan was called 'white king'? ;) I thought he was Tarzan OF the Apes!?
Montana Smith said:
The origins lay in written stories, such as Edgar Rice Burroughs' own, or H. Rider Haggard's She, wherein 'She' is Ayesha, the white queen who rules over primitive natives.
That's cool but I don't see how that applies to Indy. Indy didn't rule over any one.
 
Last edited:

Goodeknight

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
If this is a definition:

Orientalism is a term used by art historians, literary and cultural studies scholars for the imitation or depiction of aspects of Middle Eastern, and East Asian cultures (Eastern cultures) by American and European writers, designers and artists.

Then I agree, it applies.

That it's not specifically pejorative, all the better.

Straight from Wikipedia. But if you follow it along to the very next paragraph...

Since the publication of Edward Said's Orientalism in 1978, much academic discourse has begun to use the term "Orientalism" to refer to a general patronizing Western attitude towards Middle Eastern, Asian and North African societies. In Said's analysis, the West essentializes these societies as static and undeveloped?thereby fabricating a view of Oriental culture that can be studied, depicted, and reproduced. Implicit in this fabrication, writes Said, is the idea that Western society is developed, rational, flexible, and superior.

I'll also note to Montana that at least this source says it's specifically Middle Eastern, Asian, and North African societies. But the theory would apply to South American and other societies just as easily.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
That doesn't "reinforc[e] caucasian supremacy in the heart of darkness: fleeing natives vs. stoic white hero."

No, because you're confusing two different films.


Rocket Surgeon said:
What exactly is your experience / understanding of prayer?

We only need to know the process as it's presented by Lucas in his fantasy version of India.

It worked for Indy as well, at the end of the film.


Rocket Surgeon said:
I figure to propose a more simple and sensible answer.

By jumping to conclusions that aren't as evident as the bold facts on screen.


Rocket Surgeon said:
...and? That hardly precludes any other form of intercession.

Why should the audience of a 'popcorn' bit of fluff movie be expected to think beyond the images and words presented to them?

The pathetic situation of the village as described in that screenplay:

EXT. MAYAPORE - DAY

At the base of the hills, Mayapore village does nothing to relieve the awful sense of devastation. A desolate road runs through the village, along which groups of ptiifully poor villagers stare at the strangers being brought in.

Hopeless women lift buckets from a dry well -- finding only sand. Skinny miserable dogs skulk between the decrepit village huts, eyed by the patient vultures lurling in scraggly trees.

Indiana notices the wretched peasants staring at Short Round, some of them pointing at him, a few haggard women shedding tears down their wrinkled faces as the little Chinese boy passes.

There is no sign of children in the village and Short Round grows frightened by the odd attention. He moves closer to Indy as they pass the devastated population.

Soon to be remedied by the appearance of Indy - whom the shaman believes is the result of his call to Shiva.

Well, we're calling it orientalism now, and this is the tradition that the Indy films follow.


Rocket Surgeon said:
The Shaman's final words are proof that there were no forgone conclusions as you continue to claim.

I don't think I ever claimed there were any forgone conclusions. Though being the kind of film it was, there was little chance of any other conclusion. It's the story Lucas told, and for him the important facts are that Indy arrives, has an adventure and puts a bad situation right.

Rocket Surgeon said:
Tarzan was called 'white king'? ;) I thought he was Tarzan OF the Apes!?

Metaphorically, as a dominant 'white' man in a 'black' land.

Rocket Surgeon said:
That's cool but I don't see how that applies to Indy. Indy didn't rule over any one.

It was you who asked about examples of racism in the original films and serials. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

Stoo

Well-known member
The Drifter said:
Edit: On second thought, I think that I do remember some users claiming that the dinner scene at Pankot was somewhat in bad taste, but I really don't concur.
---
Anyhoo, does anyone else share the view that the Pankot dinner scene could be concidered racist? I recall a few users saying such, but can't remember which thread it was in. I think it plays on certain stereotypes, but not racist.
I certainly remember. Two years ago during Christmas time, while I was away, WillKill4Food totally derailed my Thuggee - Fact & Fiction thread with tirades about "Temple of Doom" being a blatantly racist film (Posts #55 - 75). Perhaps that's the discussion you remember, Drifty?

---
Now for a continuation from the Indy/Chinese translation for TOD thread (which sparked Rocket's well-founded impetus for the creation of this one):
Vance said:
Um, Rocket Surgeon... they were kicked out of India for the script and production's overt racism and were forced into shooting in Sri Lanka.
---
India refused to allow them to shoot, and banned the movie. They were kicked out over the script. Ahem... "whitewash" it all you want, but the movie was seen as racist by the offended parties, Speilberg and Lucas were then forced to cancel shooting there,...
Vance, with all due respect to you, this is NOT TRUE! They were not "kicked out of India" nor were they "forced" to shoot in Sri Lanka.:gun:

1) Filming wasn't "cancelled" because the cast & crew were never in India to begin with. India was only scouted for locations, that's it. (Nothing more than visits by Robert Watts, Frank Marshall, Elliot Scott & whoever else).

2) Sri Lanka was scouted during the same time and they found all the necessary locations except for the palace. Alternatively, India had everything needed except for the gorge (which they found in Sri Lanka so filming there was part of the initial plan, anyway.) India's locations were spread far apart which would have made the shoots more difficult to organize than in Sri Lanka, where everything was relatively close together.

3) The objections with the script seems to have come when they wanted to film inside a prominent palace in Jaipur (its City Palace?), which the government* would not allow**. Rather than deal with the bureaucracy and modify the script, the film-makers chose to not film in India at all.

*Speculating: This could very well have been only the government of the Rajasthan state...and not the Indian Republic, itself.
** I'm curious to know whether the objections to filming at that palace was due to the script or simply because it was a heritage site.

As Rocket said in the other thread, it was the filmakers' own decision. NONE of the film crew were "kicked out" of India resulting from "overt racism" towards its people. (However, the banning of "Doom" in that country is another matter.;))
 

Vance

New member
Stoo said:
As Rocket said in the other thread, it was the filmakers' own decision. NONE of the film crew were "kicked out" of India resulting from "overt racism" towards its people. (However, the banning of "Doom" in that country is another matter.;))

The India Tourist Board actually presents a very different story than the official one from Lucas.. and, given Lucas's history of such things, I'm far more likely to believe the government of India. Mileage varies, I suppose.

1) Filming wasn't "cancelled" because the cast & crew were never in India to begin with. India was only scouted for locations, that's it. (Nothing more than visits by Robert Watts, Frank Marshall, Elliot Scott & whoever else).

From the given timeline, externals were shot through India before word got back about the script. The ITB demanded changes to much of the script (particularly Shiva, the dinner scene, and the depiction of the Hindu) and George himself refused to make the changes. Apparently another meeting went extremely badly and Lucas was told in no uncertain terms that he would not be shooting any longer in India. Lucas responded with outright insulting the Indian Government, and claimed the the demands were 'unreasonable'... Speilberg's take has been closer to the original, and has cited the dinner scene as the main problem with the movie in India.

All of the film's principals have talked about their time in Delhi whil doing the early work for the film. Last I checked on a map, Delhi was in India.. so something was getting done before it hit the fan.

I'm curious to know whether the objections to filming at that palace was due to the script or simply because it was a heritage site.

To this day, the Indian government specifically cites several places in the script. The biggest complaints were the dinner scene, the mishandling of Shiva, insults to Hindu, and portrayal of an Indian provincial captial as an 'desolated backwater'. And, no matter how you slice it, the dinner scene was clearly racist as all hell. Why couldn't they have had lentil and curry?
 
Last edited:

Stoo

Well-known member
Vance said:
The India Tourist Board actually presents a very different story than the official one from Lucas.. and, given Lucas's history of such things, I'm far more likely to believe the government of India. Mileage varies, I suppose.

From the given timeline, externals were shot through India before word got back about the script. The ITB demanded changes to much of the script (particularly Shiva, the dinner scene, and the depiction of the Hindu) and George himself refused to make the changes. Apparently another meeting went extremely badly and Lucas was told in no uncertain terms that he would not be shooting any longer in India. Lucas responded with outright insulting the Indian Government, and claimed the the demands were 'unreasonable'... Speilberg's take has been closer to the original, and has cited the dinner scene as the main problem with the movie in India.

All of the film's principals have talked about their time in Delhi whil doing the early work for the film. Last I checked on a map, Delhi was in India.. so something was getting done before it hit the fan.
Vance, I can't recall anything about George Lucas speaking on this particular subject but if what you say is true, then it's a revelation to me.:D Please, if you can (or are willing), it would be great if you could provide more info/details on this! I am VERY interested and would love to hear more!:D
Vance said:
Why couldn't they have had lentil and curry?
"Curry" is too generic. Get more specific, like Garam Masala or Aloo Peas! Chicken Tandoori is pretty good, too. Many more dishes to rave about but the bottom line is...Indian food is DELICIOUS!:p

In this day & age of extreme political correctness, one could argue that your "lentil and curry" remark is rasict!:eek:
Montana Smith said:
However, it may not be the case that Hindus are forbidden to eat meat - only meat from a cow.
Meat isn't forbidden. It's 'allowed' amongst Hindus but looked down upon by the devout.
 
Last edited:

Vance

New member
Stoo said:
Vance, I can't recall anything about George Lucas speaking on this particular subject but if what you say is true, then it's a revelation to me.:D Please, if you can (or are willing), it would be great if you could provide more info/details on this! I am VERY interested and would love to hear more!:D

Best place to start digging is through the Indian Ministry of Tourism ( http://www.tourism.gov.in/AboutUS/TourismOfficeIndia.aspx ) where Shashi Tharoor (later UN diplomat) heavily criticized the film's script and specifically cited the 'dinner scene' as racist of offensive to the people of India.

"Curry" is too generic. Get more specific, like Garam Masala or Aloo Peas! Chicken Tandoori is pretty good, too.

I was just giving options. :)
Though that made me think.. India isn't known for starving, really.. so is the reason the villages are starving because the children were the only ones working the fields? Maybe I shouldn't think on that...
 

starks

New member
I think racist is the completely wrong terminology for this. The question should be are the Indiana Jones films stereotypical. And yes they are. At no point do they go out of their way to slander another race. But at times they do use a westernised idea of other cultures which was a much more accepted idea at the time and mostly due to people in western society being misinformed about other countries and cultures.
The internet has given our society a wealth of knowledge and insights into other countries and cultures and is more and more diminishing peoples stereotypical views. This is turn is making the outdated views taboo and causing people to frown on older ideals rather than accepting them for them being acceptable at the time. Not saying they were correct, we just didn't know better.

Now something like the dinner scene in ToD, my father is married to a woman from India and she has 2 teenage girls from there. They saw the Indiana Jones series for the first time recently with myself and my father being such big fans... and they found ToD very funny. The dinner scene is stereotypical and it is meant to be. For anyone to take offense is really being a little over sensitive. I dont know how many American films show the stereotype of Australian's saying 'lets throw another shrimp on the barby' (I dont know anyone who BBQ's shrimp) or being of the opinion that Kangaroo's are just wandering around in society. Should I show offense to these thoughts or ideas? or just see them as what they are, a society that is half a world away and doesn't understand better and is carrying on a stereotypical view of Australia. No big deal at the end of the day!
 

Vance

New member
starks said:
I think racist is the completely wrong terminology for this. The question should be are the Indiana Jones films stereotypical. And yes they are. At no point do they go out of their way to slander another race.

I'm going to have to disagree here. The dinner scene was pretty deliberately a slander on India in general. And, remember, this was 1984. Most major US cities already had Indian buffets by this time, and had some exposure to Indian culture. It was a hateful scene, played up as laughs, at the expense both of India and of the 'stupid American audience who thinks this is what it's really like'.

The internet has given our society a wealth of knowledge and insights into other countries and cultures and is more and more diminishing peoples stereotypical views.

Dude, the world wasn't a black abyss of ignorance before his holiness Pope Al Gore the II invented the Internet for us. We damn well knew better in 1984. Really, there was no excuse for it then, any more than having a mainstream movie with a 'sketch' about black men eating chicken and watermelon.

And yes, it is exactly the same thing.
 

starks

New member
Vance said:
I'm going to have to disagree here. The dinner scene was pretty deliberately a slander on India in general. And, remember, this was 1984. Most major US cities already had Indian buffets by this time, and had some exposure to Indian culture. It was a hateful scene, played up as laughs, at the expense both of India and of the 'stupid American audience who thinks this is what it's really like'.



Dude, the world wasn't a black abyss of ignorance before his holiness Pope Al Gore the II invented the Internet for us. We damn well knew better in 1984. Really, there was no excuse for it then, any more than having a mainstream movie with a 'sketch' about black men eating chicken and watermelon.

And yes, it is exactly the same thing.


So your suggesting that they wrote and filmed that scene with the intent of offending people in India? Rather than the more likely scenario that a scene was written to be amusing, yes at the expense of India stereotypicaly, in an exotic location in the 1930s.
 

Gear

New member
Vance said:
I'm going to have to disagree here. The dinner scene was pretty deliberately a slander on India in general. It was a hateful scene, played up as laughs, at the expense both of India and of the 'stupid American audience who thinks this is what it's really like'.

"Hateful scene"? Lawl. Please, explain?

May I remind you it's a film, a story. Indiana Jones is a pulp series, the producers never claimed to be making films as true to life as possible.

When I was but a wee boy and saw ToD for the first time, I didn't jump to the conclusion that chilled monkey brains were actually served as a delicacy. But remember, there's always some truth to story and stereotype.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Gear said:
May I remind you it's a film, a story. Indiana Jones is a pulp series, the producers never claimed to be making films as true to life as possible...stereotype.

Yes. This is what my argument has been based upon.

Any criticism they may face can be levelled by reiterating that they were inspired by pulpy films, serials and novels/short stories which exhibited a great deal of racism (white supremacy/non-white inferiority) as expressions of the dominant thought in western society - a hangover from nineteenth century imperialism and colonialism.

Though Rocko seems to disagree that 'racism' was prevalent enough in the past to form a tradition in storytelling.

There is little doubt that Lucas and Spielberg were being intentionally racist, in that they were asserting white supremacy or non-white inferiority. At times they go out of their way to show the opposite.

However, there are times when they conform to earlier stereotypes because they were recalling ideas and situations from earlier stories. This was intentional, and this is where the water muddies, because in replaying part of those stories they bring them alive once more for a modern audience.

The Indiana Jones films couldn't very well be told without resorting to stereotypes, or else they wouldn't serve their purpose. Natives will flee in terror while Indiana Jones continues on stoically, and an Indian village will look for salvation in Indiana Jones, their gift from a god.

And the purpose of Indiana Jones from Lucas and Spielberg's point of view? It's nostalgia for the films they watched as children.

You can say that Indy just happens to be a white man, but he was white because generally that was the pattern in the films and serials. 'Tarzan', in Burroughs' Mangani ape lauguage means 'white skin'.


My conclusion is that the Indiana Jones films were not intentionally racist, but they continue a tradition that tended to be. And in continuing that tradition amends have been made, such as the positive traits in characters such as Sallah, Katanga, Short Round, Wu Han and so on. Yet at the same time Short Round being a martial artist is a stereotype prevalent from '70s and '80s kung-fu movies. It would be just as reasonable to expect every Englishman to be a devotee of the Marquess of Queensbury.

Said's term, Orientalism, does suit them well, since it implies stereotype: a set form; convention; a simplified and standardized conception or image invested with special meaning and held in common by members of a group.

Indy films relay stereotypes from their inspirations, but they do so with some modifications.
 

Mickiana

Well-known member
Vance said:
I'm going to have to disagree here. The dinner scene was pretty deliberately a slander on India in general. And, remember, this was 1984. Most major US cities already had Indian buffets by this time, and had some exposure to Indian culture. It was a hateful scene, played up as laughs, at the expense both of India and of the 'stupid American audience who thinks this is what it's really like'.



Dude, the world wasn't a black abyss of ignorance before his holiness Pope Al Gore the II invented the Internet for us. We damn well knew better in 1984. Really, there was no excuse for it then, any more than having a mainstream movie with a 'sketch' about black men eating chicken and watermelon.

And yes, it is exactly the same thing.

But that's what makes the dinner scene so funny. I mean, every time I go to the local Indian buffet in my city, I love ordering the bugs entree, the eyeball soup, the snake surpwise and chilled monkey brains. My friends all sit around this meal talking about how backward the Indian people are and how good it was that SS and GL made fun of a whole nation in their cultural documentary, 'Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom' and how on the mark it was! :rolleyes:
 
Top