Thuggee - Fact & Fiction

Stoo

Well-known member
Dig Site 1138 said:
Well, real or exaggerated, these guys were practically begging to become adventure movie villains! Not that, of course they had ever heard of movies or considered themselves villains. ;)
Hear ya! Though I must say how disheartening it is to know that the general, modern, western-world perception of Thugs comes from their misrepresentation in "Temple of Doom". (Some stuff on the internet calls them Indian freedom-fighters equivalent to the French Resistance during WW2 - complete nonsense.) Their existance is nothing to be proud of but it's no wonder that the government of India had big problems with the story and tried to force changes on the script if the crew wanted to film there.

Which reminds me: Another Thuggee film I forgot to mention is a Sandokan movie from 1941 "Le Due Tigri" (The Two Tigers) which was based on the novel. There was also an animated version from the '90s. I've never seen either of them and the '41 film is virtually impossible to find.:( (I want it badly and guess what? It takes place in 1857!;))
Rocket Surgeon said:
This accounts for the holes dug all over and the poor survival of the cult...
:confused:
 
Sorry...I guess the annotated Rocket Surgeon is in order.

The paraphrased Raiders quote:
Rocket Surgeon said:
This accounts for the holes dug all over and the poor survival of the cult...
...referencing the graves, (holes dug all over), and relying on mystic properties of floating pick axes to direct your organization, (a reason they're not prolific today).

:eek:
 

Dig Site 1138

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Sorry...I guess the annotated Rocket Surgeon is in order.

The paraphrased Raiders quote:

...referencing the graves, (holes dug all over), and relying on mystic properties of floating pick axes to direct your organization, (a reason they're not prolific today).

:eek:

If it helps, I got it ;)

it was a reference to the lecture at the beginning of Raiders. "Local legend has it that there was a golden coffin buried nearby. This accounts for the holes dug all around the barrow and the relatively poor condition of the site..."

or something close to that.
 

Dig Site 1138

New member
Stoo said:
Hear ya! Though I must say how disheartening it is to know that the general, modern, western-world perception of Thugs comes from their misrepresentation in "Temple of Doom".

Actually, my slightly better understanding of Thuggee got me in good standing with my three Indian co-workers one day. A less-than-bright co-worker was asking lots of very boorish questions based on what he had seen in Temple of Doom. I interceded with the knowledge that the Thuggee preferred to strangle and/or drown their victims and was suddenly deemed "intelligent and interesting" to the Indian faction. (y)

An older, Gujarati lady on my team was particularly impressed. That reminds me, she still has a volume of Kipling that belongs to me.:rolleyes:
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Sorry...I guess the annotated Rocket Surgeon is in order.

I used to have to refer to my copy of the Annotated Rocket Surgeon quite frequently. Not so often now, though!



Have the Thuggee totally disappeared, or are there still the vestiges of a cult today?
 

Dig Site 1138

New member
Have the Thuggee totally disappeared, or are there still the vestiges of a cult today?

Dig Site 1138 said:
Oddly, my 1957 set of World Book Encyclopedias seems to think the Thuggee are still active at the date of publication.


I just broke out my 1968 World Book (the 1957's are at my parents') and it says "In 1831 the British began a drive to end the evil and it is now almost wiped out." :confused:

Wow! Either the Thuggee just kept on going in smaller numbers, or the guys at World Book in the 1950's and 60's were just phoning it in!
 
Montana Smith said:
Have the Thuggee totally disappeared, or are there still the vestiges of a cult today?

Everytime:

Dig Site 1138 said:
A less-than-bright co-worker...[asks] lots of very boorish questions based on what seen in Temple of Doom.


...we get another potential recruit.
 

dr.jones1986

Active member
Stoo said:
Kudos, Dig Site...In Indy's world, we must accept that North East India was the centre of activity even though it's not true. (Though the location of Mayapore / Pankot is DEFINITELY northeast!)
In another thread, I tried explaining this to a certain Ravenhead (Walton) but he refused to believe it based on the fact that the Kali statue in "Temple of Doom" *looked* evil, therefore it *must* be evil. (He didn't want to listen...:rolleyes:)
Good for you and silly me, Dr.Jones1986!(y) I never even thought of checking the "Ultimate Guide"!:eek: Indeed, there is a map & red line which (sort of) makes sense but there is enough conflicting reference to state that Mola Ram did NOT fall into the Ganges.

According to the TEXT in the "Ultimate Guide", the trio land in the Pindari river and Pankot is alongside the Yamuna River but the text doesn't correspond with the real geography.:eek: (A new thread is in order!):whip:
Judging by certain references, it's quite possible that B.Murch is reading these Thug-related threads here at The Raven. (Possible - yes. Probable - who knows?):confused:
I understand that Mr. Murch is into pulp stuff but he is off the mark a bit. (Most notably, a Thug pack being armed with pick-axes!)

ya, there are certainly some discrepancies with the Ultimate Guide. The map appears to show Mayapore along the Yamuna and Pankot along the Ganges but some stuff that is said contradicts it. On the bottom of that page it contradicts what the map shows. Regardless it does appear that the region of India depicted in the movie is the area north of New Delhi.
 

dr.jones1986

Active member
Stoo said:
Kudos, Dig Site...In Indy's world, we must accept that North East India was the centre of activity even though it's not true. (Though the location of Mayapore / Pankot is DEFINITELY northeast!)
In another thread, I tried explaining this to a certain Ravenhead (Walton) but he refused to believe it based on the fact that the Kali statue in "Temple of Doom" *looked* evil, therefore it *must* be evil. (He didn't want to listen...:rolleyes:)
Good for you and silly me, Dr.Jones1986!(y) I never even thought of checking the "Ultimate Guide"!:eek: Indeed, there is a map & red line which (sort of) makes sense but there is enough conflicting reference to state that Mola Ram did NOT fall into the Ganges.

According to the TEXT in the "Ultimate Guide", the trio land in the Pindari river and Pankot is alongside the Yamuna River but the text doesn't correspond with the real geography.:eek: (A new thread is in order!):whip:
Judging by certain references, it's quite possible that B.Murch is reading these Thug-related threads here at The Raven. (Possible - yes. Probable - who knows?):confused:
I understand that Mr. Murch is into pulp stuff but he is off the mark a bit. (Most notably, a Thug pack being armed with pick-axes!)

ya, there are certainly some discrepancies with the Ultimate Guide. The map appears to show Mayapore along the Yamuna and Pankot along the Ganges but some stuff that is said contradicts it. On the bottom of that page it contradicts what the map shows. Regardless it does appear that the region of India depicted in the movie is the area north of New Delhi.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Sorry...I guess the annotated Rocket Surgeon is in order.

The paraphrased Raiders quote:

...referencing the graves, (holes dug all over), and relying on mystic properties of floating pick axes to direct your organization, (a reason they're not prolific today).

:eek:
O.K. Gotcha, although to clarify, the pick-axes didn't float. They supposedly jumped out of the wells into the hands of the carrier/s after they were summoned!:eek:

Here's an excerpt from an actual Thug trial, printed in the book, "The Thugs and Phansigars of India":

Nasir, of Singnapore: "...we have all of us seen the sacred pick-axe spring in the morning from the well into which it had been thrown over night, and come to the hands of the man who carried it at his call: nay we have seen the pick-axes of different gangs all come up of themselves from the same well at the same time, an go to their several bearers."

Question: "Yes; and you have all seen the common jugglers, by sleights of hand, appear to turn pigeons into serpents, and serpents into rabbits, but all know that they do it by their skill, and not by the aid of any goddess. The man who carries your pick-axe is selected for his skill, and gains extra emoluments and distinction; and no doubt can, in the same manner, make it appear that the axe comes out of itself when he draws it out by his sleight of hand."

Nasir: --With great energy--"What! Shall not a hundred generations of Thugs be able to distinguis the tricks of man from the miracles of God? Is there not the difference of heaven and earth between them? Is not one a mere trick, and the other a miracle, witnessed by hundreds assembled at the same time?"

Question: "Sahib Khan, you are more sober than Nasir, have you ever seen it?"

Sahib Khan: "On one expedition only."

Question: "Who were the pick-axe bearers?"

Sahib Khan: "They were Imam Khan and his brother."

Question: "From what country?"

Sahib Khan: "From Arcot. I was obliged to fly from Telingana when Major Parker and Captain Sheriff made their inroad upon us (Gurdee) and I went and joined the Arcot gangs. During a whole expedition that I made with them, Imam Khan and his brother carried the pick-axe, and I heard them repeatedly in the morning call them from the well into which they had thrown them over night, and saw the pick-axes come of themselves from the well, and fall into their aprons, which they held open thus:" --Here he described the mode.
 
Stoo said:
O.K. Gotcha, although to clarify, the pick-axes didn't float. They supposedly jumped out of the wells into the hands of the carrier/s after they were summoned!
They've got some great drugs in India, hmm?

Stoo said:
Here's an excerpt from an actual Thug trial, printed in the book, "The Thugs and Phansigars of India":

Nasir: "What! Shall not a hundred generations of Thugs be able to distinguis the tricks of man from the miracles of God? Is there not the difference of heaven and earth between them? Is not one a mere trick, and the other a miracle, witnessed by hundreds assembled at the same time?"

Sounds like you have an amazing person library! Interesting, (and timely) quote. :hat:
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Fascinating excerpt, Stoo.

Catching the flying pick axe brought to mind the scene in TOD when the Thug 'catches' a hammer on his head.
 

Dig Site 1138

New member
Stoo said:
Question: "Yes; and you have all seen the common jugglers, by sleights of hand, appear to turn pigeons into serpents, and serpents into rabbits, but all know that they do it by their skill, and not by the aid of any goddess. The man who carries your pick-axe is selected for his skill, and gains extra emoluments and distinction; and no doubt can, in the same manner, make it appear that the axe comes out of itself when he draws it out by his sleight of hand."

Nasir: --With great energy--"What! Shall not a hundred generations of Thugs be able to distinguis the tricks of man from the miracles of God? Is there not the difference of heaven and earth between them? Is not one a mere trick, and the other a miracle, witnessed by hundreds assembled at the same time?"

So, it's a debate as to whether the pick-axe bearers are Fakirs or just fakers?

:D
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Temple is certainly my least favorite of the films because of these kind of inaccuracies. The stories of the Ark and the Grail aren't historically accurate, but they don't seem to denigrate the cultures of the artifacts. The worshipers of Kali are not the only victims of Temple. The portrayal of the other Indians is just as suspect.

Shashi Tharoor said:
Stepping goggle-eyed off Spielberg's celluloid roller-coaster, hundreds of millions of people, mostly young and impressionable people who almost certainly had never set foot in the subcontinent, met an Indian family, or read an exposition of Hinduism acquired an abiding image of India. It was of a country where kings and courtiers feasted on stewed snakes and monkey brains, where Kali worshippers plucked the hearts out of their victims and embroiled them in flaming pits, and where evil, poverty and destitution reigned until the Great White Hero could intervene to restore justice and prosperity.
...​
If they had to show Indians, a notoriously vegetarian people, eating yuckily, why on the worst excesses of Chinese carnivorism? If they had to libel a cult, why not invent one, rather than abuse a goddess revered by millions? (The film is set in the 1930s, when Kali worship did not include human sacrifice a century after the elimination of the Thugs, who by comparison with Spielberg's Amrish Puri, seem positively humanitarian.) Where in a Hindu temple would one worship grotesque skulls and skeletons, and find slogans on Kali scrawled on the walls like so much political graffiti? The reason all these feature in this appalling film is, quite simply, that the filmmakers knew they would get away with it.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ate-of-dhoom/articleshow/1746623.cms?flstry=1
 

Montana Smith

Active member
WillKill4Food said:
Temple is certainly my least favorite of the films because of these kind of inaccuracies. The stories of the Ark and the Grail aren't historically accurate, but they don't seem to denigrate the cultures of the artifacts. The worshipers of Kali are not the only victims of Temple. The portrayal of the other Indians is just as suspect.

Pulp, since the nineteenth century has been characterized by racism: the dominant white man and the sub-class of presumed degenerate natives.

There have been exceptions. Indy was such an exception as an enlightened white man, able to look beyond the base concept of skin colour to see the good in a person's actions and thoughts.

Spielberg and Lucas conforming to pulp racism in the 1980s was a questionable choice. They were going for shock, and that can be deemed a thoughtless option.

I love TOD, but I have to see it as an expression of pulp values. The Indy movies are full of 'false' history. Mostly, I think, due to their ignorance or intentional disregard of history.

The Raven bar could not have existed in the 1930s. Hindus would not have been eating meat. Belize would have been named British Honduras on a map in 1957. For much of the events in the four movies we cannot overlay the history and culture that we recognize.

To the casual observer TOD will be racist, because it appears to show our world in 1935. As it is, it's a pulp version of 1935. However, it still appears insensitive, because making the break between the real and the pulp worlds isn't something that will probably come to most viewers minds.

To balance matters, the Indy movies are also full of evil white men. Evil crosses racial stereotypes. The cultists in TOD could have easily been from any race, but Lucas and Spielberg were calling on earlier movies and stories, and in doing so found themselve in trouble.
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Montana Smith said:
Pulp, since the nineteenth century has been characterized by racism: the dominant white man and the sub-class of presumed degenerate natives.
By that logic, it would be acceptable to make a movie about the Civil War that paints the slaves as black Sambo stereotypes or a Western that paints native Americans (the other "Indians) as mere savages. Regardless, I doubt that the filmmakers gave it that much thought. They probably didn't care whether their portrayal of Indian culture was accurate.

Montana Smith said:
They were going for shock, and that can be deemed a thoughtless option.
What else could it be but "thoughtless"?

Montana Smith said:
The Indy movies are full of 'false' history...The Raven bar could not have existed in the 1930s. Hindus would not have been eating meat. Belize would have been named British Honduras on a map in 1957. For much of the events in the four movies we cannot overlay the history and culture that we recognize.
Yes, but does the existence of the Raven bar harm anyone? Do anachronisms hurt anyone? No. Meanwhile, as I will show in a second, the depiction of the Indians was hurtful and not just sloppy, but altogether malicious.


Montana Smith said:
To the casual observer TOD will be racist, because it appears to show our world in 1935.
Indians have never eat chilled monkey brains with eyeball soup. Perhaps there have been one or two isolated incidents that I am not aware of, but that has never been a common delicacy on the subcontinent, especially not among royals. I have many Indian friends (perhaps that plays some role in my disgust), and, having eaten with their families on many occasions, I must say that it was downright dishonest to portray Indians that way. The fact that Lucas hired Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz to write the script because of their supposed "knowledge of Indian culture" makes it that much more heinous. Surely they knew that what he was showing was not only ridiculous but hateful.

Montana Smith said:
To balance matters, the Indy movies are also full of evil white men. Evil crosses racial stereotypes. The cultists in TOD could have easily been from any race, but Lucas and Spielberg were calling on earlier movies and stories, and in doing so found themselve in trouble.
I don't care about the portrayal of the cultists, at all. Religions can be evil, and, unless I am mistaken, some Thugs did worship Kali. The cardiectomy was an Aztec practice and Kali-worshipers generally opposed blood-spilling, but the filmmakers choice to depict other religions' sacrificial practices is understandable. I am bothered by their neglecting to mention that Thuggee groups were not exclusively worshipers of the goddess Kali, who they called Bhavani. The Thuggee of the 1830s were a form of organized crime, more a paramilitary group than a religious cult. The film's portrayal of modern Thuggee would be completely acceptable if at some point Indy had made some mention of the fact that not all worshipers of Kali were blood-crazed and not all Thuggee were worshipers of Kali.

However, the portrayal of the other Indians remains inexcusable. Once more, I quote Tharoor's article, Indiana Jones and the template of dhoom:
Shashi Tharoor said:
Never mind that anyone with some education and a little common sense should have been able to see how absurd these propositions were; the filmmakers correctly assumed that they wouldn't. Given both the relative youth of the audience and the colossal global ignorance about India in those days, the Indiana Jones view of India was swallowed without challenge by cinegoers around the world.
(Many NRIs recounted tales of foreigners cancelling prior commitments to dinner for fear of being served stewed snakes and monkey brains by their Indian hosts!) Of course, Steven Spielberg and his accomplices weren't involved in any sinister conspiracy to denigrate India; what was at work was not bias but indifference, even sloppiness. Spielberg may well have learned of the exotic culinary practices of some Chinese in Hong Kong, found them sufficiently revolting to be filmed, and put them quite literally into the mouths of Indians. Who knows the difference, he may well have thought, and who cares?
It was in the same vein, then, as his supposedly 'Himalayan' village populated not by stocky, high-cheekboned Gurkhas or Garhwalis, but by dark-skinned, long-limbed Sinhalese speakers: those were the extras he found on 'location' in Sri Lanka, and all foreign languages sound alike anyway, don't they?
So too the scenes in the temple he knew what kind of horror would make his shrieking patrons choke on their popcorn, he knew just how his phantasmagorical Temple of Doom should be depicted, and if neither bore any relation to any kind of Indian reality, who would give a damn? After all, an Indian actor was prepared to drag one of his goddesses into the gore, and to mouth lines about his religion's desire to stop the spread of Christianity by any means. Why blame Spielberg, if Amrish Puri could sell his self-respect for several fistfuls of dollars?
Of course I can imagine Spielberg's fans rising to his defence with the argument that the film wasn't meant to be taken seriously. But entertainment is a highly effective method of instruction, and the fantasy in Indiana Jones is always anchored in reality: thus, there is a real city (Shanghai), a real country (China) and a real mountain-range (the Himalayas), which no one suggests are the figments of Spielberg's fancy. But he does not invest any of them with non-existent sins. India, Indians and Hinduism, however, do not escape so lightly. The filmmakers are cavalier in their disregard.
If they had to show Indians, a notoriously vegetarian people, eating yuckily, why on the worst excesses of Chinese carnivorism? If they had to libel a cult, why not invent one, rather than abuse a goddess revered by millions? (The film is set in the 1930s, when Kali worship did not include human sacrifice a century after the elimination of the Thugs, who by comparison with Spielberg's Amrish Puri, seem positively humanitarian.) Where in a Hindu temple would one worship grotesque skulls and skeletons, and find slogans on Kali scrawled on the walls like so much political graffiti? The reason all these feature in this appalling film is, quite simply, that the filmmakers knew they would get away with it.
Tharoor's claim that the film perpetuates negative stereotypes (really, it would be accurate to say that the film even created certain negative stereotypes) seems to be substantiated by the work of Yvette Rosser, who examined the treatment of India in the social studies curriculum for the Department of Asian Studies at the University of Texas. She found that a large number of Asian students complained that their American teachers talked about the negative stereotypes in Temple, such as the eating of monkey-brains, as though they were a matter of fact. I think I remember my jingoistic high school World History teacher making similar mistakes. The fame that Doom has garnered over the years seems in itself sufficient warrant for the film to have some sort of disclaimer, "Warning: The 'Indian' practices depicted in the following film are actually a pastiche of reviled cultural practices from across the globe, assembled together to disgust Western sensibilities. The 'real' India bares little resemblance with what you are about to see."

It may sound extreme to suggest that the film needs something like that, but ask yourself: do you think this film would be made today? Given the budget they had to shoot with, I think the filmmakers could've spared a little cash to bring in a real Indian expert. Is it any wonder that the Indian government banned the film? Shouldn't the filmmakers have taken the hint when the government refused to allow them to film in the country?
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
Spielberg and Lucas had very little concern for historical or social accuracy when it came to Indy movies. Whether that promotes racism is down to their failure or lack of intention to research their subject matter. They didn't set out to create social or historical documentary; the films aren't even located in our world. The Thuggee of TOD are not the Thuggee we encounter in our history; just as the Nepal of ROTLA wasn't the Nepal we would read about in our history books.

The inspiration for the films was from earlier works, which were already heavy with the baggage of now unpopular attitudes. The western world is much more sensitve to these attitudes now, so TOD wouldn't be the same if it were remade today.

Indy does comment at the meal in Pankot:

"Even if they were trying to scare us away, a devout Hindu would never touch meat. Makes you wonder what these people are..."

The intention here was definitely to create a "bizarre" atmosphere.

Pankot Palace was not a microcosm for all India.

Temple of Doom is marked also, by being a film where the real hero of the piece isn't Indy, but the Chinese orphan, Short Round. So there is even a break from the traditional white hero dominating another ethnic class.
 

Dig Site 1138

New member
I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here, gents. Although I agree that Temple of Doom is tacky, I do not believe it is inherently racist.
WillKill4Food said:
By that logic, it would be acceptable to make a movie about the Civil War that paints the slaves as black Sambo stereotypes or a Western that paints native Americans (the other "Indians) as mere savages.

That's taking it a bit far, don't you think? The denizens of Pankot are preposterous, but the rural villagers seem like everyday rural villagers. From ANY country. And, frankly, (I can't believe I'm going here) during the Civil War, despite the natural equality of African slaves as human beings, we are talking about a population which was intentionally kept ignorant. Think about "Glory" wherein one sees the broad spectrum of contemporary (to the Civil War) African Americans. Everything from the Boston educated man to the Folksy wisdom of Morgan freeman's character. The filmmakers did not shy away, however from the fact that some of the troops are ignorant, backward fellows who don't know left from right. It was a fact of history. Furthermore, somewhere between "Stagecoach" and "Dances with Wolves" one might find a more accurate picture of Native Americans... Neither mindless aggressors nor some sort of "nature children" the Plains cultures were based on personal glory through combat and acquisition of livestock. That means they had a beautiful, complex culture. It also means they were bloodthirsty warriors who weren't very good neighbors. In their defense, the Americans were worse neighbors.


Regardless, I doubt that the filmmakers gave it that much thought. They probably didn't care whether their portrayal of Indian culture was accurate.

Nope, they probably didn't. it was meant to be a Saturday Morning Serial, not a bloody travelogue.


Yes, but does the existence of the Raven bar harm anyone? Do anachronisms hurt anyone? No. Meanwhile, as I will show in a second, the depiction of the Indians was hurtful and not just sloppy, but altogether malicious.

Exactly who was "harmed" by Temple of Doom?? Offended, sure, but is offense actually harm? Again, I maintain that it was simply tasteless.

Indians have never eat chilled monkey brains with eyeball soup. Perhaps there have been one or two isolated incidents that I am not aware of, but that has never been a common delicacy on the subcontinent, especially not among royals. I have many Indian friends (perhaps that plays some role in my disgust), and, having eaten with their families on many occasions, I must say that it was downright dishonest to portray Indians that way. The fact that Lucas hired Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz to write the script because of their supposed "knowledge of Indian culture" makes it that much more heinous. Surely they knew that what he was showing was not only ridiculous but hateful.

Yes, yes, many Hindus do not even eat meat. The dinner scene is an absolute low point in the film. it is childish and stupid and goes for the gross-out factor. It seems right at home in an Abbott and Costello movie. I am often astounded at how many people seem to think it portrays Indian food in any way. Perhaps the dinner scene should have gone more like this: "Dear God, this is hot!! Whoa! who mixes chili peppers and cinnamon? Why is there marjoram and cardamom in everything?? Are you going to eat your naan?"

Again, I will not argue that the dinner sequence is not stupid.


I don't care about the portrayal of the cultists, at all. Religions can be evil, and, unless I am mistaken, some Thugs did worship Kali. The cardiectomy was an Aztec practice and Kali-worshipers generally opposed blood-spilling, but the filmmakers choice to depict other religions' sacrificial practices is understandable. I am bothered by their neglecting to mention that Thuggee groups were not exclusively worshipers of the goddess Kali, who they called Bhavani. The Thuggee of the 1830s were a form of organized crime, more a paramilitary group than a religious cult. The film's portrayal of modern Thuggee would be completely acceptable if at some point Indy had made some mention of the fact that not all worshipers of Kali were blood-crazed and not all Thuggee were worshipers of Kali.

See this entire thread. This is actually the topic at hand. ;)


However, the portrayal of the other Indians remains inexcusable. Once more, I quote Tharoor's article, Indiana Jones and the template of dhoom:

Tharoor's claim that the film perpetuates negative stereotypes (really, it would be accurate to say that the film even created certain negative stereotypes) seems to be substantiated by the work of Yvette Rosser, who examined the treatment of India in the social studies curriculum for the Department of Asian Studies at the University of Texas. She found that a large number of Asian students complained that their American teachers talked about the negative stereotypes in Temple, such as the eating of monkey-brains, as though they were a matter of fact. I think I remember my jingoistic high school World History teacher making similar mistakes. The fame that Doom has garnered over the years seems in itself sufficient warrant for the film to have some sort of disclaimer, "Warning: The 'Indian' practices depicted in the following film are actually a pastiche of reviled cultural practices from across the globe, assembled together to disgust Western sensibilities. The 'real' India bares little resemblance with what you are about to see."

Who the Hell would think this was historically, culturally or in any way accurate. A man jumps out of a plane in a life raft for Christ's sake!

It may sound extreme to suggest that the film needs something like that, but ask yourself: do you think this film would be made today? Given the budget they had to shoot with, I think the filmmakers could've spared a little cash to bring in a real Indian expert. Is it any wonder that the Indian government banned the film? Shouldn't the filmmakers have taken the hint when the government refused to allow them to film in the country?

No, but then the film wasn't made today. Look at the history of cinema and you will find many better films than TOD that would not be made today for fear that someone would be "Harmed" by their existence.

Also, I have several Indian friends who (for reasons I can't comprehend love this movie. I only have one who hates it, but she grew up in London and I think she got tired of people asking if they really ate monkey brains in India. :D


So, in short, Watch TOD or don't. But under NO circumstances take it seriously.
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Dig Site 1138 said:
That's taking it a bit far, don't you think? The denizens of Pankot are preposterous, but the rural villagers seem like everyday rural villagers. From ANY country.
The Indian fellow I keep quoting had two problems with the villagers:
1. They did not even bare a superficial resemble to actual Himalayan villagers, in appearance or tongue.
2. They were helpless and survived only thanks to the "great White hero."
And as you should recall, the villagers ate bugs. Are those the Hindus you know?

Dig Site 1138 said:
The filmmakers did not shy away, however from the fact that some of the [black] troops are ignorant, backward fellows who don't know left from right. It was a fact of history. Furthermore, somewhere between "Stagecoach" and "Dances with Wolves" one might find a more accurate picture of Native Americans...
Yes, that is correct, but what I said is still true: to excuse the filmmakers by saying they were portraying the ideas of a particular group of people in a particular era is akin to excusing a filmmaker for an egregious racist film about "people of color" or native Americans. There is no difference.

Dig Site 1138 said:
Nope, they probably didn't. it was meant to be a Saturday Morning Serial, not a bloody travelogue.
But it was not a Saturday Morning Serial. It was not in black and white. It was two hours for a single sitting, not several hours for many sittings. It was a modern "fairytale" or sorts, in Lucas' own words. Why, then, should the portrayals not have modern or at the very least even slightly accurate.

Dig Site 1138 said:
Exactly who was "harmed" by Temple of Doom?? ... Who the Hell would think this was historically, culturally or in any way accurate.
Ah, but see, you answered this yourself:

Dig Site 1138 said:
I am often astounded at how many people seem to think it portrays Indian food in any way.
...she grew up in London and I think she got tired of people asking if they really ate monkey brains in India. :D
And as I pointed out in my previous post,
Tharoor said:
(Many NRIs recounted tales of foreigners cancelling prior commitments to dinner for fear of being served stewed snakes and monkey brains by their Indian hosts!) ... entertainment is a highly effective method of instruction, and the fantasy in Indiana Jones is always anchored in reality...
WillKill4Food said:
...Yvette Rosser, who examined the treatment of India in the social studies curriculum for the Department of Asian Studies at the University of Texas ... found that a large number of Asian students complained that their American teachers talked about the negative stereotypes in Temple, such as the eating of monkey-brains, as though they were a matter of fact. I think I remember my jingoistic high school World History teacher making similar mistakes.
And yet, Hindus revere monkeys (perhaps they should, or at least treat them with some respect, being that they're our evolutionary cousins).
Meanwhile, the eating of monkey brains is practiced by some Chinese, so why did they not include this unsettling dinner scene in China? They researched the Sivalinga, Nurhaci, and thirties musicals, so why not this?
And, quoted for truth:
Dig Site 1138 said:
Yes, yes, many Hindus do not even eat meat ... Perhaps the dinner scene should have gone more like this: "Dear God, this is hot!! Whoa! who mixes chili peppers and cinnamon? Why is there marjoram and cardamom in everything?? Are you going to eat your naan?"
In the end, what it comes down to is this:
Dig Site 1138 said:
Exactly who was "harmed" by Temple of Doom?? Offended, sure, but is offense actually harm?
Obviously, yes.
Dig Site 1138 said:
See this entire thread. This is actually the topic at hand. ;)
I'm aware... :rolleyes:

Dig Site 1138 said:
Look at the history of cinema and you will find many better films than TOD that would not be made today for fear that someone would be "Harmed" by their existence.
Of course, I agree, but does that justify the racist attitudes and caricatures in this movie?

Dig Site 1138 said:
So, in short, Watch TOD or don't. But under NO circumstances take it seriously.
Just as no one should take The Birth of a Nation seriously, they should not take Temple seriously. But ignorant people do.
 
Top