Indiana Jones films: racist?

Rocket Surgeon said:

I look forward to your monkey brains smeared on this thread!

Just don't go all Jan Brady on me!

Click to expand...

BWA-HA! "Jan Brady" - Your insult that broke the fights between us back in 2009. Marsha! Marsha! Marsha!

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

Rocket Surgeon said:

...and knowing neither of us require smilies or apologies

Click to expand...

Noted 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.)

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.

AndyLGR said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Rocket Surgeon said:

offensive ≠ racism.

Click to expand...

True. However...

Rasicm = offence

AndyLGR said:

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.

Click to expand...

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...

Stoo said:

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...

Click to expand...

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.

AndyLGR said:

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

Click to expand...

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.

Lucas has a tin ear for scripts:

AndyLGR said:

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.

Click to expand...

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).

AndyLGR said:

I suppose I'm trying to say that people who do or want to get offended by such stuff would still ignore the caveat.

Click to expand...

There is a lot of 'ignoring' in this discussion so ignorance can work both ways!

Henry W Jones said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

RKORadio said:

Lucas has a tin ear for scripts:

Click to expand...

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)

Double Posting and Argument by Photo

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.

Attila the Professor said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

Henry W Jones said:

I am on a cell phone and it make it hard to cut and paste. Sorry.

Click to expand...

That's all right then, in those cases.

Anyhow, back to your regularly scheduled programming, all.

RKORadio said:

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.

Click to expand...

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:



(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.)

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!

RKORadio said:

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!

Click to expand...

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:

People Magazine said:

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.

Click to expand...

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 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.

Click to expand...

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."

Click to expand...

Stoo said:

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.)

Click to expand...

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

...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

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.

Henry W Jones said:

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.

Click to expand...

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, 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 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.

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.

Attila the Professor said:

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, 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 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.

Click to expand...

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?