How is India and its people represented in western cinema?
Hollywood
is the biggest film industry in the world in terms of the number of films it
produces and its profit turn-over, earning around $10.7 billion just last year(1) and it’s films dominate cinema
screens all over the world. Film has the ability to allow a viewer to
experience new countries and cultures without them having to even leave their
own home, but are Hollywood’s representations of the world’s places and
people projected in a fair or positive light? In this essay I will be exploring
how Hollywood portrays the country of India and its people. Hollywood doesn’t
have a history of being known for its realistic and raw representation of
different cultures and societies, but rather for its stylisation instead. There
are claims that Hollywood’s portrayal of India isn’t only insulting, but it is
also damaging to their culture, that they’re encouraging things like “Slum
tourism”(2) not to mention
it’s potential impact on tourism in general, as the rather harsh and
frightening depictions could scare away potential travellers.
After
conducting a significant amount of research, it became obvious that Hollywood’s
lacking efforts and attempts at conducting a thorough and realistic projection
of India and it’s people had not gone unnoticed, and in some cases sparked
outrage, with claims that some of the films being produced were in fact racist
and unhealthy, and could potential affect the country.
Due
to the rapid expansion and growing accessibility of the internet, you don’t
have to look far before coming across varying opinions on such topics. Due to
this more recent development in communication, I decided to focus mostly on the
newer Hollywood releases, as well as some slightly older ones, as I felt it
would allow me access to a larger base of opinions and articles, with a rather
fresh look into India’s image as it’s projected through the cameras of
Hollywood.
India
is never shy when it comes to speaking out against its portrayal in movies.
They have banned many films in the past due to the somewhat degrading content
and seemingly inaccurate projection of their country and people, as well as any
content they don’t agree with. The list of reason are varied, but a negative representation
of the country seems to be quite a substantial and common reason.
Films
such as Nine Hours To Rama (1963, Mark Robson)(3), which
was banned for “depicting the psychological motivations of Nathuram Godse, the
assassin of Mahatma Ghandi”, City
Of Joy (1992, Roland Joffé)(4) which was banned in Calcutta for “showing the city in a bad
light”(Rajendra, 2011)(5). Protests
were also held during the filming process, and there was a temporary ban placed
on the film set, which was later lifted(6). Karma Sutra: A Tale Of Love (1996, Mira Nair)(7), a film
banned for containing sexually explicit scenes, both involving heterosexual and
homosexual relations. “During filming in India, the name of the project was not
revealed to government officials who would have denied the petition to film in
India had it been called ‘karma sutra’. Instead, it was called ‘Maya &
Tara’. Since government officials made many periodic visits to the set to
ensure proper Indian film etiquette, the cast had to improvise fake scenes which
avoided the nudity and sexuality central to the story. Upon completion,
authorities screened the film and it was subsequently banned in India because
of the erotic sex scenes”.
One
of the most successful films surrounding the culture and society of India is ‘Slumdog
Millionaire (2008, Danny
Boyle)(8). Despite
its success in the U.S. and the UK, it wasn’t received particularly well in
India. Particularly Hindu spectators expressed outrage which was spawned from
one particular scene in which a group of Hindu activists attack and kill the
Muslim people. Indians also protested the use of “slumdog”, claiming it was an
insulting label for slum dwellers.(9)
As a
whole, the film mainly depicts the country as being mostly poverty stricken,
filled with hatred and crime. We rarely see the areas of India that are
thriving and wealthy, and the people to accompany them. The whole of Jamal’s
life growing up in India is pretty tragic and filled with characters that abuse
and mistreat him. The film has been described as being “poverty porn” and that
it is an advertisement for “slum tours”.
"It's
a white man's imagined India. It's not quite snake charmers, but it's close.
It's a poverty tour." (10) (Las Angeles Times, 2009) -
Shyamal Sengupta
One
of the most interesting parts of this film, which really stuck out for me, was
a scene in which the young Jamal starts getting beaten by an Indian chauffeur
after showing around some American tourists. The tourists intervene, stopping
the beating. Jamal then goes on to say “You want to see a bit of the real
India? Here it is!” The female American tourist then replies, saying “Well,
here is a bit of the real America, son!” and then goes on to hand him money
(presumably a $100 bill). This seemed like a rather unsubtle way of Hollywood
stating that America is a generous and kind country, represented by these two
tourists who are willing to give the boy charity despite having been robbed.
The image of India, however, is painted as though it is filled with people
lacking in morals, who would beat a child as if it were a dog in the street for
doing wrong, as we see done by the adult chauffeur.
Also,
notably, there are three main wealthy characters that we meet; Maman, Prem and
Javed. These are the richest and most powerful characters we meet in the film,
yet two of them are criminals, earning their wealth through exploiting others
and breaking the law. The third, Prem, earned his wealth “overnight” although
it’s not made certain how. Prem is a potentially likable character, despite his
mild mockery of Jamal on the gameshow, until he feeds Jamal wrong answer in the
lavatory, hoping he’d take the bait and lose his potential fortune.
This
portrayal of rich people could suggest to an audience that it India is a
somewhat “dog-eat-dog” world, and that it is necessary for them commit crimes in order to
gain a substantial fortune; that you have to get your hands dirty in order to
live the high life. We do meet a fourth wealthy character at the beginning of
the film. Amitabh Bachchan, the famous Bollywood actor (played by Feroze Khan) flies in by helicopter
and is greeted by masses of his fans. He is arguably the only rich Indian
individual we encounter that has earned an honest living, not through crime and
through the pain and suffering of others, but his presence in the film is brief.
“If SM (Slumdog Millionaire) projects India as [a]
Third World dirty underbelly developing nation and causes pain and disgust
among nationalists and patriots, let it be known that a murky underbelly exists
and thrives even in the most developed nations” (BBC News, 2009) –
Amitabh Bachchan(11)
Despite such negative reception by some of the Indian public,
others saw Slumdog Millionaire in a different light, seeing it as
an opportunity to raise awareness about some of the poverty stricken areas.
“[Hopefully
it] will shine a light [on the] millions of people who continue to live their
lives without clean water, or sanitation, or electricity” (The Daily Beast,
2009) - Kalpana Sharma(12)
Whilst
the film was a massive hit in the U.S, it wasn’t well received by Indian cinema
goers.
‘On
Friday, a day after Slumdog Millionaire was nominated for 10 Academy
Awards, the movie filled just 25% of the seats for its debut in
theatres across India, the country of its setting.’ (Singh, 2009)(13)
Hollywood has been known to push the
limits with its controversial representations, one example being the film Indiana Jones And The Temple Of
Doom (1984, Steve Spielberg)(14).
‘Filmmakers were unable to get permission to shoot scenes in India. The Indian government
requested that a copy of the script to be read and also demanded that the word
"Maharajah" to be removed fearing that the content does not reflect
their culture. As a result, production was moved to Sri Lanka’ (IMDb)(15)
I think it’s fair to say Hollywood’s
portrayal of other countries and cultures is far from accurate, including those
of India. It seems to be a selective process, depicting certain aspects of
India solely for the purposes of entertainment, with which there appears to be
an element of indifference towards the opinions and objections from those they
are portraying, made evident by Hollywood’s repetition of “unrealistic”
representations of India..
I think it’s fair to say Hollywood’s
portrayal of other countries and cultures is far from accurate, including those
of India. It seems to be a selective process, depicting certain aspects of
India solely for the purposes of entertainment, with which there appears to be
an element of indifference towards the opinions and objections from those they
are portraying, made evident by Hollywood’s repetition of “unrealistic”
representations of India..
The
film contains scenes in which the Indian people devise rituals revolving around
the human sacrifice and child slavery. There is also one scene, which some
people of India found particularly offensive, which takes place in the
Maharaja’s palace. The characters Indiana, Willie and Short are asked to dine
with the Maharaja. To their horror, the meal consists of rather terrifying
dishes, including live eels, large bugs and monkey brains for dessert. It isn’t
difficult to see why India was offended by this portrayal. It showed its people
as being devil worshipers, with little appreciation or respect for human life;
sacrificing innocent people, enslaving children and eating food that would make
any other’s stomach churn. It was almost a dehumanisation of them, as if they
were an evil force the American hero had to defeat to stop their evil spreading.
Following
these depictions of Indians, the film was temporarily banned throughout the
country, though the ban was later lifted.(16)
Personally,
having watched Indiana Jones
and the Temple of Doom for
the first time several years ago, I never let the rather harsh and grotesque
depictions of India sink in, or see them as a representation of a real country
or Culture. My interpretation of the disturbing occurrences was that it was an
underground cult, of which could exist in and country, it just so happened that
Hollywood had chosen India to be the host of such strange people and practices.
Having said that, Hollywood could have easily written the bizarre events to
have taken place in America itself, where it’d be out of the firing line from
on looking countries, frustrated by the upsetting untruths placed upon
One
film on the other end of the spectrum of Indian representation in western
cinema is Life of Pi (Ang Lee, 2012)(17). Though its
story doesn’t particularly surround aspects of Indian culture to a great
degree, this film conveys a much brighter image than the aforementioned ones.
It may be due to its setting in Pondicherry, India, or the rating of PG, but Life of Pi presents us with a much
friendlier, more beautiful India. Whatever the case, it has been received very
well in India with its scenic shots of wildlife and likeable characters, it
presents India as a safer and more beautiful place. Though only part of the film is set in India
(as most of it takes place out at sea), we see India as a colourful and
relatively peaceful.
"(The)
way our audience has absorbed and embraced the complexity and simplicity
of Life Of Pi with such eagerness, it is a great sign for our
film industry! Jai ho!" (India Today, 2012) – Irrfan Khan(17)
One
other film that’s worth noting due to its positive reception in India is Gandhi (Richard
Attenborough, 1982)(18) Following
the life journey of Mohandas Gandhi, this film is different to the
others I have looked at; It depicts a character that actually existed. It would
seem odd for Hollywood to take this historic character and to place him
in a world that lies between the collision of realism and fantasy, that
Hollywood seems to often create for it’s films.
“There
will no doubt be criticism in India - legitimate criticism - that I have left
out a number of huge figures in the Indian history of the time.'' (The
New York Times, 1982) –
Richard Attenborough(19)
One
must appreciate the difficulties in finding a middle ground, in which Indians
can be happy with how they are portrayed, and westerners can fully understand
the culture being shown without having an extensive and thorough knowledge of
it.
“The
casting of a film about Gandhi had raised problems thoughout Mr. Attenborough's
years of searching for a backer, since many Western producers insisted on a
big-name Western star in the title role. Mr. Attenborough said he believed such
a course of action would have been ''totally wrong.'' He was determined to
people his film with characters that would be both realistic to an Indian
audience and comprehensible to a Western one.” (Crossette, 1982)(20)
This
is a good example of western production companies distancing themselves from
any authenticity in order to sell more tickets at the box office.
“Gandhi is a cosmopolitan hybrid, drawing upon
the “Venerable” traditions of Hollywood filmmaking as well as some deeply
seductive strains of Indian cultural and collective memory, primarily through
shots of landscape and the use of music (provided by Ravi Shankar)… Gandhi constantly balances the needs and
expectations of its two perceived audiences-the people of India and a
non-Indian global, though primarily Western, public.” (Chakravarty, 1993, p191)(21)
Though
I have only analysed a handful of films in this essay, I feel it’s an adequate
amount to conclude that Hollywood’s portrayal of India, in any of its movies,
are not created to present the real India, but to create the desired atmosphere
and setting which needs to be created in order for a films storyline to work.
It’s more of a mix of fantasy and reality, rather than a racist or prejudice
view on India. It’s using a real and existing setting, but exaggerated
circumstances in order to create a setting that’s easy to manipulate to aid a
plot.
“Lee gives Life of Pi an epic, sweeping
feel, but can’t seem to smoothly transpose the book’s overarching themes of
spirituality and faith to the screen.” (Hollywood Reporter, 2012) - Rajeev
Masand(21)
I think this
quote reveals a good point about how Hollywood treats India in its portrayals.
India is a very spiritual country, yet its spirituality isn’t particularly
captured in any of the films I have analysed in this essay, apart from possibly Gandhi (198). Stripping
India of such a large part of its culture is just another way Hollywood
represents India in an unrealistic light. There is talk of the religions and
gods surrounding the Hindu and Muslim faiths, but there is very little
Spirituality and moral messages within these films.
As
Bollywood has learned from and been influenced greatly by Hollywood, I think
Hollywood would benefit somewhat from doing the same. As it stands, Hollywood
creates films for more entertainment value, rather than to be educational or to
convey a particular and profound message to an audience, but personally I’d
like to see Hollywood films make an effort to continue as Richard Attenborough
did, when making Gandhi. To strive for a film that is made, not
only for one specific audience, but for a variation. To meet in the middle,
creating an opportunity for different cultures, such as India and westerners,
to learn about each other and to broaden their understanding of one another. I
think cinema is at it’s best when it entertains and educates and think it could be a
powerful tool in gaining an understanding and tolerance of countries and
cultures different from our own.
