Southern exposure
Kathmandu
Today, after visiting my new landlords at the Lazimpat flat (I am SO excited at the prospect of buying dishwashing liquid, rubber gloves and coffee mugs...you think I'm kidding??), I went to my favourite Bengali sweet shoppe Trishna Mitai and pigged out on Sambar Vada, Uttapam and Idly in honour of Pongal. Here's a fun story about Tamils
celebrating Pongal in Sri Lanka. That Slumdawg won't huntLast time, I wrote something about the widespread defensive attitude (not 100%, mind you) of Indians toward the success of Danny Boyle's Slumdog Millionaire. I also left some rather impatient comments on another blog.In case you've been asleep for a few weeks, lotta folks are huffing and puffing about
Slumdog's portrayal of Indian slum life, mostly because it's too accurate. (
Wonder what the slum dwellers themselves think, has anyone asked them? All the comments I have read are from upper crust writers.)
I can't write with authority about what it's like to be Indian and see a film that shows so much of the country's dark side to the world. But I have a comparable experience. I do know what it's like to be an American Southerner and see Hollywood films, famous ones, award-winning ones, represent my "country" (we almost were another country, fought a war over it, remember) to the world.
There were lots of , and still are, negative sterotypes about my country (the South). When I moved to New York in 1981, I was asked derogatory questions like "Do you even wear shoes down there?" and "where do you live, a trailer park?"
And even,
"Did your ancestors own slaves??"
"Everyone down there belongs to the Klan, right?"
...and from an Indian girl, "If you wear your bindi down there you'll get shot at." (There actually were, in fact, at least 2 "dot-head" murders...I think they were both in Canada.)
The vast majority of Hollywood films about the south - which is where people get these ideas - were made by either Yankees or Californians (same thing, ha). Outsiders.
Some were romanticized epics (Gone with the Wind), some consciously tried to redress such romanticism by showing an uglier side Cold Mountain).
Others retold true stories in a condensed, dramatized and only partially "true" way so that important but largely unknown eras in American history would not go unknown by a new generation (ie, Mississippi Burning).
There's loooots more (Glory, Matewan, Birth of a Nation, To Kill a Mockingbird, Sling Blade, Deliverance, Mandingo, Roots, O Brother Where Art Thou?, Streetcar Named Desire, Forrest Gump.... ). Most of the above are full of slow-witted, slow talking hicks and obligatory Klan meeting scenes.
Don't forget television like Andy Griffith Show, Beverly Hillbillies, Green Acres, Petticoat Junction, Alice, Designing Women, Hee Haw and so on.
My point is this:
the vast majority of this media was made by "outsiders." Some of it (especially the romantic stuff) Southerners appreciated;
most of it, they did not. Some of it I personally enjoy, a lot I have mixed feelings about.
But even when I didn't think they got it right, I usually felt the topics (mostly race history) needed to be discussed.
Usually they didn't cast Southerners in the parts; since pretty much anyone can "do" a southern accent, right? Just sound real dumb. (Marlon Brando's accent was dreadful in
Streetcar and he was nominated for the Oscar.) And Black Americans are all sort of considered by casting directors to somehow be Southern by default.
Seeing your homeland represented worldwide, by an outsider, is a sensitive thing. The point is, no one ever, ever questioned the outsider's right to make such films or shows, whether we liked them or not.
Why do Indians think that they and they alone can give "permission" to someone to discuss or represent their country in media ? Besides which, the book on which
Slumdog is based was written by an Indian (as
Streetcar and
Mockingbird were based on books written by Southerners).
I certainly hope no one ever questions the "right" of an NRI or Indian visitor to make a film about an America they perceive, however derogatory or partially-representative that may be.
At that time, I lived in New York City where the move was set.
Posts
"Why didn't Slumdog Millionaire also show middle-class, prosperous India? The west just wants to perpetuate the image of Indian poverty." --
The movie did depict modern, middle-class, glass-front India- I remember finding the scenes in the flat-screen TV bungalow with security guard such a contrast with the slum scenes. The film does show that India has changed, and is changing. A character also says, “see the slums where we grew up? now it’s all high-rise housing.”
The call centre scenes were also filled with educated, well-dressed middle class youth. Middle-class “new India” was not the sole focus, but it was represented.
Director Danny Boyle is experiencing “the burden of representation” — what every artist, in film or other media, encounters when portraying or addressing an historically underrepresented people, nation or topic. The (usually well-meaning) artist is unfairly expected to redress every mis-representation of the topic that has occurred throughout the centuries, all in one two-hour film, 30 minute sitcom or 500 page book.
So let’s all look forward to AR Rahman’s Oscar win and more!
Mere desh mahan.
Related reading: