making fun of indians?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — The Party
thehighercritic — 21 years ago(April 06, 2004 07:40 PM)
i've noticed a couple people say in the forums that the film pokes fun at indians. i've heard that from folks in the past and i'll say now what i said then - hrundi is one of only two people at that party who behaves with any sense of morality and isn't a hopeless addict of some kind. the only other character who fits that bill is claudine longet's (so tasty! and a wiseguy-killa).
if you think "the party" is going out of its way to make fun of indians, then i guess it's targeting aspiring french movie starlets, too?
any thoughts? -
redowl86 — 21 years ago(July 13, 2004 04:34 PM)
My boyfriend and I are both Indian, and we thought it was too funny for words. The elephant part was a bit sterotypical, but still quite funny. Nothing was offensive. Hrundi was just an overly friendly and bumbling North Indian, and we both enjoyed watching Peter Sellers play the part so well. Also, my friend from Pakistan thought it was funny too, and Pakistanis and Indians are closer than people would think. So, no, the film is not making funny of Indians, just crazy ol' Hrundi.
-
wgamer2000 — 21 years ago(November 07, 2004 08:32 AM)
I agree with redowl. i didnt find it very offensive. probably the way sellers carried himself in the movie. the whole movie was just light hearted comedy. I think the criticism will more fit "The Guru" and "The Temple of Doom". Stereotyping indians as superstitious, magic believing pagans.
A lot of stereotyping going on in recent hollywood movies and tv shows. Portraying african-americans as very fat fried chicken eating guys or thugs/sidekicks or pizza delivery guys or basketball players or foul mouthed. Very subtle as well. -
LondonOnMyMind — 21 years ago(January 14, 2005 10:48 PM)
I agree with thehighercritic, in that Hrundi and Michele are the only intelligent and moral characters in the film. I have also heard people say that the film mocks Indians, and I disagree 1000%. It mocks the Hollywood establishment all the way - from being shallow and materialistic, to not even knowing the names of guests at their own parties. It is one of the best films and satires ever.
"First he seduced her then he produced her.- CSI
-
ejavignon — 20 years ago(December 31, 2005 10:32 AM)
Saw the movie last night for the first time, and was wondering the same thing, so I was glad to see this thread in imdb. Although Hrundi is an awkward bumbler, that is Sellers' trademark. I don't think his character was any more offensive than Inspector Clousseau should be to the French.
I did wonder though why it was necessary for him to play an Indian, and I think it was to give an outsider's perspective into American culture. It is an old narrative device to critique one's own culture by portraying through the eyes of a foreigner (think Montesquieu's Persian Letters). While on the surface the movie was another vehicle for Sellers' slapstick, it is really a story about someone on the outside looking into the shallow, self-centered, vulgar culture of late 60s America.
But then again, maybe I'm reading into it too much -
oy___vi — 20 years ago(January 25, 2006 06:34 PM)
I think the character is Indian not just because they needed an "outsider", but also because the Indian culture is reputedly "spiritual" and as such a great contrast to the culture that Blake Edwards is commenting on.
As far as him being "offensive", I totally agree that he is basically as bumbling as Cluseau (but without the arrogance). -
prashant_87 — 20 years ago(February 06, 2006 07:26 PM)
Well im an Indian but this is one of my all time favorites, far from being offended I really enjoy this movie.. I dont see any religious offense in the movie whatsoverits one fun, easy to like classic comedy that will entertain for decades to come
ps someone stated that The temple of doom was stereotypicalit most definitely wasI found it really crazy and over the topthe worst of the Gr8 INdiana Jones Triology for sure
You! Off my planet! -
kathiemoffett — 18 years ago(December 14, 2007 02:02 AM)
Quote:
" by oy___vi (Wed Jan 25 2006 18:34:55)
Ignore this User | Report Abuse Reply
I think the character is Indian not just because they needed an "outsider", but also because the Indian culture is reputedly "spiritual" and as such a great contrast to the culture that Blake Edwards is commenting on.
As far as him being "offensive", I totally agree that he is basically as bumbling as Cluseau (but without the arrogance)."
EXACTLY.
if the French aren't insultedLOL.
Plus, as others have pointed out, Sellers' and Longet's characters are the only decent people in the film, fergawdssakes.
I do think they perhaps chose to make the character Indian because, simply, Bollywood (the Indian film industry) is apparently second only to Hollywood in world profit volume (or maybe they surpass Hollywood, lol, I forget.) Plus, I seem to recall that in the mid to late 60's cinema, Indian filmmakers like Satyajit Ray and all were really coming to world prominence. Makes sense at that point that an Indian actor would be trying to make the jump to Hollywood, and that Hollywood would've wanted to try him out. -
rmkbklyn — 19 years ago(September 24, 2006 12:28 PM)
I am a big fan of Peter Sellers, but as an Indian-American, I was really offended by this movie. I didn't think it was funny at all. If he had been in blackface, there would have been an uproar, but somehow it's ok to do "brownface"
-
sun_mig31 — 19 years ago(September 30, 2006 03:55 AM)
i am an indian living in india, and i do not think that this movie is offensive at all to indians,if at all it pokes fun at the upper crust hollywood society, and I think we need a sense of humour to appreciate and the ability to take oneself less seriously. I can imagine why someone would be incensed when they see the depiction of indians in temple of doom, which despite being helmed by a director like spielberg has some of the worst stereotyping of indians, still rather than be offended i would put it down to the ignorance of the makers as well as that of the average viewer.
-
ejavignon — 19 years ago(November 10, 2006 04:59 PM)
I think the new Borat movie might be relevant to this thread. One might find his Kazakhstani character to be an offensive (and grossly inaccurate) stereotype, but his real target is western prejudices. Sometimes juxtaposing one set of stereotypes against another can be very enlightening.
-
TheMagpie — 19 years ago(November 14, 2006 08:22 PM)
Damn, I was about to make that same intelligent comment.
The use of Hrundi is for the fish out of water aspect and the outside looking in aspect, nothing racial. The same goes for Borat, but it looks as if Kazakhs have a far smaller sense of humour than Indians.
Why do I fall in love with every woman I see who shows me the least bit of attention
Joel Barish -
Rickieroo — 19 years ago(December 14, 2006 07:03 PM)
This movie was not attempting to be racist towards indians but instead having the audience understand what immigrants must go through when arriving to different countries.The whole movie was metaphorically stating the fact that the protagonist , Hrundi was a foreigner trying to conform with these stereotypical north americans. His spot in line? Not having a seat on the dinner table? Like thrid world countries not having a spot in certain assemblies because they are not as technoligically advanced and industrialized as we are. Over all the film, was trying to prove a point that immigrants must face these conflicts and stereotypes everyday but learn how to conform to society.
