Hi there,
-
MarthaMyDear2 — 10 years ago(April 04, 2015 08:32 AM)
I don't think so. He and the French actress are the only normal, pleasant people in the whole movie. Peter Sellers portrays the character very sympathetically. The rest of the characters are stereotypical Hollywood trash. There's another thread here that has a length discussion on the subject. Personally I love this movie, he's trying so hard to fit into this awful environment.
Martha
Austin, Texas -
-
Anorensic — 10 years ago(April 06, 2015 11:19 AM)
Well the movie does have it's odd, ignorant moments like "Elephant is the symbol of my country!!?" and Peter Sellers portraying Hrundi as a weak apologizing simpleton (which is where the character's humor comes from after all), but let's face it, Indians are good doctor and engineers but when it comes to physical sports they are only well known in cricket (that too only batting side).the fitness revolution is only recent for India. Overall the movie was nowhere remotely offensive.
wat are you lookin' at -
jnathan — 10 years ago(April 06, 2015 09:50 PM)
It was 1968, political correctness hadn't been invented yet.
My vote history:
http://us.imdb.com/mymovies/list?l=9354248 -
MartianTom — 10 years ago(July 16, 2015 09:57 AM)
Similarly, is a straight guy playing a gay guy (Michael Douglas AND Matt Damon come to mind in 'Behind The Candelabra')or a straight woman playing a lesbian (Charlize Theron, for instance, in 'Aileen') homophobic? No. It depends upon the portrayal. If they're playing to stereotypes (thick Irishmen, stingy Scotsmen), then it's another question.
The answer is never the answer. What's really interesting is the mystery. -
irishm — 10 years ago(September 24, 2015 11:05 AM)
I didn't think it was nearly as offensive as Mickey Rooney playing a Chinese man in "Breakfast at Tiffany's". Normally I like to quietly remind myself that such things are a product of their time and I should be looking at them through the eyes I would have had the year the film came out, but Rooney's performance was just horrendous. Sellers was acceptable as an Indian man in this film, in my opinion.
-
hugh1971 — 10 years ago(October 31, 2015 02:26 PM)
I knew that if I went on IMDB to look up 'The Party', this topic would be raised!
I don't think it's racist. People only think that because in the last 30 years or so, political correctness/liberal agenda/cultural Marxism, call it what you will, has convinced people that it is wrong for somebody of one culture to portray somebody of another culture, particularly if it involves make-up that changes one's skin colour from light to dark. (Dark to light is ok, for some reason).
Sellers is portraying a certain type of Indian who was quite common in the west at the time. A lot of the comedy works because his manner is rather old-fashioned and out of place in the brash modern environment of Hollywood. It's not making fun of Indians per se, just the subtle cultural differences between Indians and Americans.
Somebody once said no Indian ever talked like Sellers. Well, they're wrong - because in 2010 I attended a service at the Anglican church in Shimla in north India, and the vicar spoke EXACTLY like Sellers!
'Monsters? We're British!' -
ridge-m-1 — 10 years ago(November 30, 2015 07:02 AM)
That was part of Sellers' comic genius, his ability to speak in character. Another great example being "Dr. Strangelove", in which Sellers plays three characters, a British soldier, an American president, and a hilarious Nazi all with the proper dialects.
Enough about racism that isn't there and political correctness which is a bane of the current culture. The turkey gag was right out of the Three Stooges. This film is a slapstick romp and ridiculously funny. -
dannieboy20906 — 9 years ago(April 07, 2016 07:16 PM)
A tiny nitpick here, Peter Sellers British character in Dr. Strangelove is an RAF airman. I suppose you could lump airmen in with soldiers and marines, calling them all 'soldiers.' But, strictly speaking the RAF and the RA are different services, just as the USA and USAF are different services.
The best diplomat I know is a fully charged phaser bank. -
Ratso_Rizzo1234 — 10 years ago(February 17, 2016 10:18 AM)
Absolutely NOT racist or mean-spirited at all! As an Indian I can tell you that Peter Sellers' "The Party" is one of the most popular films among Indians, and for good reason. He is extremely funny throughout the film and he has some of our Indian "mannerisms" down pat. One of my favorite movies of all time, along with Billy Wilder's "Some Like it Hot," and all of the Marx Bros. movies.
(Did you know that Peter Sellers was a fervent practitioner of Yoga?) -
vmacek@mindspring.com — 10 years ago(February 22, 2016 12:20 PM)
Yes, Peter Sellers is playing an Indian. And don't call me 'racist'!
Just having fun with subject punctuation here - other posters here defending his sympathetic, likable character have said it better than I.
I will say (and have said) there's a (admittedly blurry) line between 'racial' and 'racist' humor, and Sellers is squarely on the good side here. -
cma-billings — 10 years ago(March 28, 2016 12:35 PM)
For 1968, it was a product of its time. I don't think we should feel too terribly guilty, given the time period in which it was made, and that it's generally a positive portrayal. We can acknowledge that brownface is wrong, while also enjoying the movie. That said, it
is
racist, and in modern times this is just unacceptable. One of the big controversies which is still being tackled is this thing with white actors playing Egyptians and Egyptian gods (see "Gods of Egypt").
The issue is that racism isn't just about hateful portrayals and comments and discrimination towards a racial group. By having white actors made up to play other races, it perpetuates the issue that is denying actors who are actually
of
that race from obtaining roles for the same. There are many talented actors of all races, there is no need for blackface, brownface, yellowface, etc. Some will argue that these actors of colour aren't big enough names to carry the roles to earn the studios $$$, but that will never change if they are shut out of those roles in favour of white actors.
As it has been raised here, I'll point out that it is
not
racist for a white actor to portray a white character from a different country and with a different accent. That is a difference of ethnicity, not race, the latter being composed of broader categories based on physical types like skin colour. Playing up over the top, stereotypical accents and behaviours, based on which white people from which country, may be offensive, depending on the context.
Also, I just love when people have a hissy over "PC" liberal culture. It's called having some respect. So sorry if trying not to be a racist git who has no consideration for others is so hard for you. -
dma-maillist — 9 years ago(April 05, 2016 08:20 AM)
The portrayal wasn't racist.
I would even say that it wasn't really a product of its time, for it may very well have been more racist if we use that measure. That is, Bakshi could have been made out to be a character without dignity, that his ethnicity would be a point of derision, perhaps, and so on.
But, that is not the case. He comes off quite well.
As to hiring Sellers over, say some, Indian actor, well that wouldn't be economically practical. They had Sellers play a Frenchman with Clouseau and surely they could have found a Frenchman for the role, but Sellers would have probably been the better talent. Indeed, decades later, people still marvel at Sellers' ability.
Sellers's was known for this talent. See Dr. Strangelove where he played multiple roles decades before it was fashionable and before tech could make it virtually seamless to have an actor play several roles within the same scene (Eddie Murphy popularized this 20 years ago in The Nutty Professor.)
This chameleon-like ability was part of Seller's appeal, which is why having some nobody in the role, just because they came from India (or had some relation to it) would have made no sense. On the one hand you have an A-list star and on the other side, a nobody. Like it or not, it's called show business, for a reason and having Sellers in it is good business.
Perhaps, we can cavil about "diversity" and such in the 21st century, as many do with something like Gods of Egypt. I can't comment on the merits of the movie, but it has a poor reputation, perhaps deservedly so. Would having non-white actors in the roles made it better? Maybe or maybe not. The movie is going to be dubbed all across the world so when we hear Gerard Butler's Scottish accent, we may wince but it's not going to be heard in China.
But, if we are going to complain about miscasting and such, saying GOE should have olive skinned folks or blacks as the cast members because it's culturally accurate, then we should complain that there are black and Chinese "gods" in the Thor movies when everyone knows that the Norse myths comprise white folk. I liked Idris Elba in the movie but, c'mona black Viking god.
The point of bringing up Heimdall is the selectivity of the grievances made, usually by people who feel offended on behalf of the purported victim. With Elba it's fine, with Butler its whitewashing. Meanwhile, real Egyptians probably don't care much at all.
As it is, most Indians probably don't feel offended by Sellers portrayal. Indeed, at the time, Indira Gandhi liked the character and quoted him.
The problem with PCness is that there is a perpetual grievance when no grievance was intended and only really perceived by the most apparently sensitive, when in truth they aren't sensitive at all.
In the late 90's and early aughts, WB banned Speedy Gonzalez cartoons from airing, purportedly because it was offensive to Mexicans. Yet, Mexicans loved Speedy Gonzalez! Generations of kids, of all nationalities like him too. I know I did in the USA.
The PC police didn't have any respect for other groups, as you say, for if they did, Speedy would have been on American TVs. More often, the offense is either imagined or exaggerated.
And if the PC police had respect nowadays, they'd understand that a person or group, in general, have the strength to accept a joke now and again, even if it is at that person's expense, or even if it is not at anyone's expense, as it is with Sellers and Speedy.
[EDIT]
By coincidence, I searched for Speedy Gonzalez and apparently after nearly two-decades of keeping him off-limits, WB is planning on making a movie with the character. I came across a page where the actor to be the character says they loved the character in Mexico. Another page told of a woman from South America, I think, who had all these stuffed animals of Speedy and didn't understand why he was controversial. She's told because the Mexicans are depicted as slow, to which she replies that Speedy is fast.
Touche. -
ccr1633 — 9 years ago(April 06, 2016 07:33 PM)
cma-billings wrote:
The issue is that racism isn't just about hateful portrayals and comments and discrimination towards a racial group. By having white actors made up to play other races, it perpetuates the issue that is denying actors who are actually of that race from obtaining roles for the same.
Rubbish. Nobody would have been as funny in this part as Peter Sellers. He was the best actor for the job.
Social Justice Warriors need to settle on their definition of racism. SJW's are fond of the bogus definition that only those with "power" can be racist. This of course is a smoke screen to give black Americans (this phony definition was invented in the USA) carte blanche to be as racist as they wish without repercussions. The British empire was out of India by the time this film was made, and Indians in England weren't particularly marginalized, so Sellers playing a coconut wasn't racist. Q.E.D. -
Underdog_73 — 9 years ago(May 20, 2016 10:08 PM)
Is Peter Sellers playing an Indian, racist?
No.
No offense, but the question doesn't really deserve more of an answer (though I'm about to blather on). Racism requires the belief that one's race is superior. Do you see that happening here? At the very least, there also needs to be some kind of discrimination or prejudice. That also isn't happening.
Again, no offense, but people need to stop throwing around the term racism when they have no clue what it means.
Nowadays, people want to inflame the masses by crying racism where none exists. Just because you may incorrectly find something insulting, distasteful, offensive, or disrespectful, it doesn't mean it's racist.
By the way, nothing in the film is insulting, distasteful, offensive, or disrespectful toward other races.
I'm curious why you would even ask such a question. Again, nothing about this is racist, but I'm at a loss as to what you could possibly interpret as insulting. You should really take a minute and reevaluate some of your opinions and beliefs. Finding discrimination where none exists is what keeps it alive. That's all people like you accomplish. No offense.
Let me guess, you also find Apu from The Simpsons a racist interpretation? I say this sarcastically, yet hope it's not true. Again, at worst it would be discriminatory, though it's not.
