Date: Sat, 15 Jul 2000 12:56:11 +1200
Subject: Re: East is east
From: Danny Butt <db-AT-icvp.com>


I think the main gripes from people are about the lack of dramatic
engagement, rather than how representative the film was. As Terry noted,
East is East falls within a well-established genre given an ethnic twist -
but it's clear that the popularity of the film was partially due to the way
the publicity steered well clear of racial issues. (In australasia at least,
the film was promoted with the tag line "It's the dog's bollocks!" and a
photograph of the dog from the film in a "wacky" pose).

The adjectives used in the liberal press ("charming") certainly make it
clear that the film wasn't challenging genre norms - but then should we be
expecting it to, just because it was from a Bangladeshi-British writer? An
interesting comparison could be made to Rashid's "Surviving Sabu" short
which caused a splash at the London film festival a couple of years back:
very similar storyline, given a more intense and political portrayal as
befits the arthouse circuit the film moved in.

My take is that films like East is East serve a valuable purpose in bringing
aspects of "other" mainstream cultures into a global English-speaking media
culture that we can all talk about on this list. I'd like to see criticisms
pick up and expand those strategies. I don't see much point in expecting it
to serve the same function as a film which travels largely via festivals,
with a narrower audience and different intention. A criticism centred around
picking apart stereotypes in mass culture is a bit of a dead end (IMHO), and
in any case there are tons of other examples of racial stereotyping written
by white people without a clue, which are far more in need of that
attention. Certainly, I question the value of someone from outside
Bangladeshi cultures using Spivak to deconstruct Ayub Khan Din's film. (Joe,
I'll happily retract this if you are close to Bangladesh culture).

On the other hand, I think people more literate in cinema than i am could
find much to criticise about the handling of the genre, in terms of
character depth, pacing, and "dramatic tension".

Regards,

Danny



Lisa Anne McNee wrote:

> Furthermore, must we assume that the characters in the movie are nothing but
> symbolic representatives of their respective cultures? Is it possible for us
> to see them as people caught up in personal dramas as well? Lisa
> 

Clarkejnc-AT-aol.com wrote:

> Greetings all:
> has anyone out there seen the film "east is east?" Its a British film set in
> the 70's. It is the story of a mixed race family (she is English, he is
> pakistani) and the struggles of the children who are "in-between." What I
> found repulsive was the demonizing of the pakistani husband. He was a
> polygamist-wife-beater-nationalist-patriarchal etc...
> I couldn't help think of that spivakism : "white men saving brown women from
> brown men." The spivakism doesn't directly apply since the producer is Asian
> (I believe) and the focal point of the film is the young sons but still....it
> felt as if a kind of "feminism lite" was the cover for the easy stereotyping
> of the muslim asian. In other words the progressive anti-patriarchalism
> sereved as a screen for a very non-progressive, simplistic, easily digestible,
> ugly carricature.
> 
> And
> 
> Has anyone ever been to the annual Association of Caribbean studies
> conference? This year its in Guadelouope and I'm wondering if I should bend
> over backwards to go. If anyone has been could you contact me off-list.
> 
> Best
> 
> Joe Clarke
> 
> 
> --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
> 



     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---