said: you  can’t forget “de la comédie française”

I just saw The Imitation Game and The Theory of Everything yesterday (late night rant here). Today I was going to see Boyhood, but I lack any motivation except the fact that it's probably going to sweep everything and I like Ethan Hawke, soooo I am going to finish Last Days in Vietnam instead. I wish Citizen Four and most of the foreign films noms were available to stream, too ... I'm excited to see them.

Toby's opinion overrides any criticism tbh

coeursfideles said: filmantidote.com/the-riv… i wrote this a while ago

Very well said (!).You definitely helped me sort through conflicting personal reactions to the story. Specifically: "Colonial nostalgia vs. explicit colonialism" "exotica caged" "exploitation of stereotypes" "a westerner may easily accept the idea of a nation full of happy Hindu peasants and no one else" and "by and for Westerners." All of these I agree with, and I love your comparison of Awaara's dream sequence with Harriet's story sequence, with your delineation: *Awaara's is an "internal vision." 

Internal vision is what I expected this film to lack utterly to begin with. I went in with such lowly expectations overall, that of course I was bound to appreciate some of it. I expected an explicitly racist text, and I got an implicitly racist text [yay?]. Yes it's totally a wish-fulfillment of colonial harmony--and yet, it's interesting [for me] to think how this vision might have been told differently in 1951 than 1941. Melanie is the primary element that I think has been "released" a bit from the aging colonial grip of the story. She rejects an alliance with Captain John (thank God, what a bore), basically saying that the two needed to go their separate ways. If this isn't a metaphor for Indian independence, I don't know what is. What's fascinating is that the film, either because of the source material, or because of internalized stereotypes of the filmmakers (which they apply to ALL the characters, in my opinion, not just the Indian characters), declined to explain "why" Melanie is reluctant, other than some throwaway generalizations about "Oriental" women. But I think when you watch a colonial narrative and come out respecting the non-colonial character the most (even if you don't understand her reasoning) ....when you come out feeling that the "exotic" female is in fact the reasonable female, that is worth noting. I'm not ready to pat the filmmakers on the back for it, as the actress might be responsible as much as the director. But I do think watching this film in hindsight is to see baby steps of decolonization taking place, steps one doesn't need to credit the filmmakers for, but can find significant nonetheless. 

This film as a whole is stuck in time, so of course it's natural to reduce it to story and universal themes and discount the objectionable treatment of people and place. Most people are going to feel uplifted by the cultural elements on display (Diwali, Radha's dance, river boatmen life) and never question what's missing (i.e. complexity, social problems, political life, individual and collective agency, etc. etc.). Like you said, "holes" everywhere. Obviously, I don't find it even remotely satisfying as a "cultural" narrative...the idea is laughable. Unfortunately, most people, like you say, will read it as a film masterpiece, and not only will NOT read its flaws and strengths from either a historical perspective or from post-colonial theory, but WILL be satisfied with it as a cultural narrative. That's the problem with mixing a little bit of someone else's culture into your message to make it more exciting and "universal."--and it's the bane of international cinema [rather than national cinema], in my opinion.