After our discussion on how the commodification of difference relies on the myth of discovery, I remembered a movie we studied in AAS pop culture.
The Guru(2002) follows an Indian man who travels to NYC to become a big star. However, he finds that it is not so easy (especially for an Indian male). He finally finds "success" in catering to the hegemonic demand for the exotic and mythical wisdom of the West's idea of Indian culture. While he knows his portrayal of "Swami Boo" (spelling?) is an inauthentic representation and a horrid continuation of the "Oriental" (a term referring to the West's commodification of the "Far East"), he finds it to be the only way to make it in America. His girlfriend (played by Tomei) eats it all up, as you can see from the trailers.
So let's take a look at both trailers. How are these marketed differently? One shows more of the storyline, but the other tends to make make fun of the cliche way in which movies tend to publicize mythical stories.
What can we gather from these trailers?
In terms of our class discussion, how is the commdification relying on the myth of discovery? Within the film and outside (in regards to us as the audience)? The characters are participating in this discovery of the "authentic", but how does this movie make fun of it? To go deeper, how does it continue it by appealing to mainstream audiences?
In terms of Ong, there is a shot of the main character being inspired by Grease. This is what inspires him to pursue stardom in America. How is the main character a hybrid? How can he be seen as flexible?
As authenticity is in a constant battle with culture being emergent, how does this movie tend to complicate it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that after seeing the trailers, it's easy to understand how marketable the myth of discovery while coaxed into a space of faux American discovery. It's amazing to me the ease with which people will accept these very comical and oftentimes unmerited versions of the exotic. The idea that simply because we haven't been to a place or explored the people residing there, that this shouldn't be a viable reason to make their culture or our perception of their culture a comedic journey to ethnic discovery. Amazingly, although the illustration of the Guru is one that acknowledges and consciously makes fun of its discovery of "indochic" culture, the fact that he could only make it in America via this cheap representation also speaks volumes of truth regarding the US and how we decide we want to see people.
ReplyDeleteI also feel that commodification is relying on the myth of discovery because it simply opens a space for the cheapness and lack of justification regarding the selling a certain aspect of a culture. In conjunction with that, it's also very easy to misrepresent something to everyone else who had didn't "discover" the item. We have no true, authentic way of actually seeing the object in its normal state or how we are supposed to be perceiving its purpose, hence the marketing and further commodification of this product is extremely unreliable.
This movie trailer reminds me of another movie the Madea series.People see this movie as a comedy, but not looking at it as a serious cultural background. Within these series you see the struggle of Black people who get through their lives with the spiritual aspect. But people only see how the Blacks are portrayed in the movie. It makes the society feel like this comedy is the authenicity of Black people the same in Guru. However, this is one way that ethnic groups can show flexibility and hybridity in media. It commodifies the on take of citizenship.
ReplyDeleteI'm a little sketchy on the myth of discovery. I'm sure pretty most everyone knows that India had existed prior to its (questionable) representation in our culture. Do people really think they are discovering something? Surely they can understand that it's new to them, while at the same time realizing that it has existed prior to their knowledge of it. Our discussion of this myth seems a bit superficial thusfar. What are the mechanisms underlying this myth? (I attempted to start answering this question in a comment on the previous post-blog, where I tried to connect this concept with the Marxist analysis of commodity.) Why have we latched onto this idea so quickly and easily appropriated it into our analytic toolbox?
ReplyDeleteThis reminds me of an opening quote at the start of "Next of Kin: The Family in Chicano/a Cultural Politics" by Richard T. Rodriguez. The quote was said by Harry Gamboa Jr., who claimed, "As Hollywood continues to shoot Chicanos, Chicanos will have to shoot right back." Even though "The Guru" does not deal with Chicanos, but with Indians instead, I think it is dealing with a similar situation. In the preview, one of the characters keeps stressing that people of Indian descent are not commonly seen in the media, and when they are these representations are not necessarily positive. He keeps on bringing up characters similar to Apu, perpetuating the stereotype that Indian people in the United States are supposed to be like that. I think that the movie is guilty of exploiting some Indian stereotypes, not just those of Indian-Americans, but of India in general. It seems to be satirizing Bollywood movies. But nevertheless, it is calling attention to the fact that this misrepresentation of Indian people does occur in the American media. Just as the quote says that as Chicano people can only combat misrepresentation in the media by creating their own, I think that the same holds true for various other cultures.
ReplyDeleteThis is a really interesting example to bring up for this class. At one level it does seem as if the film is trying to satirize the American propensity for romanticism and orientalism of the east - yet it is still relying on a mainstream representation of Indian culture. It is clear that the point of this film is humor rather than social commentary - and through humor it has eased the racial tensions that exist in mainstream culture - similar to the "Wassup Guys" advertisements. Even though there is a degree of satire in how the main character chooses to become famous, there is the idea that of course he knows how to dance and sing a certain way. In order to be successful as an Indian man he must depend on his cultural "otherness" to succeed.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the myth of discovery, I see it played out only in the background - well as far as I can tell from the previews. It is assumed that as a cultured individual, one MUST know about Indian culture. One employs it - this is shown in the party scene and in the scene where the main character is giving advice to clients. Knowledge and access to this culture, at this point, seems like a marker of privilege (think about the HUGE popularity of yoga). Yoga has certainly existed long before people started doing it in the states, but its "discovery" made it a hot commodity.
As we discussed last class when talking about the myth of discovery, authenticity and hybridity, we saw how mostly, if not everything is some type of hybrid. And this movie definitely shows that. In the first trailer, I got a glimpse of the story line where some of the characters discussed their concerns that it would be hard for the main character to achieve any type of success because he is Indian. He eventually gains attention and becomes a successful entertainer through his fusion of his own culture and American culture. This we see when he is dressed up in his cultures clothing but doing American dances such as dances that came from the movie Grease and the Macarena. In the second trailer, the way in which it is marketed and the movie clips used I think it goes back to one of our readings discussing the spectacle of the other and how someones otherness (in the guru’s case his culture) can be used as entertainment and thus becoming a valued commodity.
ReplyDeleteI think these trailers serve as great examples of “myth of discovery" because so many people buy into how a culture is supposed to act because of these unauthentic movies that are made that create these perceptions. However can you blame the consumer? They are merely watching and interpreting the message to be true because what reason have they been given not to? The Indian culture is not the first culture to be mad a mockery of and won’t be the last. As Antionette stated the Tyler Perry “Medea Films” are highly misunderstood …but that is life.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching both trailers one can clearly see the difference between each video. I can see how the myth of discovery is represented. And I also can see the commodification of the culture. I questioned if the term used above "oriental" is a word that was created here in America from a myth of discovery. Meaning that when this word was created individuals were feeling that they had discovered a new culture and named it that because of the impression that they received. And as I movie representing this culture in such a manner it is giving the audience a false image and perception of what the culture actually is.
ReplyDeleteWow...what a huge difference between the 2 trailers for this movie. TO be totally honest, the 1st one makes me believe that this movie was actually made by Indians, but the 2nd one makes me think (and agree) that it is making fun of ht Indian culture and the Bollywood phenomenon. I think because of this movie, we have other movies like The Love Guru starring Mike Meyers as an Indian who is a love doctor and sex expert. This myth of discovery concept is really being emphasized in this movie, or at least in the 2nd trailer.
ReplyDeleteIt is really unfortunate that a lot of Americans think that all Indians in these films are dancing, even Slumdog Millionaire was guilty of making fun of Bollywood films. Even the history of gurus themselves is distorted, for they are known for having a lot of knowledge in different areas, but when it comes to the meaning of a guru in film, we always think they know about sex (karma sutra).
I feel like the movie is perpetuating some of the stereotype people have of people from India. I agree with Sam this does remind me of the “Wassup Guys” commercial in regards to its satrizism. The way that these commercials are marketed is through what they commodify.
ReplyDelete