[ SECRET POST #4444 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #4444 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.



__________________________________________________



02.
[Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom]


__________________________________________________



03.
[Mary Skelter]


__________________________________________________



04.
[The Final Table, Charles and Rodrigo]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Altered Carbon]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Katie Perry/Orlando Bloom engagement]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Fandom: Fruits Basket]










Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 17 secrets from Secret Submission Post #636.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

1. Remember how during the feast in the palace, where all the rich people were, there was the representative of the British army? The British were on side with the ruling class not the starving people. this is the point I'm making.

2. I don't think you can say what the intention of that scene was. You could be right, or it could be like the other person suggested an attempt to scare of the meddling american, or it could simply be played for laughs. "Look at how gross this is, isn't it funny seeing that chick suffer with all this gross food" I think there's a lot of stereotypes in the movie, but I also think you're attributing way too much malice and ill intent to that scene.

[(Anonymous)]

Remember how during the feast in the palace, where all the rich people were, there was the representative of the British army?

Do you remember the parts of that scene where the chancellor guy is making digs at the British and saying the British like to check up on them and that it makes them feel like well-cared-for children? The British are *there*, but they're not on the same side, there's a lot of tension between them, and the British imperialists are ultimately right to be suspicious of the murder cult and save the day by shooting them. The movie does not portray the British the way you say it does. It makes a point of portraying the British and the upper classes at the palace not being on the same side.

I don't think you can say what the intention of that scene was.

No, I don't know what the intention was, but there is literally nothing in the way the scene plays out on screen to suggest that it's being done as a gotcha at the visiting tourists. So even if that was their intent, they fucked it up in a way that makes it seem exoticizing and racist. And it's not even the only scene in the movie portraying Indian food as exotic and disgusting!

[thewakokid]

Ofcourse, the british in that move are not on anyone's side but the British. this is not in dispute. But they are seen there in the luxury place with the other people who could be called the oppressors enjoying the finery while people are starving.

I'm not sure where your objection to this is "If the british aren't shown to be the only people benefiting from the oppression of the poor it's not real oppression?" seems to be the angle you're playing. Like remove the british officer from the film all together my initial point about how the indians are shown in two distinct groups one oppressed the other in opulence. The british in that film were the honour guests of the Maharaja, yes? The wealth was shown clearly to be divided between the oppressed and the wealthy ruling class, of which, yes, the british officer was a part.

[(Anonymous)]

I agree that there are two separate groups of Indian characters. My point is that the people in Pankot Palace are not presented as being evil because they're too influenced by the British, as you suggested. They're evil because they are reviving a specifically Indian murder cult. The British are present in the palace, but they're not on the same side as the Indians, and in fact the two groups are separate and opposed to each other.

So my point is that the movie portrays the Indians in the palace as evil, and it portrays their evil as specifically linked to Indian religion, culture, and history. The fact that it links their evil to anti-colonialism, and specifically makes the British colonial forces (who are presented as being distinct from either group of Indians) the good guy cavalry at the end, only compounds that problem.

[(Anonymous)]

Yes. When white people do human sacrifice in cinema (Wicker Man, 1973), it's presented as both very unusual and extremely fucked up.

When non-white people do it (King Kong, Temple of Doom, some versions of Tarzan, id put The Mummy on the list), that's just a part of their culture. And it's traditionally been such a cliche for "savages" to sacrifice damsels in distress that we even have idioms for it.