Wes Anderson: the ultimate heartbreaker

by guest contributor Thea, originally published at Shameless Blog

Have you ever woken up one morning and suddenly realised that an old and cherished friend doesn’t care about you or anything you represent, and actually either ignores or caricatures your existence?

Well, neither have I. But too many times I’ve realised that a director (or musician or writer or artist…) that I love like a friend actually creates art that exoticises, fetishises, or all out erases who I am.

I’ve managed to recover from the horror of finding that much of the music I used to like is grossly sexist, (see our little blurb about Jessica Hopper’s famous article on emo music here) but I’m still working on getting over my ex-friend Wes Anderson.

Before I identified as a woman of colour and started applying anti-oppression criticism to every inch of pop culture I could get my hands on, I loved Wes Anderson. But in my grand old age, I can’t excuse the racist caricatures that populate all of his movies.

Like Pagoda, the cute little Indian man in the Royal Tenenbaums (who also appears in Bottle Rocket and Rushmore) who exists solely to do Royal’s bidding, and has an adorable lack of morality. Or the slew of characters of colour - the Brazilian David Bowie (played by Seu Jorge who actually has quite an illustrious film and recording career); Vikram Ray, whose character’s main feature is that he was “born on the Ganges”; the Filipino pirates - in The Life Aquatic.

Characters of colour in Anderson’s films are always caricatures, hilariously exotic. Anderson uses “race as a novelty”, says salon.com, “suggesting an assertively white-kid view of the world.”

These characters are funny not because of their personalities or life situations - unlike Anderson’s white characters - but solely because they’re brown. It’s like Anderson is saying, “The pirates are Filipino! How hilarious is that??” Needless to say, I don’t get the joke.

As if that isn’t bad enough, Anderson also uses Asian cultures to demonstrate just how educated and well-travelled he is. It’s like the movie equivalent of “Some of my best friends are Laotian” and “I went backpacking in Vietnam.” The master of in-joke filmmaking, Anderson’s brown characters are like an inside joke for urban hipsters who’ve visited Little India a few times.

While Anderson devotees have brushed off criticisms of characters like Pagoda as being minor, and few and far between, it seems like things are about to get a lot worse:

Last week, Anderson’s new film The Darjeeling Limited opened. The film is the story of three American brothers who travel to India together after their father dies. Maybe I’m being prematurely judgemental, but the Darjeeling Limited looks suspiciously like “Pagoda: The Movie.”

It’s this that really gets my back up about the Darjeeling Limited:

This is what really breaks my heart: Wes’ track record with women of colour. Anderson just loves pairing women of colour up with dorky white dudes, shortly after dorky white dudes have been dumped or rejected by white ladies. Even though Rushmore’s Margaret Yang is the fullest of all of Wes’ colour characters, she is still paired up with the loveable/hateable Max after Ms Cross turns him down. It’s the same story with Inez, the lovely Latin American hotel cleaner in Bottle Rocket.

Once upon a time, when it was illegal in Canada for non-white men to marry white women (incidentally it was only in the 60’s that those laws were repealed both in the US and Canada), I imagine images of interracial relationships were radical statements. But these days, you can’t swing a cat in urban North America without stumbling across some form of cultural appropriation.

The interracial relationships in Anderson’s films are not radical. They simply reinforce racism’s most current and insidious form - they take cultural appropriation to the ultimate level by appropriating actual women of colour, a la Gwen Stefani.

In the words of Racialicious.com, Darjeeling Limited (and, according to me, aspects of all of Anderson’s films) looks like it falls into “the time-honored genre of White People Working Out Their Issues Against an Exotic Backdrop.” Still, I’d like to say for the record that I don’t think Anderson consciously sets out to reduce his non-white characters to ridiculous stereotypes, who are used only to enhance his white characters, and never allowed to stand on their own.

But the fact that the only role that people of colour can have in his movies are as sexual fantasies, sidekicks or deeply insulting cartoons suggests that, consciously or subconsciously, Anderson doesn’t think that much of real life people of colour. And between you and me, I’m not sure mine and Wes’ friendship can withstand that.

I know I sound bitter. But it’s hard to get over such a betrayal. As a liberal arts student in the early ‘00s with a tendency towards hipsterism, I adored Wes’ movies. At 17 I sneaked into Rushmore, at 19 I memorised all the dialogue to Bottle Rocket, and at 20 The Royal Tenenbaums pulled me out of an extended case of the blues, and maybe, just maybe, preventing me from dropping out of university.

Anderson’s beautifully filmed and bizarre characters, who somehow made madness, dysfunctional families and alienation seem not only manageable but funny, were like friends who reminded me that I wasn’t alone. There were many times that Anderson’s movies comforted me with the message that yes, everyone gets lonely, and yes, there are still reasons to live through it. It was like Wes really got me.

But here’s the thing about Wes Anderson: he positions himself as an outsider, and his protagonists are always outsiders, painfully awkward and deeply deficient in social skills but also desperately seeking love (and you will notice that his white characters are capable of longing for love in a much more profound way than his characters of colour will ever acheive). But at the end of the day, what is so outsider about Wes? He’s an extremely succesful, wealthy, white dude. That’s not to say that rich white dudes can’t ever feel alienated. But to position yourself as an outsider, while making art that ensures that people of colour are truly outside, is obscenely fake.

There’s few things more horrible in pop culture than discovering that someone who let you inside is actually determined to keep you outside. Does anybody else have sob stories of artists they revered, who turned out to be total, oppressive jerks?

My mum always tells me to stay away from toxic friendships. In that vein, I’m not even sure I’m going to rent The Darjeeling Limited.

Wes, don’t even try to Facebook me. It’s time we both accepted it: it’s over.

Update!: Ooo, look, slate.com agrees with me. Read this great critique of Anderson’s upper-class white characters and working class characters of colour here.

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. del.icio.us bookmarks for October 7th through October 8th : episcopophagous on 08 Oct 2007 at 7:52 pm

    […] Wes Anderson: the ultimate heartbreaker at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture - none […]

  2. Give Wes a Break « Matt Zeitlin: Impetuous Young Whippersnapper on 11 Oct 2007 at 4:13 pm

    […] been reading a lot of criticism of Wes Anderson — ranging from calling him a fascist to saying that his minority and female characters are hallow caricatures.  While I’ll leave dealing […]

  3. least favorites « the truth and the way on 15 Oct 2007 at 4:09 pm

    […] 15, 2007 · Filed under Uncategorized i hadnt made the connection until i read this sweet post that the same director has made many of my least favorite movies. just the preview for wes […]

  4. Cricket In The Movies « Ducking Beamers: A Cricket Blog on 25 Oct 2007 at 11:07 am

    […] Limited,” and a friend of mine even insists that it’s nothing more than another white man’s attempt to fetishize India and its supposed “spirituality.” Actually, a lot of people think […]

  5. how to handle celebrities: a posh d. case study at Poshdeluxe on 25 Oct 2007 at 3:47 pm

    […] of wes anderson and the whole “race” issue, i found this article and this article particularly […]

  6. The Only Guy Who Will Make You Swing « Romperesque: of or related to running or playing in a lively, carefree, or boisterous manner on 26 Oct 2007 at 11:22 pm

    […] stop listening to this particularly catchy ditty, c/o Bollywood. Keep all exoticized and fetishized comments to […]

Comments

  1. ottermatic wrote:

    Great critique! You really pegged some of what’s bugged me about Wes Anderson that I was previously unable to put my finger on. As I was reading this, I could imagine my white, male Wes Anderson-fan friends getting very defensive, which makes me think you are right on target.

  2. christine wrote:

    “I’m not even sure I’m going to rent The Darjeeling Limited.” –> have you not seen the movie??

    i see a lot of your points and agree with you on many levels, but i think it would be more productive to SEE the movie before you critique it at all (especially if you’ll be attacking/labeling it as racist).

    one particular part of the movie that troubled me similarly is the part where the brothers rescue small indian boys from dangerous rapids. then they return to the boys’ village (no need to spoil by saying why). i was going to ask what you thought about this part of the movie, but there is no point if you have not seen it.

  3. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

    Hey Christine, I understand your point about a critiquing a movie Thea hasn’t seen yet, but I see this post as more of a critique of Anderson’s overall body of work than this particular film.

    Also, I don’t want to speak for Thea, but it seems to me that part of what she’s saying is that she has endured so many of these racist caricatures and POCs-as-props in his films, that Darjeeling seems to be the last straw. Thus, her lack of interest in even watching it.

  4. Paul wrote:

    Great essay. Now, prepare for a barrage of Andersonians posting about how he’s not really racist. Pointing out the inherent racism in his filsm seems to bother the beejesus out his Downtown hipster apostles.

  5. laurajanine wrote:

    I have been saying this about Wes Anderson for years. For me, the easiest rubric to judge a filmmaker’s treatment of race (or class or gender or sexuality or disability or any oppression) is the idea of interiority–do the characters of color/women/non-rich people have an inner life, do they have relationships with each other, or are they just there to prop up the white people/dudes/rich people/people without disabilities/etc? The answer from Anderson’s films is clear to me. One only needs to read the synopsis of the Darjeeling Express to make an accurate prediction about the film’s treatment of race. Hipsters who are on about Anderson’s films talk about how different and special the films (and, really the hipsters themselves) are, but really–they espouse more of the same. I think brown people should have broken up with him years ago, but bad relationships sometimes take longer to end–I applaud your patience in giving him several chances to make change.

  6. Katie wrote:

    Reading the comments section on the Slate.com article made me depressed.

    Thea, thanks for laying it out so clearly.

  7. Mini wrote:

    I agree with some of the points of this post but not all of them. I think it’s important not to confuse the viewpoint of the characters with those of the director. I think the fact that Margaret Yang is Max’s second choice reflects Max’s bigotry and delusions of grandeur, and also struck a chord with me as an Asian woman. The audience is not supposed to agree with Max’s decisions. On the other hand, the “Pagoda” character is offensive, no doubt about that.
    As a longtime Seu Jorge fan, I was thrilled to see him in the Life Aquatic. I don’t think that film was making fun of him in any manner, in fact the film gave him an enormous platform to promote his music build his audience in the US. There’s a lot that can be debated about the content of the film, but the soundtrack really is lovely.

  8. Fatemeh wrote:

    Thea, excellent analysis. I am really ambivalent about Andersen’s movies, because I want to like them, but there’s something wrong about them that I could never really put my finger on. Thanks for giving words to my ambiguous gut feeling.

  9. Katie wrote:

    Also, laurajanine - you are right on.

  10. lavalady wrote:

    Wow! What a great (re)view of Anderson’s work and how non-white actors are used in it. I’ve always had a love/hate relationship with his films because of this. When I watch them, I am painfully aware that this outsider “we” he is speaking to doesn’t *really* include me. I’d be one of the two-dimensional tragicomic coloured people in it. Still, fantastic soundtracks!

    I’ll probably rent this one, but not for a long while. I’m guessing it will take a year to forget what a bad friend Wes can be, or I’ll pretend I’ve forgotten, and I’ll watch it and weep.

  11. Bianca Reagan wrote:

    Preach the word, Thea.

  12. Anna wrote:

    Your critiques are spot-on and like you, I’m really disappointed…I was really looking forward to The Darjeeling Limited. And you’re so right about Anderson using women of color as a rebound (he posted a prologue to Darjeeling on iTunes and it’s Jason Schwartzman’s character reconciling a messy break-up.) I just wrote a post on how racist 30 Rock is when it comes to Tracy Jordan and now, this. Everything I like is tainted.

  13. amory wrote:

    The ugly realization you’re writing about is totally familiar to me, especially in regard to two people: Wes Anderson and Amy Sedaris. And for the record, Wes knows he’s reducing people of color to stereotypes. Just listen to his director’s commentary on Rushmore. It’s so depressing.

  14. tasha wrote:

    Mini, “Max’s” biggotry”? What kind of biggotry, racial? In this case, I don’t think race had anything to do with it. To me, Margaret Yang wasn’t Max’s second choice because she was Asian and the school teacher, White. Yang was Max’ second choice because she was just another high school girl and therefore easily attainable. The school teacher was older, being pursued by the wealthy Bill Murray character, and a taboo of sorts, because it was unethical to be with her since she was teaching at his school. Max being Max, of course he would find her desireable. Margaret is vindicated at the end of the film, when Max comes to his senses and sees the value of Margaret and being with “just another high school girl.” If you really want to see a film where Asian women play second fiddle, rent “Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle.”

  15. Ron wrote:

    Tell me something I don’t know.

  16. iamnotStarJones wrote:

    I loved The Royal Tenenbaums and adored The Life Aquatic but refused to feel the movies too deeply because otherwise I would get pissed and frustrated for exactly the same reasons described in your post.

    I won’t be seeing The Twee Limited because there’s no reason for me to lie anymore about who Wes is and what someone like me (non hipster black woman) represents in his cinematic universe.

    Same reason why I had to give up Woody Allen films.

  17. Sarah wrote:

    Umm…I think I’m going to have to watch the movie before making any conclusions.

  18. Alexandra wrote:

    I know exactly what you mean over the sense of betrayal. A director I thought I liked, and yet I knew something was amiss with the way he portrayed people of color…and I, being while, had the privilege to not notice it if I didn’t want to so I could enjoy what I liked about Wes Anderson films. But I can’t bury my eyes anymore.

  19. gatamala wrote:

    I am not star I feel the same about TRT & TLA.

    I didn’t even attempt to enjoy Woody Allen.

  20. lemure wrote:

    While I’ve never seen a Wes Anderson movie in its entirety I’ve seen enough to know I don’t like any. However, I’m not surprised by this.

    I’ve spent enough time living with, observing, reading hipster culture to know for all its “p.c.’ness” there is no place for people of color. We are objects of “ironic” humor, exotic sexual stereotypes and “some of my best friend are (insert culture here)” exhortations. I lived in Bushwick & Williamsburg, the epicenter of hipsterdom, trust me.

  21. Thea wrote:

    Wow! It’s so gratifying and thrilling to hear that so many people feel the same unease and disappointment around Anderson’s movies. In some circles I run in, it seems like a sin to badmouth directors like Wes Anderson (and Woody Allen and Amy Sedaris…) so thanks Racialicious for giving us a safe space!

    Sometimes I think there should be support groups for POCs who’ve had brushes with hipsterism/scensterism. There’s many things about the scene that are attractive, and the fact that like Wes, the whole scene positions itself as counter-cultural and outsidery can make it seem like a possible space for POCs. But it’s so dominated by classism, cultural appropriation and an obliviously white worldview, that it can be such a toxic environment for POCs or white anti-racist allies.

    Christine - I mentioned that I hadn’t seen Darjeeling Limited and wasn’t even going to rent it because I wanted to be clear that I wasn’t able to critique it fully. As Carmen said (thanks Carmen!) it was more a comment on Anderson’s body of work than the particular movie - which I just can’t bring myself to see.

    As laurajanine pointed out, bad relationships sometimes take a long time to end…and I’m trying not to relapse.

    Mini - when critiquing directors (or any kind of artist) on the basis of their characters, I find it helpful to ask whether or not a director is simply representing a way of life, or endorsing it.

    [For example, I really liked the movie Superbad despite the fact that a lot of the dialogue used is obviously offensive. This is because the language is used more in a way to give realism to the film (as, unfortunately, that is how lots of real American teenage boys talk), rather than to make the audience laugh, or to suggest that talking in that way makes a person cool or desirable - though feel free to challenge me on that!]

    Even if we’re not supposed to agree with everything Max does, I really feel he is chosen as the character that we are meant to identify with, and root for. In that sense who he is, is endorsed by Anderson, not just displayed.

  22. deb wrote:

    I’m out of the loop; I’ve never seen any of his films. What’s more, the name Wes Craven comes up when I read this.

    But I wonder if back in his youth he was the kinda guy that would attend a Halloween party dressed up as a parody of a [insert ethnic type here] and see no harm in doing so?

  23. Alex wrote:

    Sorry if this might be off topic, but I’m not quite familiar with Woody Allen or his work, other than that he had the hots for his adopted daughter. A quick Google search hasn’t yielded anything in relation to the conversation. Can someone PLEASE give me the low down on Woody? I said please in bold. I’m a good person.

  24. laurajanine wrote:

    “Sometimes I think there should be support groups for POCs who’ve had brushes with hipsterism/scensterism.”

    I’d be a member of that one. I’m a recovering hipster. One day at a time. Keep coming back.

  25. squidfly wrote:

    Whoever controls the language, the images, controls the race. - Allen Ginsberg

  26. Katie wrote:

    Recovering hipsters unite! I’ll host first meeting of the support group.

  27. gandalf mantooth wrote:

    Funny you mention that Slate piece. The last paragraph is the killer when it drags in the Coppola kids. Except for Coppola (who managed to use an entire city and culture as a prop), you can see these privledged, zanax addled artists wrestling with race (or at least taking a moment or two to contemplate things). Some have viewed the world through posh hotel room windows and big screen TVs. I think there is little intentional contempt with this lot. They need a reality check.

    On RUSHMORE: It’s been my suspicion that Max was given an Asian girfriend only in service of the film’s climax. The film would have not been different save that play production had Max had a White gf.

    ROYAL: Glover’s character exists to show what a cad Hackman’s character is. Not only is he mean, but he’s a racist! A racist with a heart of gold!

    Despite all that, Anderson’s developed a great track record with only a handful of films. It’s generally agreed that DL is a slip-up, or by some that he’s showing the limits of his thematic world.

    In some circles I run in, it seems like a sin to badmouth directors like Wes Anderson (and Woody Allen and Amy Sedaris…) so thanks Racialicious for giving us a safe space!

    I’m on a film critic’s ML, and introducing race into a critique, unless patently obvious (or brought up by a White guy) is thought of as bad form. Perhaps that’s why you’re feeling resistance to Anderson critiques.

  28. sk wrote:

    Speaking of The Royal Tenenbaums, the Indian actor played a character called Pagoda. I’m Indian and I can honestly say that I know of no Indian called ‘Pagoda”. The movie had some decent bits, but it’s obvious Wes Anderson put the little old brown man in there only because he was cute and quaint.

    I haven’t seen The Darjeeling Limited but even the train looks fake, from what I saw in the previews. The trains in India are mostly a dull blue or a dull brown-take your pick!

    However, I do want to watch the movie just so that I can be prepared for the “Do they REALLY do x/y/z in India?” questions.

  29. Roxie wrote:

    :(

    Can I still love Jason Schwartzman?

  30. Daniel Webster wrote:

    He’s just a newly pubescent boy. That’s the real issue. He sees the world through those glasses. This is in NO way an apology for his simplistic (read WHITEY) view of race. Just look at all of his work thus far. He’s just an 8th grader trying to make mature “cinema”.

  31. instafaggot wrote:

    Artists have a moral right to their point of view. They are not accountable to any ideology, including political correctness. The analysis in this post is shallow, cruel, unfair, and clueless.

  32. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Insta -

    Artists are subject to criticism. It’s the trade off for being able to create. A critique such as this is vital to understanding art & culture.

  33. Derrick wrote:

    As an upwardly-mobile caucasian man, I was really offended when SOUL PLANE didn’t have any white people in the lead roles! I fly 70k miles a year and I have never, ever seen a brother in the cockpit! Bad casting! Bad casting!

    And just think, the plot line of GUESS WHO’S COMING TO DINNER could’ve been greatly simplified if Sidney Poitier and Isabelle Sanford were white. Spencer Tracy wouldn’t have drank as much and he wouldn’t have hit that car at the drive-in restaurant.

  34. deb wrote:

    I fly 70k miles a year and I have never, ever seen a brother in the cockpit!

    I’ve heard white antiracism activist Tim Wise tell the story of his reaction to being onboard an airplane that had not one but TWO black pilots! “‘Oh my God, can these guys fly this thing?’ He knew that this reaction didn’t come from either his upbringing or his intellect, both of which told him it was false. Yet still, the notion had somehow become embedded in his subconscious.”

    His telling of it comes off as funny, yet pathetic. :(

  35. gatamala wrote:

    Sometimes I think there should be support groups for POCs who’ve had brushes with hipsterism/scensterism. There’s many things about the scene that are attractive, and the fact that like Wes, the whole scene positions itself as counter-cultural and outsidery can make it seem like a possible space for POCs. But it’s so dominated by classism, cultural appropriation and an obliviously white worldview, that it can be such a toxic environment for POCs or white anti-racist allies.

    I c&p’ed this because it bears repeating. I KNEW I wasn’t crazy. Just because you wear horn-rimmed glasses, a vintage tee, hate George Bush, backpacked in Surinam and dig up the most obscure remixes does NOT mean you get me.

    SK ~I’m Indian and I can honestly say that I know of no Indian called ‘Pagoda”.

    I was thinking about this last night! Pagoda! For Chrissake at least TRY.

  36. heidi wrote:

    hey, i love wes anderson as much as the next jaded teen. however, i think it’s naive to consume any text without critical exmination.

    by using an anti-oppressive perspective, we are able to critically look at how meanings are created & sustained in our society. one cannot refute that the emerging indie hipster scene is dominated by bougie, white men such as wes anderson. within this culture, people of colour are solely allowed to exist as “tokens.” they are 2-dimensional beings & their race acts as their single defining feature.

    “irony” as a tool for social change is ineffective. it only perpetuates binary identies & concepts of the “other” used strictly for entertainment value.
    i don’t think it’s wrong to watch these texts, but it’s how you participate in sustaining these oppressive meanings.

    i always look forward to yr blogs!
    keep it up thea!
    heidi

  37. daria wrote:

    I’m disappointed because you’re right. I read this yesterday and gave it some thought. I have to agree. I’ve only watched Bottle Rocket and Royal Tenenbaums. RT is/was one of my favorite movies and it had a profound effect on me. I didn’t like BR at all so I didn’t pay much attention. There was something very unsettling about the character of Pagoda which I eventually overlooked it because of the Ben Sherman character.

  38. Leah Lakshmi Piepzna wrote:

    thea, you’re a genius. more. please!

  39. sam c wrote:

    i can understand how it’s a little disconcerting to have non-white people always play the subservient roles in Anderson films. In fact, I’d say that I agree with you in that regard. but I really don’t think that Anderson includes non-white people just to show that he’s down with them. He includes them because they’re interesting characters. The Seu Jorge turn in life aquatic added interesting background texture, and made for some great music as well.

    I also disgreed with “Anderson also uses Asian cultures to demonstrate just how educated and well-traveled he is.” If you’d have actually seen the movie, you’d understand that he mocking the idea that these characters could travel to India to find themselves. This was evident by the way he portrayed their mother, who used the path to enlightenment as a means of escape.

    Also, if you’d seen the film, you would’ve also realized that Anderson used the three Indian boys (who I believe were brothers, though I guess it was not explicitly stated) to expose the main character’s arrested development and to provide them a catharsis.

    And the Rita character did have interior life. She was stuck in this stifling relationship that she couldn’t break out of, forced out of desperation to sleep with assholes such as the Swartzman character.

    In conclusion, I think the point of many of Anderson’s protagonists is how lost they are, and many of their assumptions of race are symptoms of that confusion, and I think Anderson is aware of that. I think it’s a bit disingenuous to not take that into account.

  40. AC wrote:

    Eh, what’s the big deal? Isn’t almost every single films by white Hollywood directors the same way? Since I find all his films boring and without depth, the overt racism is of little surprise. “PAGODA?” Gimme a friggin break. Just another Hollywood-type telling a white-centric story to a white audience.

    As an Asian living in Seattle, I can tell you first hand how I was deeply scarred by hanging out with the city’s racist “liberal elite”. It has been clear to me that both Conservatives Liberals are both racist; one openly hates minority while the other patronize the minority by believing POCs needed saving by good-hearted white people. Sometimes I can only look at the both ends of this racist political mainstream and just sigh.

  41. Akhila wrote:

    Great article, and I think you’re spot on about Wes Anderson’s use of people of color as a means for shameless self-aggrandizement. That being said, some of what he comments on is…well, true. Anyone who has lived in New York for more than 6 months can tell you that the dweebiest white boys are always with the most striking women of color. Is it self-hatred? Or ignorance? I doubt it. My feeling is that sometimes women of color really revel in being exoticized. Maybe it’s the power he gives her over him, or maybe she just likes someone appreciating her culture as much as she does. Either way, the dorky jewish boy meets exotic brown girl is nothing new in the real world, and I can’t really fault Wes Anderson for pointing that out.

  42. Manish wrote:

    I’ve seen the movie, and it actually takes great pains to put the Indian woman in charge of the fling, tip its hat to Renoir’s Indian movie ‘The River’ (it’s not just a save-the-natives scene), empower Waris Ahluwalia the train attendant, and laugh long and hard at Western tourists coming for New Age spirituality.

    India is merely a stage set because all of Anderson’s movies are about the characters, with the background a mere distraction (see his AT&T ads for a more literal interpretation of this).

    More here:

    http://www.ultrabrown.com/posts/white-tea

  43. Josh wrote:

    You’re grasping at straws. This is shody analysis, at best. You’re cherry-picking to bolster your argument. You’re reading A LOT into Anderson’s use of some racial minorities in minor roles without paying any attention to the central role that other racial minorities play in the films. Your analysis makes me wonder whether we were watching the same movies. Notably, many of the the biggest assholes/antagonists in each of the films happen to be white American men (Futureman and Mr. Henry in Bottlerocket… Max, Bloom, and the shitty twin sons in Rushmore… Royal TennnenBaum and Owen Wilson’s character in The Royal Tennenbaums… Steve Zissuou in Life Aquatic). You conveniently ignore all that. By the way, Anthony is not a a dorky white guy in BottleRocket. As the so-called crazy one, he ends up being the most sensitive, caring, and normal of the bunch… and he falls in love with a beautiful latina. The scenes involving Inez happen to be some of the most tender and touching moments in the film. Royal Tennenbaum was a bigot and hated the fact that his ex-wife was with a black man. But he is in no way portrayed in a positive light. He is a fool. At the end of the film, he has an epiphany and attempts to right the many wrongs in his life, and expressly acknowledges what a bigoted asshole he had been.

  44. Thea wrote:

    Hi Josh, my point wasn’t that Anderson makes white folks look good while all his POCs look evil. It was more that POCs in his movies have two-dimensional personalities, with no apparent motivations apart from what their white counterparts want.

    In the case of the men of colour in his films, this plays out in that the men are sidekicks or figurative mirrors to illuminate a white character, and in the case of women of colour, this plays out in how they are the solution to Anderson’s white male character’s romantic ailments.

    Both Royal and Max are very dislikeable characters, but at the same time they are intensely likeable. The audience wants them to find love and be okay. They’re just two examples of how excellent Anderson is at creating characters that are complex, and that express how complicated human interaction is. I just wish that he would cast some people of colour in the complicated roles, instead of always making them play the part of caricatures.

    Manish and Sam C - I hope that your positive reviews of Darjeeling Limited are accurate! As I tried to make clear in the original post I haven’t seen the movie, and my critique applies to Anderson’s body of work and themes of race in his film, rather than DL itself.

  45. Tony Mendocino wrote:

    I am huge fan of Wes. I would put Rushmore on the list of my favorite all-time films.

    Unfortunately, I see exactly what the authors are saying here. As a white male, I could choose to ignore these issues, because we are not expected by the larger society to care. I really wish Anderson, who is one of the best directors of real films, challenged this reality. there is alot of crap films being made these days - dumb sappy schlock that was written to move merchandise, or numb the masses so they’ll accept the dumbass antics of craven politicians. Wes rises above that, and I love him for that.

    But of he really wants to be part of the artistic community that moves society forward, rather than maintain the status quo, he needs to acknowledge that the world around him should be part of his life, not merely a pretty, non-thereatening backdrop.

    And all you dudes defending Wes for this - come on, this is not the place for sycophantic defensiveness. Face the facts - our artistic heroes are flawed, in one way or another. Syd Barrett chose drugs over human interaction. Ian Curtis chose to end his life rather than face the great challenges that he may have overcome. You can love someone, and what they create, and still point out where they can grow.

    this article does just that, and I salute it.

  46. aswon wrote:

    Your review is absurd. Suggesting an artist be politically correct boring censorship. Have you ever seen Indian Bollywood films? Would you call them racist?

    ‘These characters are funny not because of their personalities or life situations - unlike Anderson’s white characters - but solely because they’re brown.”

    I could not disagree more. Even the minor characters have depth. If you had seen the film you are reviewing you might get it, but I doubt it. You want to see the things and characters in a way that is very limited, dull, and pompous.

    p.s. Jewish people are not white.

  47. aswon wrote:

    You describe the characters as ‘Dorky white dudes’.

    Isn’t that the kind of flat stereotyping you are mad at Wes Anderson for?

  48. deb wrote:

    Just got an email from an Indian student in the MPA program here inviting his cohort to see a “great movie” about travelling through India.

    Guess he didn’t get the memo.

  49. CMAC wrote:

    Really? So your big problem with Anderson isn’t that he’s a derivative hack, it’s that he’s a racist? Seems pulling your cinematic palate out of the gutter should be of more urgent concern than poking holes in Anderson’s approach to the Bennetton rainbow.

    Not that your observation isn’t on the mark. Anderson’s cinematic voice is that of the privileged suburban white boy undergrad (film major) trying to rep his Austin (or Williamsburg, or Silverlake) indie cred by backpacking across a landscape of non-suburban-USA cultural memes. Which is fine if you’re, say… 22. But he’s been stuck in this mode since the mid-1990s, never growing out of that phase we (suburban USA white kids) all go through (and hopefully move past) of thinking we’re smarter (oh, and more worldly) than our parents because we’ve watched a few Bollywood movies and have ingested the arrogant pedantry of oh, say Chomsky.

    But as others (e.g. salon) have pointed out, that’s Anderson’s perspective because he is what he is. He sees the world through suburban white boy tinted glasses just as you see the world through your own “woman of colour” hewed specs. Pretty presumptuous to assert that your goggles are the “right” ones and Anderson’s the “wrong” ones, but whatever. Racism – which by the way can be HILARIOUS if handled properly — is the least of Anderson’s offenses. I call him to task for being a mediocre-to-bad filmmaker. Sure his non-white characters are simple and cartoonish, but duh, so are ALL of his characters. And there hasn’t been a shred on substance in a frame he’s shot since BOTTLEROCKET… or maybe ever. Irony aplenty, but substance zilch. He’s like Radiohead, or those nasty black-plastic-framed glasses. He’s a circa 2002 attempt at pimping one’s MySpace page into some semblance of hipster credibility.

    So is Anderson a racist? Maybe, probably not, but even if he is, he’s not a very good one. But so what? I’m all for cutting Wes Anderson down a few notches, but please… do it for the right reasons. It’s like saying the food is bad at Red Lobster because the one of the line cooks has a White Power tattoo.

  50. Anton wrote:

    Wes is just writing what he knows. He’s an awkward white guy who grew up going to an elitist prep-school in Houston. This has been the case for many great story-tellers for the past few centuries, Twain, Voltaire, Vonnegut. This frustrates me because how are we supposed to write outside of the sub-cultures we exist in? What about in films where the writer and director are not upper-class white people. What about their characatures of snobby-whites? What is the difference?

  51. Glenn wrote:

    I still like Wes Anderson films. I think it’s OK for a White Guy to write screenplays primarily about White Guys. It’s what he knows best. But, you know, I’m a huge fan of Hemingway, too. I’m a lost cause.

  52. AJ wrote:

    disclosure: I’m a person of mixed-race and a communications graduate (who hated the ivory tower world of comms theory). I went to school at the height of the political correctness wars on campus (early 90s) and this article reminds me why I hated that time — the correct impulse, to promote a progressive worldview, was being stifled by a generation of kids who felt entitled to speak before listening, and to cry for censorship whenever they encountered something that challenged the embryonic worldview formed from their limited life experience. Everyone discovers politics in first-year university and everyone goes through the same phases of kneejerk reactions to things, and one would hope that by graduation they would broaden their worldview and jettison the doctrinaire thinking. Obviously, however, this isn’t the case.

    I’m not going to say that Wes Anderson is the World’s Best Filmmaker or anything, but he has a strikingly clear voice and style and his movies do not wrap everything up in a neat little consumer package for you. I like his films, but I don’t have to find them perfect or have them agree with my worldview in order to do so.

    It’s like being able to appreciate Miles Davis’ music while still being able to acknowledge that he was really horrible to the women in his relationships. One does not excuse the other, but also, neither can you judge his art by how he lived. If we want our artists to be constantly socially acceptable, we might as well just make art by committee; and you know what the results of that would be.

    Anderson is white. Most of his lead characters are white, so I suppose to some extent he’s writing about what he knows. As an artist, he’s not obliged to do anything except follow his own vision and try to deliver something that contains meaning and touches the audience. I think he does that admirably.

    However — as someone sensitive to the issues of not just being a racial minority, but the often odd attitudes of and about white people and the issue of race — I cannot agree with your conclusions. By no means does he use any of the people of colour in his films in a meanspirited fashion. If anything, they serve to show how clueless or mixed-up the lead characters are.

    Sure, maybe they don’t have a lot of depth, but you know what? They’re not *supposed* to. The very definition of background is something two-dimensional. They’re not called ‘infinite depth-of-field characters’, after all. And if these 2-dimensional characters were white - as they might be in any of 100 other movies you can name - would we even be having this discussion?

  53. Paul wrote:

    Wow, Actually when you think about Mr. Anderson is also sexist, none of his female characters have deep backgound stories, most are simply an object of attraction for the white male leads, also the elderly seem to be simply cartoons, i.e. Max’s father in Rushmore whose quirkiness is just like any other stereotyped “grandpa-type”. Also hes got something against Scotsmen, a la Rushmore. That bastard relegating his secondary characters to the background!

  54. James Jonas wrote:

    Why is it that anyone who likes Wes Anderson’s work is automatically labeled a hipster? As a Mexican male living in Mexico I fail to see why I should be lumped with a small sub-group of white males living in the Williamsburg/Greenpoint area of Brooklyn.

    That annoyance aside, I must say I really can’t agree with your post. The reasons why have been stated in some of the preceding posts (#s 43,49,52). I can’t help but think that much of the criticisms being leveled towards Anderson are a result of the baggage being brought to the movie by the viewer with no thought or consideration given to the context. For instance, much is made about Pagoda being a terrible caricature of an Indian man in The Royal Tennenbaums. And if you see this character in isolation I might be able to understand that feeling. However, Kumar Pallana, who plays the character, is a friend of Wes Anderson from the time before he became a director and has been playing small roles in every Wes Anderson film since Bottle Rocket (which was actually the first film he was ever in). The fact that he is playing the character of Pagoda is more a case of neoptism than it is of Wes Anderson trying to create a caricature of all Indians. As another post mentioned, Anderson tends to pick his actors based on how interesting they are and what they bring to the film even if they are only meant to be a small background player. When I watch these films I honestly think that race tends to be rather incidental to the character. Although I haven’t watched it, it seems like The Darjeeling Limited is a story about three brothers going on a trip to find themselves. Why India? Probably because the writers of the film (Anderson, Shwartzman, and Roman Coppola) were interested in India and thought that it would be a perfect place to set a movie in which their main characters are in search for spiritual enlightenment. If that’s sort of the idea of the movie, I don’t think a trip through the American Southwest is going to cut it. So, why aren’t people of color playing bigger roles in Anderson’s movies? Is it because he is racist? Or is simply that as a filmmaker he is creating main characters that are closely related to what his own experiences might be and populates the film with background characters of all type which usually will also include “people of color”.

  55. eric wrote:

    re: 14 and harold and kumar

    true, asian women did play second fiddle in that movie, but so did all women. the thing I find interesting about H&K is that it is rare to see a mainstream film where there are absolutely *no* sympathetic white characters.

  56. Lennin wrote:

    Hey Thea,

    What would be a radical interracial relationship–one that didn’t involve “cultural appropriation”? Would it require a suitably inverted “power dynamic”? Say, a privileged Indian woman having a fling with a hunky corn-fed gas station attendant in Appalachia?

    And what if the brothers were going to work out their issues by working in a charity hospital in India or for some other “good” cause? Well, that would be “paternalistic,” right? And it would be them “working out their issues,” right?

    And any film about such issues should ultimately focus on the need to remake the capitalist/colonialist order, in order to prevent the kind of injustice that makes charity necessary in the first place, right?

    This article is a great example of the mindset of the intellectually soft/politically hard part of the left that will always find something to complain about.

    Also, the criticism (see #52) still stands that Anderson primarily emphasizes his primary characters (duh), who are white people.

  57. AJ wrote:

    Lennin touches on something: having just re-seen the movie, is Amara Karan’s character not as much of a mixed-up person as Jason Schwartzman’s? She’s someone unhappy with her relationship and quite obviously attracted to him for her own reasons, and there’s a point when they first meet that you can see her hesitate, then *decide* to go along with it. Her own choice. I didn’t sense anything specific to do with race in their scenes, more two people thrown together by fate, pursuing a short-lived fling…the same way that any number of films portray earnest young people hooking up with attractive partners while travelling and somehow assigning these things more meaning than they really have. I mean how many people from straitlaced waspy backgrounds go to India or Thailand and experience minor breakdowns of one sort or another? In fact…a lot.

  58. r wrote:

    I honestly can’t argue too much with the original poster’s points. But at the same time, I love and have seen The Royal Tenenbaums many times, and I’ve always thought that the inclusion of Pagoda and that kind of racism was quite obvious and built in for a purpose. Like, the fact that Royal hangs around with a coloured person portrayed in such a bad light only emphasizes the fact that he’s such a bastard. Royal is a guy who’s big on stereotypes and bad taste, so it would almost make sense that he would associate with someone who would do his bidding and fit those stereotypes. Does that make sense?

  59. Black Girl Superstar wrote:

    I just saw The Darjeeling Limited and I disagree with the Shameless Mag claim that Rita is an example of the stereotype of an overly sexualized woman of color. On the contrary, I got the feeling that the reason she slept with Jack (and so quickly) is basically out of boredom. Though Anderson cuts from Jack inviting her to smoke a cigarette to them making out and eventually having sex without showing how they got from the former to the latter, there are still noticeable implications of Rita’s boredom throughout the movie - starting with the fact that she explicitly states her desire to leave the train and the life she leads while working on it (Rita’s boyfriend is the head steward, the boyfriend she breaks up with after sleeping with Jack and then eventually turning him down).

    She also definitely knows that Jack was just a hook-up and he’s kind of dumb (a trait present in many Anderson protagonist). When they’re leaving the compartment, he tries to pull her out too and she reminds him that the point of them leaving separately is so no one could see them, she looks exasperated at him - her expression basically screams “Damn! I can’t believe I just fucked this idiot white boy.” She gives another look similar to that in the scene right before the Whitman brothers get kicked off the train, when Jack runs into the dining car - her look there says “Here comes this fool embarrassing me again.”

    But the ultimate proof of my assessment is the line Jack says to Rita as the Whitman brothers get kicked off the train: “Thank you for using me.” He knows (or, more likely, eventually figures out) that she only got with him because she was looking for something to break up the monotony of her life, possibly also to use this fling as an excuse to break up with her boyfriend (though she was probably going to end the relationship regardless of whether or not she ever even met Jack). That was the kicker for me.

  60. Gaurav wrote:

    Just like to say, it’s good to read such a critique by a woman of color - and, your arguments and article are WAY better than the Slate piece. Thanks for doing what you do, esp. after I look for the funny and ignorant defenses white people have thrown up and find some awful Willamsburg hipster talking about how the world is “post-racial” and racist jokes are about rebelling against the tyranny of PCness.

  61. Andrew K. wrote:

    I think you need to look more closely at these films and characters. Your analysis, on the surface, seems reasonable, but it fails to take into account that Anderson often uses out-dated, cliche, and heavily prevalent forms of racism intentionally - almost as a prop or piece of set design. In “Royal” we see Royal as an old rich white man - on top of all his faults as a father, businessman, and husband, he’s also racist (see ‘Coltrane’ scene with Glover). He is a racist, cheater, and an absentee father who grows throughout the course of the film. Pagoda is another extension of his racism. Pagoda isn’t sneaky or shifty because he’s brown-skinned. He is sneak and shifty because he is employed by Royal (who no doubt in his perverse mind employs him in that capacity because of his brown skin.) We are meant to eventually be sympathetic to Royal and his metamorphosis, because he represents many, many ‘real’ people we encounter - ghosts of past generations still hanging on- that one grandfather who was in the ‘war’ (and this isn’t a role reserved for Caucasians alone). Racism, like every other element that enters into an Anderson world, gets filtered through whatever bizarre/cute/clever filter he puts on everything.

  62. Lara Gomez wrote:

    Personally, I really dug the Inez romance in Bottle Rocket. Being Latina, born and raised in Texas, where white men still carry ignorant ideas about Latina women to the point that they are considered dirty, to see the romance between a Mexican woman and a White boy was refreshing.

    What I hear on the streets from loud cell phone users and in casual conversations around the University of Texas campus is so much worse and offensive to women of color than any Wes Anderson film could possibly be.

    Incidentally, being Latina, I loathed the movie American Me. That was not me, not my family, no one I know. THAT is a movie that offended me.

  63. dave wrote:

    Seek and ye shall find, I guess. Maybe I am just too hide-bound and traditionally minded, but I believe and I believe strongly that one must actually study something before drawing conclusions from it. As for the take on the supporting characters of color in the rest of Anderson’s movies, I think you have to have blinders on to see them as caricatures. Their expression and emotion are muted, sure- as contrasted with the larger than life and ridiculous flailing of the main white male characters. They are always more sympathetic and generally many times more dignified than his self-destructive scions of the patriarchy.

  64. ICSTAR THE CONCIERGE wrote:

    I learn of Wes Anderson as of late and have started to watch his movies so the jury is still out with me. I am asian-american. But Thea, for you to boycott the movie is extreme, in my opinion. At least rent it from the library so you can see for yourself. I have not seen Darjeeling yet but I read somewhere that the movie was based on his travels through India. He probably experienced the same racism and isolation of white guy foreigner traveling through India that we will see get depicted in the movie. I wouldn’t label Wes a racist for that because he’s probably coming from that angle. The same argument can probably be made of the depiction of minorities that you describe in 90% of all american movies made by american directors. Why do movies with asian actors have to involve kung-fu? As long as his movies continue to make money for its producers, Wes will continue to do what he knows and it’s probably the shallow perspective with how he views minorities (both female and male) in his life that will be central to the theme in his movies, and that does not necessarily a racist make. Like I said before, the jury is still out on this one but I for one will go to see Darjeeling, if to see India.

  65. Jake wrote:

    What about the way white people are portrayed in movies by writer/directors of color? Or protrayed by white writer/directors, for that matter?

    I acknowledge that plenty of stereotypes and general racism exist in movies, books, etc., but it seem that you’re looking too far into this. Wes is a white, intellectual, affluent guy. Not Shocking that his movies reflect these types of people more accurately than others.

    Maybe you should consider why you would let yourself invest so much into someone you don’t really know very well, only to be dissapointed when you find out that they don’t share your idealist view of race-relations.

    He’s just making good movies from his or his character’s point of view. Ultimate political correctness takes all the fun and originality out of it.

  66. Andrew wrote:

    You analysis avoids discussing Danny Glover’s character, Henry Sherman, from Royal Tanenbaums. He’s probably the healthiest person involved in that ensemble.
    Pagoda, as everyone seems to be unaware of, was written specifically for the actor, who is an old friend of Anderson’s. Kumar Pallana helped craft his own role.

  67. invisiblewoman wrote:

    I don’t care a fig about the dissenting views; as a black woman and a very avid film lover, I feel the EXACT same way about him and his films.

  68. Dave wrote:

    I reckon you’ve got it all wrong.

    Wes Andersen is reflecting and mocking the blithe racism of his characters.

    He uses his characters ignorance as a comic foil, it’s their weakness and ignorance that makes his characters so funny. He’s reflecting the way that white americans are benignly patronising towards the rest of the world.

  69. Theresa wrote:

    Um, I think I love you.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.