For this activity, we will practice debating and commenting on others work. You will be assigned a review:
Read your assigned review and leave a comment below. In your comment, note which review you are responding to and include the following:
- Summary: A one-sentence summary of the author’s main point.
- Commentary: Do you agree or disagree with the author’s opinion of Darjeeling Limited? Why or why not?
- Evidence: Note one scene from the film that either supports or contradicts the author’s main point. Use a scene that is not mentioned in your review.
I found it interesting in the Slate review how they say that the Indian child does the bothersome work of dying so that one of the brothers, whose he refers to as American heroes, will not have to die spiritually. I never really thought about this or about having the whole funeral scene for a pathos effect. I must say that I kind of agree; I do think this film does not do a great job with actually representing the place that is India and instead is slightly racist and stereotypical.
Edited:
The author of the Slate review claims that Darjeerling Limited was mainly a racist film. I found it interesting in the Slate review how they say that the Indian child does the bothersome work of dying so that one of the brothers, whose he refers to as American heroes, will not have to die spiritually. I never really thought about this or about having the whole funeral scene for a pathos effect. I must say that I kind of agree; I do think this film does not do a great job with actually representing the place that is India and instead is slightly racist and stereotypical. One instance where I noticed this was in the fact that they went to India for a spiritual journey as this in itself is also racist and stereotypical to begin with.
Rodger Ebert’s central point in this review is that the film’s main attraction is its authentic Indian context or backdrop. I agree with this statement because I felt that the portrayal of India in The Darjeeling Limited was not catered towards the typical tourist, but rather the traveler who truly wants to experience the “real” India. There is not one particular scene that stands out to me in order to support this view point, but what does come to mind is the idea of the three brothers traveling on this train, which is called The Darjeeling Limited. Not many tourists typically choose to take a train filled with locals, so I think that their chosen mode of transportation really drives home this point of the authentic portrayal of India in this film.
Ebert’s review discusses how he enjoys the movie for it’s humor and character development. In that aspect of the movie, I do agree. I enjoyed the movie and found a lot of the scenes to be comical. Ebert mentions himself that in this movie India is a backdrop. Which I also agree with, India was not a part of the story as much as it was the place of the story. I think the trains scenes of them just traveling around and being disruptive shows how they weren’t interested in appreciating the culture.
This review (Roger Ebert) uses the word “meanders” to guide its review meaning that the film seems to wander without a purpose. This is supposed to be a positive aspect of the film as it captures a fun and interesting story without having a specific and narrow purpose. I somewhat agree with the author’s opinion as I definitely think this movie meanders and is corky. I would, however, interpret this more negatively as I like when movies have more of a purpose. A scene that supports the idea that the movie meanders is when the three brothers undergo the ritual of releasing feathers. This was supposed to be a spiritual process, but two of the brothers messed it up, taking away the purpose of the ritual and adding a humorous aspect to a serious tradition.
Roger Ebert’s main point expresses “The Darjeeling Limited” in a light that appreciates its crazy and alternative plot line that doesn’t result into a happy and enlightening ending. I agree with the other in regards to the idea that movies should not always settle for a predictable ending, but other than that I don’t agree with how the author idealizes India as a nice backdrop for the story line of these three brothers. I think when representing a specific country you should not make fun of the culture and society, but instead depict it in its truest form. The scene that contradicts this authors argument is when the upper class Indian man shares the dinner table with the brothers and is not phased nor bothered by their obnoxious and personal conversations. I think anyone would be disturbed by this kind of talk and therefore should have depicted the Indian man with more flare and character.
Review by Roger Elbert
Summary: Elbert states that the movie meanders, but that is what gives it its whimsical feel, along with great casting and India as a backdrop that is very “there”.
Commentary: I agree with Elbert. He thinks that this movie is not an arrow flying straight at a target because it doesn’t have a target. It’s kind of in its own category, but in a pleasing way. The movie is pretty all over the place but still makes sense and has purpose behind it.
Evidence: The scene where the three brothers randomly end up saving all but one of three young boys supports the sort of meandering feel of the movie. At one moment the movie is humorous and lacks deep meaning, but suddenly it becomes serious and has real conflict.
John Weiner, the writer of the Slate review of Darjeeling Limited, did not like interactions between his white protagonists and “non white foils” and felt that interactions are disrespectful and condescending. I do agree with the author’s opinion because most of the interactions with those in India are very distant and apathetic . Most specifically, the scene where the boy steals Francis’ loafer which Weiner highlights in his review and the scene when they arrive at the market to buy things like a power adapter and shoes are specific times when the brothers’ willing chose not to respect the local people. Instead of respecting the locals and immersing themselves into the rich culture around, they choose to worry about things that simply do not help their Indian journey.
The review of Roger Ebert towards The Darjeeling Limited is positive. He considered this film to be warm, engaging, and funny which does not fly straightly at target. Different people might have different thoughts and conclusion after watching this film. Roger Ebert first summarize the main idea about this film: three brothers want to reunite via a trip to India one year after their father’s death because they did not talk with each other since that time. I agree with author’s review. I think this film is quit engaging that it spirtually shows the change of relationship between three brothers in the film. Francis convened this trip first, and other two were not as excited as he was. Francis wanted to control everything on this trip, he did a lots of plan, even what they were going to eat. After they made some trouble on this train, they got off the train. However, they became closer after this trip. Roger mentioned in his review:” Anderson uses India not in a touristy way, but as a backdrop that is very, very there.” This is also a great point I have never thought before. The Indian man watched the brothers as an outsider, raising the level of scene to another dimension. Overall, I agree with the reviewer. The saying that left me with the deepest impression is ” I want us to be brothers again.”
In Robert Ebert’s review of “The Darjeeling Limited” he shares his opinion of the film which he ultimately finds satisfactory as he finds many of the elements, such as the cast and the “non touristy” use of India, compliment and depict India in a unique representation and create an entertaining film. I don’t necessarily agree with the authors opinion, I think the whimsicalness of the movie, while entertaining, showed India in not necessarily a completely stereotypical touristy way, still in my opinion was rather odd and not necessarily authentic way to what it would be like for the average person to travel there. I also find that he contradicts himself in a sense regarding the not touristy depiction of India because when he speaks on the train scene he says that “It avoids obvious temptations to exoticism by surprising us; the stewardess on the train, for example, speaks standard English and seems American. This is Rita (Amara Karan); she comes round offering them a sweet lime drink, which is Indian enough…” I think the fact avoiding the “obvious temptations” ultimately did not move the movie away from being “touristy” as in my opinion it results in it being a even greater skewed depiction of India given that the stewardess is speaking plain english, serving a drink that is “Indian enough”, and engaging in activities that are “not very Indian of her”. The fact that she is being “not very indian” in the presence of tourists changes who she is and not presenting a necessarily “non tourist view” as the scene is in a tourist-esq setting.
Review 1
The author reviews this film positively by praising the Indian context of the film, three brother’s jostling personalities, and inspiring story lines. I agree with the authors’ opinion. The playful scenes, characters’ unique personalities, and their eventual transformations are all unique and interesting. I particularly like the author’s comment: ” [the film] doesn’t fly straight as an arrow at its target. But it doesn’t have a target, either. ” Indeed, the film does not have a definitive ending and the story proceeds unpredictably. Like in the film, when the brothers attend the boy’s funeral, which is not an expected part of their journey, they seem to have learned some things that will affect the rest of their journey. This transformation is profound yet the process is unexpected and unpredictable. So overall this review is a good representation of many aspects of the movie.
I read the second review, a criticism of The Darjeeling Limited. In this review, the author believes that Wes Anderson portrayed the three main characters in a very obnoxious light – these upper-class white elites travel to India to find themselves, but the movie shows “an entire race and culture turned into therapeutic scenery.” Although this was a pretty harsh criticism, I agree with the reviewer, to a certain extent. These brothers travel to India to supposedly find themselves through being in a highly spiritual location, but ironically the movie shows India as just a backdrop to the main characters’ personal journeys. The people and culture of India seem to be considered inferior to the brothers, from their point of view. When the brothers are chasing after the train that has taken off, several workers can be seen running behind them carrying their excessive amounts of luggage. At the funeral, the music paired to this slow motion scene does not seem to go together. The entire movie seems to be a bit insensitive to the Indian culture. As visitors in a foreign land, one would expect them to be respectful of the culture.
In Roger Ebert’s review, he endorses the film not as a wonderful story or artistic masterpiece, but as an interesting, meandering journey with no direct target, tweaking and “noodling” loosely around a central plot line. I think this is the best description of what the film exists as. Wes Anderson often doesn’t hone in on a linear story line or strict theme, but allows the adventures he depicts to progress in a quirky and captivating way. The Darjeeling Limited is no exception. As the story progresses, the underlying plot is tweaked. The brothers’ journey begins as a mode for connection, transforms into a mode for discovering themselves and their surroundings, and changes again to bring into play their mother. It’s as though the film is written as it is shot, as the brothers undergo changes and it becomes hard to predict where the story will go next. This unexpectedness and peculiarity is what makes the film entertaining to watch, and what Wes Anderson does best.
Robert Ebert describes this film as warm, engaging, funny, and surrounded by India, but remains unimpressed by the way the movie meanders. I agree with Ebert’s positive view towards the engaging and funny elements of the film and he also seems to promote India’s portrayal in this movie when I personally don’t find it to be much of a focal point in this movie, but I agree that India is used well in this movie. Regarding the meandering format of this movie I personally agree with his claim that movies don’t need to have a typical conclusion, but unlike him I personally think it works well in this movie. For example, their relationship with their mother is never solidified in this movie, but I would argue that this is not the point of the movie.