Tuesday 12 January 2010

Ideology, Race and Difference, and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

Within this essay I am going to discuss theories of Ideology and Race and Difference, and focusing on them produce a reading of Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom. I expect this reading to demonstrate that Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom clearly positions its audience in an ideological sense. I also intend to demonstrate that the messages and values within Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom are highly questionable and that the representations of race we are offered within the film - through power struggles, the depictions of good and bad, of us and the other, clearly illustrate an ideological notion of race prevalent at the time in Western society.

Ideology can be defined as a set of beliefs, values, or ideas that have been shaped by the society they are a product of, and which themselves in turn shape that society, as members of said society conform to dominant ideologies.
Comolli and Narboni comment that ‘‘what the public wants’ means ‘what the dominant ideology wants’. The notion of a public and its tastes was created by the ideology to justify and perpetuate itself.’1
Ideology is what society uses to make sense of itself and the elements within it, and is directly linked to positions of power within society, the ideologies that are dominant and found most commonly are that which serve the powerful and not necessarily the greatest number of people. Despite this, and despite dominant ideologies both needing and creating a homogenised mass of people subscribing to them and embodying ‘society as a whole’, ideology works at the level of the individual through offering the individual representations of themselves and others.
These representations define us as an individual and as a collective – telling us who we are, who we should be, and influencing who we want to be. It is the largely the media that presents us with these representations and which plays an important part in shaping ideologies, as ideology is bound up within social institutions and this clearly reveals the need to study and analyse the representations offered to us by film.

Film theorists interested in ideology argue the idea that rather than portraying the ‘real’, cinema exposes to us the dominant and counter ideologies present in society2, whether it conforms to them or not. Through the analytical study of films, the conventions within them, and the tensions often present between dominant ideologies and the text or narrative, ideological readings can be formed and a films messages and meanings can be interpreted effectively.
Comolli and Narboni believe every film is political3, and it is the significance of ideology within film theory that politicises film; through the lense of ideology the representations films offer are no longer neutral, becoming predisposed and subjective. The realism offered by films utilises ideologies to tell us what is ‘real’, and can tell us something about the culture and society it is a product of.

Ideology is also a useful theory for understanding film because power hierarchies which we see within ideologies are also present within film and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is particularly an appropriate example to illustrate this.

Comolli and Narboni discuss the idea that film reproduces the world as it is experienced when ideologies and not really as it appears. They describe a number of categories they believe films fit into, ranging from the ‘first and largest category’ (a) which they describe as one who’s films ‘are imbued through and through with the dominant ideology in pure and unadulterated form’ through to (e) ‘films which at first sight seem to belong within the ideology and completely under its sway, but which turn out to be so only in an ambiguous manner’ to categories for highly political and revolutionary film. In my opinion the category Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom undoubtedly fits into is category (a), the authors explain that the films in this category are not just limited to ‘so-called ‘commercial’ films’, but that the ‘majority of films in all categories are the unconscious instruments of the ideology that produces them’. I do not believe that it is even this subtle with The Temple of Doom and that the film quite obviously fits into category (a).4

Klinger discusses the idea that a film needs to ‘escape... the conventional procedure of closure’5 to be ideologically complex and this conventional narrative structure is certainly unrealistic and supports the idea that films do not offer the real but a subjective view of reality. The Temple of Doom’s narrative is a conventional one following a typical ‘equilibrium, disruption, disequilibrium, resolution, return to equilibrium/new equilibrium formed’ pattern.

Theories of ideology are useful in understanding Indiana Jones and the Temple Of Doom because the film upholds dominant Western ideologies such as patriarchy, white dominance and capitalist ideals. Through close analysis of the film I found no clear examples of dominant ideologies that had been subverted. However, an interesting scene where this partly happens is the one in Willie and Indiana’s separate bedrooms in the palace, where for the first time they are portrayed as equals, both carrying out the same actions and saying the same things as they stubbornly wait for the other to come to their bedroom. This scene shows sex reducing men and women to an identical state; however it could be argued that as this is the only time Jones is at Willie’s level, the scene shows sex reducing men to the lower level of women.

It could be argued that the ideologies are specific to the time period and that the representations of sexism, racism and the positioning of the white man are no longer culturally relevant, but I would argue that these ideologies have been so deeply entrenched in Western culture since the time they were established that the criticism and analysis of them is still necessary and pertinent.
I would also argue that the positioning of the representations presented within the film, particularly the one of the colonising, white, Western male support the idea that dominant ideologies will be the ones that serve the most powerful.

I discussed earlier the idea that ideology could be said to be a ‘system of representations’, and the society within which we live is one with largely patriarchal ideologies. Klinger highlights the relation ideology theory and feminism have to each other and comments that ideology theory has been advanced through a ‘feminist perspective that employs … textual theories drawn from formalism, structuralism, semiotics, and psychoanalysis’.6
Women are a vehicle of male fantasy, in film as much as or more so than anywhere else, and Kate Capshaw as Willie in Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom hardly subverts this role. A shallow character who proves useless in most situations, she is certainly not a positive representation of women, and Capshaw herself said that the character was little more than ‘a screaming dumb blonde’7.

In the film Willie is unintelligent, remarking in the first scene that “he’s mighty small” when presented with the ashes of a Ming dynasty emperor, and seems to be prized merely for being nice to look at, clearly supporting the patriarchal ideology of women as objects. She also appears pathetic and weak when she cannot handle being wet, sharing a plane with livestock, riding elephants, and bugs, among other things. This portrayal supports the idea that men are the stronger gender. She is also depicted as uncultured, impolite and fussy when refusing food from the starving villagers. Despite her annoyance throughout the film at Indiana she is submissive to him sexually whenever he demands her affection; in the closing scene Indiana merely lassoing Willie with his whip makes her fall into his arms!
Indiana talks to Willie in a condescending tone throughout the film, calling her ‘doll’ in a patronising manner that Short Round imitates. Short Round also addresses Willie rudely with a “Hey lady, you call him Dr Jones!” clearly placing men above women in the film’s hierarchy of power. As well as conforming to these ideologies that are dominant in the American/Western white culture the film is a product of, Willie also subscribes to stereotypical female ideologies around appearance, caring more that she ‘broke a nail’ than the loss of Jones’ gun, and putting perfume on an elephant. In another negative stereotype of women, she is portrayed as extremely materialistic, commenting on the ‘limousines and parties’ she used to frequent, as well as having a preoccupation with money and wealth. At one point in the cave she forgets her fear for her life upon hearing the word ‘diamonds’, at another she scrabbles on the floor of the nightclub for a diamond amidst shooting, at another she fits the materialistic ‘gold-digger’ stereotype when she remarks that the ‘maharaja is swimming in loot’ and then enquires whether he has a wife.

However, the ideologies the film arguably presents to us most strongly are arguably the ones that centre on race and the hierarchies of power between races within the film. The film clearly intends to position us with the white hero, and in the first scene we see Indiana as ‘above’ the villainous Chinese gangsters, who are vicious, calculating and untrustworthy, contrasting sharply with our hero who is portrayed as noble and a man of his word. A power hierarchy with Jones at the head is also clear when we see the Mayapore villagers dependant and submissive to him as he enters their village, and I will discuss this further when focusing on race and difference.

Capitalist ideals are clear in the film when we see the exchanging of goods and the seeking of riches, and are present in Indiana’s desire to seek ‘fortune and glory’. Another dominant ideology clearly present is the one which dictates women need a heterosexual relationship to achieve a ‘happy ending’, and the closing scene of the film communicates this message unmistakably.

Theories of Race and Difference are obviously highly significant in understanding Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom because of the prevalence of representations of the ‘other’ within the film. These representations play a big part in revealing the dominant ideologies, as previously discussed.
Saussure said that ‘difference is essential to meaning’, and that you cannot understand something and know the qualities that make it what it is until you know what is different from it. However, this does not suggest that different necessarily has to mean negative, as Indiana Jones arguably does. However, Saussure did believe that binary oppositions will not be neutral and that one pole will be dominant, and it could be argued that an idealist society would be one with neutral oppositions.
The marking of difference is what constructs ideologies and hierarchies within our culture, as the marking of difference is what lies at the base of representations. Our understanding and construction of ourselves are reliant on the other, in Saussure’s terms we cannot understand ourselves until we know what we are not, what is different from us.

Stuart Hall comments on pro-Western ideas’ portrayal of the West as being civilised, industrialised, capitalist, modern, and governed by reason, whereas the Non Western world is portrayed as primitive, underdeveloped, pre-capitalist or communist, rural, backward, and governed by emotion.8 The representations in the Temple of Doom support this completely, with the civilised, American hero Indiana Jones coming to the rescue of/defeating two groups of equally primitive and uncivilised Indians. The Western characters in the film also have far more defined personalities than the two-dimensional homogenous groups of Mayapore villagers and Thuggee cult members, and this supports Hall’s theory that pro-Western ideologies depict Western people as individuals, and the ‘rest’ as a mass, a type.9
It is ironic that so much is made of the individual in Western ideologies, and represented as important when a closer look will reveal that these ideas and this culture requires the individual to subscribe to dominant ideologies and become part of a collective mass.
The representations Hall has attributed to the West and the ‘rest’ also reveal which qualities are prized most highly within our society, with our ideologies telling us that rationality and modernity are more valuable than emotion and tradition, but is reason really more desirable than emotion? Some of the qualities attributed to the Non-West, being governed by emotion for example, suggest that the Non-West will be more in touch with the creative side of themselves.
This imposition of Western values and normalities and generalising of the ‘other’ as ‘all the same’ speaks of our desire to colonise and the failure to distinguish, understand and value difference within the ‘other’. This can clearly be seen as Indiana Jones rides into rescue and reform the villagers, justifying colonisation and the westernisation of the other. Westernisation of the other can also be seen in Short Round, who wears a New York Yankees baseball cap and adopts Jones’ mannerisms and catchphrases.
Bhabha also discusses the idea that our ideas of the ‘other’ come from us projecting our desires and fantasies onto, as well as idealising inhabitants of the Non-West10, and examples of this in The Temple of Doom are seen when the Indian characters are either idealised as dependant and week to justify our dominance over them, or are otherwise exhibiting primal urges.

Race and Difference theories are extremely significant within film theory as through understanding the stereotypes we are presented with and why they are there, we can understand the ideologies the film is trying to distribute, the message imparted and the position we are offered within this as an audience.
In Bhabha’s ‘The Other Question: Stereotype, discrimination and the discourse of colonialism’ he makes several points extremely pertinent to my discussion. He comments on the idea that the ‘male ‘American’ spirit [is] always under threat from races and cultures beyond the border or frontier’11 and this is translated quite literally onto the screen as we see Jones chained to a rock, force-fed blood, and induced into the Thuggee cult.
Bhabha also makes a point I would like to quote in its entirety as I feel it is extremely relevant to my discussion and encapsulates my reading of the film quite succinctly:

‘The objective of colonial discourse is to construe the colonized as a population of degenerate types on the basis of racial origin, in order to justify conquest and to establish systems of administration and instruction.’12

These theories are useful in understanding Indiana Jones because the film offers a representation of ‘the other’ that is undoubtedly derogatory; the indigenous peoples in the film are clearly backward, heathen, unrealistic representations.
The audience of the film is clearly positioned to favour the heroic, white, male Jones and associate themselves with him, while seeing the ‘other’ – the Indians as ‘bad’. As I mentioned earlier a Western desire to colonise is evident within the Americanising of other races within the film, Indiana’s Chinese sidekick Short Round uses American slang and the ‘good’ Indians – the Mayapore villagers, are dependent on Indiana and submissive and so are acceptable. When Willie asks how Jones found Short Round he replies that he “didn’t find him, I caught him… trying to pick my pocket”, then redeeming him and providing yet another example of a character of another race requiring Jones’ heroism and help to set him on the right path. Through this ‘salvation’ and subsequent westernisation of Short Round he becomes an acceptable character, though still fetishized for his difference, as his English is not perfect and his Chinese accent in pronouncing words – “Mo more parachutes!” seems to be intended to be humorous.

We can take Jones as a representation that stands for the male, white, western world, and the subsequent representations of Indians and Hinduism are close-minded and bigoted portrayals. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was filmed in Sri Lanka rather than India as the Indian Government found the script racist and did not approve filming, asking for changes to be made.13 That the Indian Government were unhappy with the portrayals within the film and perceived them as racist is highly relevant to the representations within the film. Despite this Spielberg and Lucas, hugely important figures in Western cinema, subsequently won an Oscar for the film and were nominated for one more, while in India the country’s censors banned the film and the depiction of Hinduism within the film caused controversy.14 It could be argued that this says something about Western or Hollywood cinema as a whole, and that this is typical of filmmakers who view the ideologies their films impress as more important than realistic representations.

The meals eaten at the palace, which are assumedly meant to be a humorous take on Indian cuisine - Snake Surprise (which is full of live worms), dishes of beetles and eyeball soup, are all indicative of the uncivilised and primitive representations of the Indians, as are the man who burps loudly and the description of chilled monkey brains as a ‘dessert’. These characters are also child-stealing, a characteristic that is seen as the epitome of evil, and is often used in propaganda to slight groups.
The depiction of the Thuggee’s eating monkey brains is highly inaccurate as monkeys are revered within Hinduism, although it could be argued that this then suggests that the cult are not true Hindus and are villainous heretics. However, if this was what was intended this needed to be made clearer, and because of this the representation of the Thuggee’s is a dangerous and inaccurate representation of Hinduism.

The other Indian characters we see are pitiful and weak before their salvation at the hands of Indiana, and we see them stroking his clothes in begging gestures, looking adoringly at him, waiting on him and bringing him food, all of which support ideologies of Western rule.
All of these representations contrast strongly with the portrayal of Jones who appears more educated, noble, brave and knowledgeable than all the other characters without exception.

Ideology theory arguably has limitations because we are in danger of politicising a film’s content too thoroughly. When we produce a reading of a film through focusing on ideology there are no neutral representations and these representations and politics take precedence over narrative. The importance of the individual is ignored in favour of looking for the dominant ideologies present, and the auteur’s intentions and narrative meaning can be obscured. It could also be argued that it is impossible to ever produce an unbiased commentary on a film in terms of ideology because we are ourselves part of an ideology; the one dominant in our own society.
Limitations of understanding a film through Race and Difference are similar; arguably a character may no longer be seen as an individual and more as a representation of his and her race. This is damaging, as viewing characters as standing for their entire race and not as single individuals capable of good and evil as all human beings are can lead to unfounded accusations of racist representations.
In terms of Indiana Jones and the Temple Of Doom, these arguments could suggest that the film has been too politicised, and was intended to simply be a fantasy-adventure film with a narrative focusing on one individual heroic protagonist defeating a single evil tribe that have through an ideological reading unwittingly come to stand for the colonising Western world Vs. India/Hinduism/the ‘other’. However, for Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom I find these limitations of the theories irrelevant, as I believe the reading that the representations within the film are racist and Western extolling extremely accurate. It is my opinion that the representations within the film cannot just be those of individuals, and come to stand for white Westerners and ‘uncivilised’ Indians as a whole, and that the Indian government’s decision to ban the film proves that this was felt by the nation it depicted.

In conclusion, it is my opinion that Ideology and Race and Difference prove valuable theories for understanding the text and provide an apt reading of the film. I would summarise my findings by saying that Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is a film that perpetrates dominant Western ideologies, expresses a desire to colonise and contains largely negative representations of the ‘other’, and that while it may be an effective piece of cinema within the Fantasy-Adventure genre, it is irresponsible in terms of the ideologies and representations it presents.


Bibliography


Bhabha, Homi K., “The Other Question: Stereotype, discrimination and the discourse of colonialism’, from Bhabha, The Location of Culture (London: Routledge 1994)

Comolli, Jean-Luc and Narboni, Jean, “Cinema/Ideology/Criticism” (Braudy, 812-819)

Fanon, Franz, “The Fact Of Blackness” from Black Skin, White Masks (Chippenham: Pluto, 1986)

Gilman, Sander L., “What are Stereotypes?, from Difference and Pathology (Ithaca and London: Cornell Univ. Press, 1985)

Gogoi, Pallavi, “Banned Films Around the World: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom”. (BusinessWeek, 05-11-2006)

Hall, Stuart, “The Spectacle of the ‘Other’ ” in Hall (ed.) Representation (London: Sage 1997)

Klinger, Barbara, “‘Cinema/Ideology/Criticism’ Revisited: The Progressive Text” (Screen, 25.1 pp. 30-44)

McBride, Joseph, “Ecstasy and Grief” in Steven Spielberg: A Biography (New York: Faber and Faber, 1997)