Woke appropriation of old films: Your opinion? - Page 3

Posted: 1 years ago

This is a very good post and thought provoking. I like content of the Swaddle personally. But this one was something I did not like.

Because honestly I feel we are judged too much if everything is viewed from a sexual lens. I mean, nowadays you cannot even move around with your own male cousins and siblings without being thought of as roaming with a BF or viewing from sexual or romantic lens in case someone does not know that person with you, is your cousin and sibling. Nor can you move around or say, express affection or hold hand of a friend of same gender without someone assuming you are lesbian or gay or bisexual.

I know LGBTQIA have been marginalised forever. But giving them visibility does not mean straight ones should be assumed to have LGTBQ tendency or leanings.

For eg, many do not even accept asexuality or aromantic ones exist. They just do not accept ACES. They are that obsessed with idea of being sexually attracted to either same gender or all genders.

Or people begin to assume say someone like Ratan Tata is unmarried and childfree or ML Khattar, is unmarried and childfree as they are gay (I have heard such gossip mongers).

This is unfair to be lumped or judged even if you do not have that orientation.

It is understandable that people crave bond that Jai and Veeru have in Sholay or the emotional intimacy Paro and Chandramukhi shared for a while in Devdas. But to 'read' a queer subtext in it is not fair to those who are just friends or like brotherly or sisterly bond. I mean not every connection has a sexual connotation to it. Sometimes you just connect for no reason and feel caring towards someone. It does not have to be romantic or sexual.

My issue is not as much as a cis het person but about viewing everything from a sexual lens. 

Every bond, look or touch need not be sexual. Every unmarried person need not be lesbian or gay or queer.

I still maintain the LGBTQIA communities should create own characters or demand for own likeness in characters instead of appropriating old ones. 

Given how Jai and Veeru were attracted to Basanti and Radha respectively, there is no need to call them queer. Anyway I have heard gay jokes on Thakur and Ramlal, Gabbar and Sambha, in that film also, and it is frankly not funny to me. All men living together are not gay unless they stated it thus. 


However I understand your POV and you offered a different perspective, which I did not consider earlier. 

Posted: 1 years ago

Yes it irks me when writers of today, including urban Indians hint at incest if even mom or dad or sons and daughters or siblings are shown close.

Also add Freud to the mix and these guys feel mom close to son means Oedipus Complex or repressed sexual desire and father and daugther bond means Electra complex or girl wants man like dad or has daddy issues blah blah.

Posted: 1 years ago


Wow 😆.  I had forgotten almost all those friendship moments between Alok Nath and his friend.  Now if any of those bloggers had written about these characters’ homosexual tendencies in MPK I may not necessarily have agreed with them but I would have understood where they were coming from.  

Posted: 1 years ago
Originally posted by atominis


For eg, many do not even accept asexuality or aromantic ones exist. They just do not accept ACES. They are that obsessed with idea of being sexually attracted to either same gender or all genders.

I'd say lesbians, gays, bisexuals, pansexuals, and heterosexuals are all equally guilty of asexual erasure. Sheldon Cooper in the first two seasons of Big Bang Theory displays all the traits of asexuality and aromanticism but then they wrote him to fall in love and enjoy sex. I love Shamy. But I what an impact it could have been for such a popular character to be asexual. 

And countless shows and movies have been ruined by romances when there easily couldn't have been either. While Mulder and Scully are one of my favorite ships, X-files could have been a great show without them being a couple as well. I like seeing them as intimate coworkers of work husband-wife. 


Originally posted by atominis


Or people begin to assume say someone like Ratan Tata is unmarried and childfree or ML Khattar, is unmarried and childfree as they are gay (I have heard such gossip mongers).

I do draw the line with real people. It is OK to interpret characters however you want. But people deserve the freedom, right, and privacy to own their narrative. 

But it's a tricky area. There is a history of queer people remaining unmarried or child-free. But straight people do as well. I think it's natural for people to speculate why someone is who they are. As long as its done in kindness and good faith and doesn't impose or expect any identities from said people. The problem arises when people present speculation as facts or do it in a cruel and unkind way. But it can be a slippery slope. And even when you mean no harm it hurts people. Hopefully, we can all reach a place in society where everyone can live their lives authentically without room for speculation. 


Originally posted by atominis


This is unfair to be lumped or judged even if you do not have that orientation.

It is understandable that people crave bond that Jai and Veeru have in Sholay or the emotional intimacy Paro and Chandramukhi shared for a while in Devdas. But to 'read' a queer subtext in it is not fair to those who are just friends or like brotherly or sisterly bond. I mean not every connection has a sexual connotation to it. Sometimes you just connect for no reason and feel caring towards someone. It does not have to be romantic or sexual.

My issue is not as much as a cis het person but about viewing everything from a sexual lens. 

Every bond, look or touch need not be sexual. Every unmarried person need not be lesbian or gay or queer.

The reading isn't intentional. No one starts a movie with the intention. It just happens that queer people see the world differently from straight people and interpret things differently. 

The idea is not to add a "sexual" connotation but to reflect one's feelings and understanding. Just because a queer person sees a relationship as queer, doesn't make that relationship any less. Romantic relationships and friendly relationships are not superior or inferior to each other. They are just different ways humans form bonds. And the interpretation of a queer relationship doesn't make the relationship less caring nor does it diminish the emotional intimacy. Sometimes friendships and romantic relationships have the same level of emotional intimacy and displays of affection that allow people to interpret things differently. 

An asexual person may also interpret Jai and Veeru or Chandramukhir Paro (or even the multitude of straight lovers) to be platonic soulmates. An aromatic person may prefer stripping out romantic intimacy in their interpretation of relationships. Everyone will see things from their perspectives, it is perhaps impossible to consume media from another person's point of view. 

I'll share a cute endearing example of interpretation. I was watching Disney's Maleficent in the theatres. Angelina Jolie's Maleficent had just awoken Elle Fanning's Aurora with her maternal love and they shared a tender moment. This little boy in the row behind me went "Now Kiss." The rows that heard him had a good laugh. This little boy who probably had heard about fairy tales and true love kisses didn't know what was going on. He interpreted it through the lens he knew. We couldn't explain Maleficent to him if we tried. 

When I was a little kid I shipped Luke and Leia. My world was crushed when I found out they were siblings. I tried to reimagine Star Wars as they're not siblings - but it does screw the canon. So I say - long time ago in a galaxy far far away who cares.


Originally posted by atominis



However, I understand your POV and you offered a different perspective, which I did not consider earlier. 



I appreciate it. 

Posted: 1 years ago

In that reviewer's defense maybe he thought so cz it was a Hitchcock show, and that guy's movies/shows are a little twisted and sick sometimes.


His most famous work Psycho has that element they say but I didn't realize it at all while watching the movie, only while reading about it later I found out

Some even say his movie "Shadow of doubt" has that element (this time it's uncle and niece) but I couldn't find any proof

Posted: 1 years ago

I agree and its a good point, if based on looks, dressing etc if you starting judging their sexuality of characters in literature, when no where it is indicated what you are assuming, isnt that also stereotyping?


i also agree that our world has become overly sexualised, everything is through that lens, example talking about even crushes etc used to be a adoloescent thing, now i hear even elementary school children talk about it so casually and parents dont seem to find anything wrong

 but after reading hades post, i think straight ppl come from a position of privelege and maybe letting it go is also fine, as it is a way of redressing years of erasure 

Edited by vcs17 - 1 years ago
Posted: 1 years ago

That’s not how appropriation works .

Posted: 1 years ago
Originally posted by vcs17


I agree with all the posts here 

recently even RRR had this issue

It is western view but lot of I think Indian views on these topics mimic western takes, just like in politics where left and right have different meanings from what it means on the US.

It has been happening in literature too,  I read that Roald Dahl’s books are going to rewritten with problematic parts edited out. I remember reading Enid blyton as a kid and then being told it has racism. I think in these cases one has to be made aware of the problem parts but one shouldn’t rewrite them.

Imo the creators take is what matters, and if they didnt mean it it shouldnt be interpreted so

but then I realized that ppl do this because they don’t feel represented so maybe I can’t judge what they feel 

but then superimposing something which doesnt exist, will it really lead to anything, it will remain superficial at the most, it is kind of deceiving oneself

But I think at least local context and culture should be understood and everything should not be blindly adapted from west 


'Most formidable female' is being replaced by  'Most formidable woman', 

Small men - Small people, Fat - enormous 


What? 

Edited by BettyA1 - 1 years ago
Posted: 1 years ago
Originally posted by BettyA1



'Most formidable female' is being replaced by  'Most formidable woman', 



I don't think they did enough. It's woperson. 

Posted: 1 years ago
Originally posted by return_to_hades



I don't think they did enough. It's woperson. 



I was thinking that too... How did they allow women? 

Related Topics

doc-text Topics pencil Author stackexchange Replies eye Views clock Last Post Reply
Ranveer has 2 films in top 5 highest grosser BW films in North America

pencil elaichichai   stackexchange 40   eye 2260

elaichichai 40 2260 3 months ago wat_up
Tiger 3 fails to beat 5 year old Diwali release TOH and 9 year old HNY

pencil AamirKingKhan   stackexchange 23   eye 1496

AamirKingKhan 23 1496 4 months ago I_M_SultaN
Unpopular Opinion Aasique 2 had better songs than Ashique 1

pencil khan.baba   stackexchange 0   eye 96

khan.baba 0 96 1 months ago khan.baba
Hrithik's opinion on the anti-pak dialogues in Fighter

pencil zara321   stackexchange 46   eye 2167

zara321 46 2167 1 months ago Simrim12
Gadar 2: Unpopular opinion, loved Utkarsh and Simratt

pencil TMKOC_MY   stackexchange 6   eye 674

TMKOC_MY 6 674 5 months ago elim

Topic Info

15 Participants 50 Replies 2435Views

Topic started by atominis

Last replied by atominis

loader
loader
up-open TOP