**Editors’ note: This post comes in response to a recent e-mail campaign criticizing a decision by the Muslim Public Affairs Council to honor “My Name Is Khan” at its 19th annual media awards on May 1. This post also contains details about the plot of the film.
I watch one or two Indian movies a year and since “My Name Is Khan” seemed to be the big one for 2010, I decided it would be one of them. I was both disappointed and offended for many reasons. Apart from the storyline being unrealistic, the movie failed to carry out its primary purpose of breaking down barriers. Although it did attempt to dispense with some stereotypes, it re-enforced others, making parts of the movie simply offensive.
Source: Vimeo
The overall message of the movie was that regardless of race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, etc., there are people who are good and people who are bad. With that disclaimer the movie went on to portray certain groups of people in the most offensive light possible. Sharukh Khan’s character was an autistic Muslim man, Rizwan Khan, who fell in love with Kajol’s character, a Hindu woman, Mandira. The two married and Khan unofficially adopted Mandira’s son from a previous marriage. This part I appreciated; power to you Khan for drawing from real life experiences and following your heart.
After the events of 9/11, the son is attacked and killed at school for being Muslim. Mandira blames the death on Khan because he is Muslim. She tells him that she will not speak to him until he goes and tells the President of the United States, George W. Bush, that he is not a terrorist. Khan takes this seriously and his journey begins. On this journey, Khan meets several people and the reinforcement of stereotypes and other offensive events follow.
Although other viewers may have a different perspective, I found there to be two main parts of this movie that were particularly offensive to me. The first was the role and casting for the character of Mamma Jane. I NEVER thought I would see a reincarnation of Mammy – represented as a heavy set, dark skinned, boisterous older African American woman taking care of the White children – in this century or ever really, but to see that offensive representation in a movie that aimed to break down stereotypes was shocking to say the least. Maybe the cast and crew of the movie thought that calling the character Mamma Jenny instead of Mammy would smooth things over. It did not. What could make this more offensive? Oh I know let’s call Mama Jenny’s son Funny Haired Joel. Yep. That should do it.
The second thing that I found both offensive and alienating was the portrayal of Christians when Khan goes to a fundraising event in honor of President Bush. The cost of attendance at the event was $500, and although Khan had the money, the woman at the entrance to the event refused to let him enter because the event was only for Christians. Khan then hands the money to the woman and walks away. Because a church hosted the event, this exchange left the impression that Christians in general, and not just the woman at the entrance to the event, are not welcoming or accepting of other faiths. Such a generalization is not only inaccurate but also counterproductive to the purpose of the movie.
Why the writers of the movie chose to adopt so many stereotypes in a movie that was supposed to break down barriers is beyond me. Maybe its because the writers are from another country and did not properly consider the context and history associated with the offensive representations. But that does not in anyway excuse the use and presence of those stereotypes in this movie. It was unacceptable, and frankly unnecessary, to offend certain groups in order to break down the stereotypes of another.
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
The woman who denied Rizwan access was not meant to represent all Christians. Note that the community in Wilhemina, Georgia, was also Christian and was very welcoming – although you think they were *too* welcoming. Your criticism wants to have it both ways.
I’m sorry I do not understand your comment about me thinking that the community in Wilhemina, Georgia was too welcoming. Moreover, I do not contest that some parts of the movie were meant to break down stereotypes as I stated in my article “Although [the movie] did attempt to dispense with some stereotypes, it re-enforced others, making parts of the movie simply offensive.” Para 1, line 3. What I took away from the movie was not just based on my own opinions but also on my best friend’s opinion who is Christian. I took her to watch the movie with me. I asked her what she thought about it. She did think that the woman at the event represented Christians, middle-class Christians to be more specific. She felt that that part of the movie made it seem like middle-class Christians are (1) judgmental in that the woman assumed Rizwan Khan was not Christian- (Christians compose 2.3% of India’s population); and (2) they would not understand why someone who is Christian would want to attend the event making it seem like they are closed-minded.
Whether or not that woman was meant to represent all Christians is debatable especially since many individuals saw the movie and came away with the idea that she did represent at least part of the Christian community. I do not doubt that the makers of the movie had good intentions when they were making the movie, but it is important to be sensitive to how communities that are portrayed in a movie will react to how they are portrayed. I do not know whether the makers tried to make use of focus groups to get a preliminary reaction to the movie. Perhaps that is something they can do in the future.
Dear Saba,
Without attempting to be rude, I think your views on this movie are wrong and maybe a little biased. This movie may have been made to break the barrier that religion has created all around the world and I believe that this is exactly what the movie has done. Your two concerns regarding why you have found this movie offensive are really not very important to the aspect of the movie.
Why would the portrayal of Mama Jane be offensive when such a concept is seen in various Hollywood movies time and time again? Are you seriously saying that while you can watch a Hollywood movie that depicts a similar character and have a laugh about it, you find it offensive when it is being shown in an Bollywood movie? frankly speaking, I do believe that the common american is way more open-minded than to take offence to something so small.
Secondly, in regards to the Christian woman not allowing SRK to the event because it is a Christian event, was shown to highlight the difference in opinion that people of various religions had after the 9/11 bombings. I agree with Jim when he says that while the lady at the church event was shown as biased, the characters in Georgia were shown in a completely different light. Moreover, how do you take offence to this, when even a few Muslims (this being a movie where the prime character is a Muslim)shown in the movie are seen to denounce the acts happening against them and trying to plot terrorist acts around america? As a Muslim then, should I then not take offence to the various Hollywood movies that are based on Islamic terrorists?
What you need to understand about movies like this is the fact that they are trying to remove the stereo type that all Muslims are terrorists and that every religion no matter what it is has its good and bad – that religion is not what defines a person but the person who defines their religion.
I hope I have not sounded rude in my post and apologize if I have.
Sab,
You were not rude at all. The point of this website is to allow individuals to share their diverse opinions on topics. Of course you have a right to your opinion and I have a right to mine. I stated in my article “[a]lthough other viewers may have a different perspective…” recognizing that other viewers may have different opinions of the movie such as yourself and I can certainly see why you have the opinion that you have.
To answer your questions:
Q: “Why would the portrayal of Mama Jane be offensive when such a concept is seen in various Hollywood movies time and time again?”
A: Because the point of this movie is to break down stereotypes and it’s difficult and unacceptable (in my eyes) to do that while using other stereotypes in the movie to make it more “interesting” or to sell more tickets.
Q: “Are you seriously saying that while you can watch a Hollywood movie that depicts a similar character and have a laugh about it, you find it offensive when it is being shown in an Bollywood movie?”
A: You are assuming that I would not only watch a Hollywood movie with such a depiction but also laugh. Such a depiction is as offensive in a movie made in any country or language.
To the following comment:
“Moreover, how do you take offence to this, when even a few Muslims (this being a movie where the prime character is a Muslim)shown in the movie are seen to denounce the acts happening against them and trying to plot terrorist acts around america? As a Muslim then, should I then not take offence to the various Hollywood movies that are based on Islamic terrorists?”
I found this depiction about plotting against the U.S. to be offensive as well; however, I was under somewhat of a word and time limit and chose to write on behalf of those who may not be otherwise represented on this website. This depiction was also troublesome. For reasons why, I would like to point you to the comments under the article “Criticisms of “My Name is Khan” is Misguided.”
Thank you for your comments. Saba
Thank you for commenting back Saba. Was good to have this discussion with you.
I guess you are right when you say that everybody has a right to their own opinions and I apologize for making some of the assumptions that I did.
The idea behind these assumptions was not to point a finger towards your feelings alone but more towards the general consensus of people who have been exposed to such characters time and time again and therefore do not take offense to such portrayals.
I do also feel that showing such stereo-types was important to the theme of the movie which in essence was the fact that people shouldn’t differentiate based on religion as all religions have people who are good and bad. Hence, showing people from different religions who were biased and some who were unbiased got the message of the movie across.
Thank you once again for your reply.
Your opinions are well respected.
Is that seriously all that you got from the movie and that’s what you chose to write about?? Karan Johar made three movies this year revolving around the same theme, New York, My Name is Khan and Kurbaan. Different people found different things offensive in all three, as people will in all movies. All of them while different story lines speak to the same theme. The concept they are trying to get people to converse about is hatred toward all people because of the actions of certain individuals. When Kajol tells Shah Rukh to go to the President she didn’t mean it literally, that’s probably why his character was as such since a “normal” individual would not have taken her comment so seriously.
In making this movie he’s showing how lives are torn apart by hatred, how many innocent people are blamed because of the actions of a few. Those children who beat up her son and killed him were typical Americans who accept the propaganda thrown at them by our corporate state who is in constant need of an enemy. Today that enemy happens to be Muslims.
I personally think it’s a shame that the Indian Film Industry had to make such a movie to bring the topic to light so that the conversation can truly begin. Muslims spend so much time criticizing and judging that we never get to the root of the problem and place the blame where it should rightfully be and bring to light the injustices that take place around the world so that people can better understand why people take the drastic actions that they do and so that we can better understand this concept of “terrorism” created by the United States.
I’m quite disappointed that with such an excellent forum for discussion those were the topics you chose to highlight from the movie. It was exactly that: a movie. There are many factors he had to think about when creating it who knows why he chose the characters that he did. I for one liked it and applaud Karan Johar for making such excellent films. It is my hope that people can go a little deeper and try to take conversations to the next level.
Is that seriously all that you got from the movie to write about?? Karan Johar made three movies this year all revolving around the same theme – why terrorism exists today and he attempts to show why people act the way they do when they go through certain circumstances. People found different aspects of the three films to be offensive for different reasons but if you look at the film on a deeper level you will see the issues he is trying to bring to light.
First of all, when Kajol tells Shah Rukh to go and tell Bush he is not a terrorist, she didn’t mean it literally, that’s probably why his character was as such, since a “normal” individual wouldn’t have set out on the same mission.
The children who beat up Kajol’s son did so because of their stereotypes towards Muslims taught to them by the propaganda put out by the corporate state we live in that constantly requires that there be an enemy that we fear so that we have reasons to go to war.
The movie is trying to show that not all people are the same and that they should not be blamed for the actions of a few. I for one think it’s a shame that it was the Indian Film Industry, more notably Karan Johar bringing this to light rather than Muslims. We are so busy criticizing and judging that we never take the time to write about why these people in other parts of the world who live under oppression, who struggle through the many injustices and who are bombed day in and day out act the way they do. Karan Johar does.
We should use these as methods to advance conversations about current events and our situation, the fact that you chose such an excellent forum of discussion to discuss this out of all topics in the movie i think is a shame.
No doubt that perhaps they shouldn’t have portrayed the African American characters as such, but that criticism could have been made and then you could have at least addressed the issue that he is trying to bring to light. The fact that MPAC are supporting it is definitely a step in the right direction, more people need to watch and talk about movies like these.
IT IS A MOVIE
A movie that was trying to make a difference and hopefully, did so successfully.
To those who were “offended” by the content in the movie, it is a MOVIE. While there is a powerful message in the movie, it is also full of entertainment that is very often silly – BUT GUESS WHAT? It is this ridiculousness that sells tickets and gets even more people to go see this movie. And the more people who go see this movie, the more people who will receive the underlying message.
As a christian, I was NOT offended by the scene with the woman rejecting Khans entrance, as IT DOES HAPPEN. So instead of getting offended and defensive, open your eyes and try and make a difference where you can!
Also, what did everyone think of the scene with all the Muslims coming to Georgia on FOOT with parcels OVER THEIR HEADS swishing through the water WHILE IT IS RAINING – and no one thought of getting a boat? RIDICULOUS?? hmmm? sells tickets doesnt it?
So please…Stop criticizing – look below the surface.
God Bless.
This is an excellent review! I am so glad that at least someone thinks the same way I do. “My Name is Khan” does in fact have so many polemic, over-the-top qualities to it, which made me utterly disappointed with it (especially when I had such high expectations from this film). After arguing with my cousin Lubna at my Khalajaan’s house last Tuesday, I found that many of the points I made were analagous to yours. Thank you for taking your time to speak your mind on this issue.
It is apparent, that the author of this article is hyper-focusing on details of the movie rather than the larger message. This was a thought- provoking, intelligent, and relevant film for both American Muslims, and Muslims worldwide. It was balanced film that portrayed both Christians and Muslims where the majority were tolerant and the minority were not.
It also showed the power of people to change for the better regardless of religion. ie…the brother,,,the Hindu wife…the Hindu hotel owner…the Muslim potential extremists from the mosque. In response to the Scenes in Georgia.
Clearly, the author of this article misses the the message about Asperger’s syndrome and how the main character’s mother taught her son in the way he saw the world…in black and white. In his world there is no gray or in-between. Those scenes were to show the power of love, compassion, and seeing the world as having just 2 kinds of people…good and bad.
This movie also shows how religion can make someone a better person. Specifically, it shows how Aunt Jennie’s devotion to Christianity made her a good person and Khan’s belief in Islam made him a good person.
Sometimes, when we read a book or watch a film, we need to look at things through the the author, director, or main character’s lens and not our own.