Seriously Joking:

Depictions of Racial

Humor in Wes Anderson’s Films

A Discursive Analysis of The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Darjeeling Limited & The Royal Tenenbaums

1

Table of contents When sincerity is not enough – The limits of irony in Wes Anderson’s quirky cinema ...... 3 The Grand Budapest Hotel ...... 14 Darjeeling Limited ...... 22 The Royal Tenenbaums ...... 33 Conclusion ...... 43 Bibliography ...... 49

2

When sincerity is not enough – The limits of irony in Wes Anderson’s quirky cinema “A smile is the chosen vehicle of all ambiguities.” - Herman Melville: Goodreads

This research explores the (racial) politics of irony through readings of three films by Wes Anderson. It argues that the interaction between humor and racism in these three works represents an uneasiness when it comes to concepts such as white privilege. This tension and unease, it suggests, is enhanced by the ‘quirkiness’ which, as many critics note typifies Anderson’s films (see Macdowell 2010 and 2011, Stevens 2014, Buckland 2012, Browning 2011). For most of these critics quirkiness defines a sensibility or zeitgeist which is related to postmodernism. James Macdowell, for example, describes quirkiness in ‘Wes Anderson, tone and the quirky sensibility’ as a certain sensibility that is linked to the current ‘millennial’ (or generation-x) culture. As Warren Buckland states in ‘Wes Anderson: a smart director of the new sincerity?’, Anderson is able to combine the tradition of art- house with Hollywood. He seems to capture the ‘postmodern sensibility of Generation-X’ (1). ‘Sensibility’ is the keyword for this generation as well as for quirkiness. This sensibility can be best defined as a feeling that occurs when trying to both incorporate and transform the postmodern into a ‘new sincerity’ (4). It is defined not as just sincerity but ‘new sincerity’, because this movement is not rejecting the postmodern irony and nihilism. This sincerity ‘operates in conjunction with irony’ (2). This means that new sincerity incorporates postmodern thought, which causes a ‘conflicted tone dealing in tensions between ’irony’ and ‘sincerity’ (MacDowell 10). It is, in short, the continuous balance between detachment (postmodern) and engagement (sincerity) that constructs the discourse of new sincerity. In this thesis, however, I read Wes Anderson’s quirkiness as registering anxieties about the nature of racialized discourse in Hollywood. I read quirkiness and ‘hipster irony’ as symptomatic of wider cultural tensions. The tension between sincerity and irony is sensible through the humor Wes Anderson incorporates in his films. Anderson uses the quirky to show the problematic relationship between white privilege and racism. His films deploy a sense of humor that shows the unease about its own whiteness and tries to cover that up with uncomfortable racial (humorous) remarks. This research is an exploration of the problematic relationship between new sincerity and racism. It is interesting to take the work of Wes Anderson as a case study of the complexity of contemporary racial politics in the United States and Europe. As his films are primarily meant as entertainment and/or art, it can be seen as depoliticized. This is how most critics view the films of Anderson: as apolitical (and amoral). Warren Buckland states that on the contrary, Anderson’s films manifest ‘an

3 ambiguous attitude towards politics and morality, coupled with a critique of contemporary society’ (1). It is this ambiguity that makes it interesting to delve into a couple of his works. The three films that will be discussed are The Grand Budapest Hotel, Darjeeling Limited and The Royal Tenenbaums. These films all give prominent roles to characters whose racial identity acts as a foil to the white protagonist, thereby raising numerous questions about the films’ racial politics. In general, cultural discussion has become increasingly conscious of the operation of racism on both sides of the Atlantic. In Holland the discussion about Zwarte Piet or ‘Black Pete’ has increased over the last few years. In the United States the #blacklivesmatter movement is getting more and more support and attention. Especially after the racially motivated murder of nine Afro- Americans in South Carolina in June 2015, where the controversial confederate flag was eventually removed from South Carolina’s state house. Around the same time, the movement Black Lives Matter became more visible in the public sphere. These political messages also become apparent through art and popular culture. The recent performance of the song ‘Formation’ of Beyoncé during the Super Bowl was international news because of the statement she made concerning racial discrimination, as the article ‘Beyoncé: the superstar who brought black power to the Super Bowl’ from The Guardian proved. Symptomatic of the heightened consciousness of racism in US and European society is the discussion generated by Quentin Tarrantino’s Django Unchained. The increasingly heightened consciousness of racism in the United States is raising questions about the ways in which white artists handle questions of race. Quentin Tarrantino is known for his extensive use of the word ‘nigger’ throughout his oeuvre, but in Django Unchained the discussion about his ‘politics’ intensified. In the article ‘He Can’t Say That, Can He?’ Chris Vognar states that by now ‘it's a rite of pop culture passage: Tarantino makes a fetish of the word "nigger"’ (23). Vognar states that Tarantino has never backed away from race issues;

(…) from the start of his career, Tarantino has taken more liberties with racial epithets and black idioms, and written more complicated and fully developed black characters, than any white filmmaker before or since. (Vognar 23)

In his article, all Tarantino’s movies and racist scenes are reviewed, with special attention for Django Unchained, that was released in 2012 and has won 37 prizes, including two Oscars. The film is set in 1858, in the South of the United States. The black slave Django becomes friends with the white man Dr. King Schultz and together they fight slavery. Just as Tarantino’s previous film Inglorious Bastards – about the Second World War – Django Unchained is a story of revenge on (slavery) history.

4

Vognar shares all his contradictory thoughts he has when seeing it. There are parts of the film he finds repulsive, and parts he loves. The main question to him is, ‘is it OK to make a gore-splattered revenge fantasy set in the world of slavery, the original sin of American life?’ His final answer is not a conclusive ‘yes’ or ‘no’. In Vognar’s opinion, ‘he's [Tarantino] testing us. He's provoking us. He's making us think. And he's making us ask still more questions. It's hard to fault an artist for that.’ Vognar’s opinion is not shared by everybody. For instance, famous director Spike Lee (Malcolm X) has been criticizing Tarantino for using the word ‘nigger’ and other racist outbursts in his films for almost two decades now (Vognar 23). On the popular blog Gawker, author Rich Juzwiak dedicated an article to this topic in 2015 called ‘The Complete History of Quentin Tarantino Saying “Nigger”. Juzwiak is less forgiving than Chris Vognar, as he concludes that while Tarantino once claimed that ‘his objective was to reduce the word’s power’, he disagrees, and states that ‘the fact of the matter is that the word “nigger” is a key part of Tarantino’s legacy of shock and manipulation’ (Gawker, 2015). In ‘The Fact of Blackness’ Frantz Fanon points out that a black man is only black in relation to the white man (417). He notes the stereotypes that embody his presence everywhere he goes.

I was responsible at the same time for my body, for my race, for my ancestors. (…) I discovered my blackness, my ethnic characteristics; and I was battered down by tom-toms, cannibalism, intellectual deficiency, fetichism, racial defects, slaveships, and above all else, above all: ‘Sho’ good eatin’. (Frantz Fanon 419)

This shows the deeply entrenched connotations about what it means to be black, but maybe even more what it means to be white. As a white person, you can be defined by who you are, what your accomplishments mean and in general: you can be an individual. As a person of color, you are only defined by the group you belong to and the stereotypes that white people constructed. It is therefore not just a question of sensitivity when it comes to racial humor and the use of the word ‘nigger’. The use of this word is anchored by history and association and is not something you can deploy as you please. One has to incorporate this notion, even more when it is a white person that feels the need to use it. Wes Anderson’s treatment of racial material has also attracted critical commentary, from blogs such as Slate - ‘How Wes Anderson mishandles race’; in discussions on the widely known forum Reddit, and in the academic world through the article of Rachel Dean-Ruzicka, where the title ‘Themes of Privilege and Whiteness in the Films of Wes Anderson’ gives a clear indication of its content. But Anderson always has been more ‘subtle’ or harder to grasp, even when it comes to something as sensitive and important as race.

5

It is precisely this uneasy tension between humor and racism that makes it hard to decide whether or not something or someone is racist. One person’s irony is another person’s racism. As Linda Hutcheon states in her book Irony’s Edge, irony can be used either to undercut or reinforce statements (27). Hutcheon remarks that

irony is often connected to the view that it is a self-critical, self-knowing, self-reflexive mode that has the potential to offer a challenge to the hierarchy of the very “sites” of discourse, a hierarchy based in social relations of dominance. (30)

The tension that irony embodies is deployed here by Tarentino. It is unclear whether the generous use of ‘nigger’ and racism in general works as an affirmation of racism and stereotypes, or that it destructs it. This ambiguity is hard to deal with, especially when it concerns such a loaded and sensitive subject. In this light, it is interesting to look at ‘hipster racism’. This term was first coined by Carmen Van Kerckhove in 2007 on the blog Racialicious1. In 2012 the term also occurred on the popular blog Jezebel, where author Lindy West stated that what we must understand about this concept is that it is racist. Hipster racism is explained on the blog as ‘introducing your black friend as "my black friend"—as a joke!!!—to show everybody how totally not preoccupied you are with your black friend's blackness.’ Explicitly referring to a black friend as him being black is here considered a way of showing you know about racism but rising to a meta-level by joking about it. Of course the speaker/friend knows better, and that is why he can make this joke, it is meant to be ‘ironic’. Irony is used here as a way of coping with racism, by throwing in humor. In the article ‘The Denial of Racism: The role of humor, personal experience and self-censorship’ Brendon Barnes, Ingrid Palmary and Kevin Durrheim conclude that humor is often used as a ‘non-threatening way to introduce sensitive racial issues into a conversation’ (327). The authors then continue to say that humor functions to affirm the speaker’s nonracist attitude to those who are present. It also functions as a way to criticize anyone who may believe it [racist comment] to be true (327). ‘Hipster racism’ is an example of this use of irony. By taking historical events into account, and reacting in a self-reflexive manner to the current situation is as if to say: I know that this way of behaving is inappropriate, and that is precisely why it is appropriate. It explains the heading of an article The Guardian wrote in 2015 about this topic: ‘Uncomfortable Fact: Hipster racism is often well-intentioned’. The article states that

1 This blog no longer exists anymore. In my bibliography, I cite an article of Shameless that cites this blog. 6

(…) we’re confronted with what many refer to as “hipster racism” – that whole I’m so not racist that I can say anything racist because we’ve totally moved past that attitude. You see it in white girls who wear Native American headdresses to music festivals and think they’re just being quirky (…). We seem to think that we’ve moved so far beyond our past that now it would be fun to ironically resurrect it. (The Guardian, 2015)

Many believe this is a ‘post-racial’ era, which makes it so difficult to address the speaker on his intentions. That is also what the authors of ‘The Denial of Racism: The role of humor, personal experience and self-censorship’ state. The element of humor makes it inappropriate to respond with anger, it distances the speaker from his own words and it always reproduces racial stereotypes (331). The main problem with irony is the ambiguity of the message. The concept of postmodernism cannot be ignored in this discussion. Fredric Jameson’s theory about pastiche, nostalgia and irony is interesting here. Jameson writes in his ‘Postmodernism and Consumer Society’ about the late ’60s. This is a period of important transitions and movements as neocolonialism, the green revolution and the beginning of the ‘information age’. All these concepts lead up to a new social structure, described as ‘late capitalism’ (Jameson 1962). The new social structure of late capitalism is characterized by ‘pastiche’, in other words: parody without the element of humor. A parody mocks a certain style or thing, but in order to do this, Jameson states that there has to be a certain sympathy for the original. However, in the age of postmodernism, the linguistic norm supposedly disappears and creates ‘islands’. The heterogeneity of the postmodern society makes it impossible to mock, and therefore the parody is ripped from its meaning, and turned into ‘pastiche’ (1963). Because of the heterogeneity that Jameson notes here, (un)intended offenses and comments become much harder to ‘place’ within a context. As Jameson argues, the context is so diverse and individual that there is no such thing as a ‘fixed’, or obvious meaning. Following this postmodern thought, it is impossible to ever be certain of something or, for that matter, of someone’s intentions. Coming from postmodernism, it is not strange to see a revival of the quest for (new) sincerity and fixed meanings. Following this line, morality, something that postmodernism has ruled out for quite some time, is making a comeback as well. An example can be found in the rise of novels with a ‘right and wrong’-tone and the fact that writers such as Dave Eggers are increasingly popular. However, this newfound focus on morality can also carry on to a hypersensitive culture where the search for morality and the urge to define right from wrong gets the upper hand. As Lindy West states on Jezebel with regards to hipster racism: ‘Give me sincere racism or give me no racism at all, but enough with this weaselly shit’ (Jezebel 2012). This also immediately touches upon the ‘new sincerity’ movement. In the article ‘Genericity in the Nineties: Eclectic Irony and the New

7

Sincerity’ Jim Collins writes that ‘whereas irony endeavors to master the perpetual circulation and recirculation of signs that forms the fabric of postmodern cultural life, the new sincerity rejects it and attempts to recover a lost purity’ (Collins, 245). The tendency towards ‘new sincerity’ after a troubling time of postmodern ambiguity seems like the right moment for a renewed belief in right and wrong. However, this newfound linearity can also lead to problems. Robert Hughes writes that

the politicization of the arts and so forth had been moving from academe, the art world and the cultural magazines into American popular journalism, creating, on the whole, more heat and fumes than light (Culture of Complaint, 1)

What Hughes is saying here is that the tendency to point out right from wrong is not only visible in politics, but also measures art along these lines and that this has spread into popular culture. Last year, in 2015, Arthur C. Brooks wrote on the website of The New York Times that it is time to revalue this book that was written in 1993. While he liked it at the time, he did not agree with the author, in fact he stated in this article that he ‘dismissed it as just another apocalyptic prediction about our culture’. Now, 22 years later, it appears to him that Hughes was right. Culture of Complaint predicts a culture of victims, where ‘the emphasis is on the subjective’ (10) which creates a ‘whining, denunciatory atmosphere’ (17). Hughes notes that it is an American habit to try and change words in order to prevent offensiveness. For instance, the shift in the word for ‘blacks’ over time. First the right term was ‘colored people’, then it became ‘blacks’, then ‘African American’ or ‘person of color’. But while the search for the right, inoffensive word goes on, nothing has changed about the facts of racism (20). In conclusion, as Hughes quotes Barbara Ehrenreich: ‘Verbal uplift is not the revolution’ (24). In the chapter ‘Art and the Therapeutic Fallacy’, Hughes writes how this sensitivity and victimhood plays through in culture and art. He states that art, and in particular literature, should be able to go to places politics cannot. That it is important to realize that some works of art may have political elements to them, and some may not, but that in any case this element may never define the art;

Why, then, the fashion for judging art in political terms? (…) It divides the sprawling republic of literature neatly into goodies and baddies, and relieves the student of the burden of imaginative empathy, the difficulties of aesthetic discrimination. (The Culture of Complaint 114, 115)

8

The concerns that Robert Hughes note here, slowly unfold with time, taking the piece that Brooks wrote for The New York Times into account. To be concerned with the possible ‘political message’ of art, is visible in recent cultural objects and in the current zeitgeist. In the article ‘Micro aggression and Moral Cultures’, Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning explain the elevation of the victimhood culture by looking at authoritarian structures. They define micro aggression in the words of Derald Wing Sue as discriminatory comments, for instance about race or gender (693). These comments result in the reinforcement of stereotypes, and can be experienced as hostile (694)2. Campbell and Manning describe how the culture of managing conflict has changed over the years, and increasingly rests on authorities. These authorities comprehend not only the state, but also schoolboards and other institutions. The intervention of ‘third parties’, is according to Campbell and Manning one of the main reasons of the emergence of micro aggression. They note that ‘as people come to depend on law alone, their willingness or ability to use other forms of conflict management may atrophy’ (697). But it is not only the law that causes the culture of victimhood. Campbell and Manning also describe how websites collect micro aggressions to show a larger tradition of inequality. The ‘incident’ becomes part of a larger structure. This collection evokes a ‘moral crusade’, to show that ‘the injustices are more severe than observers might realize’ (10). At the same time, the authors argue that societies where for instance, equality is important, already have ‘relatively high degrees of equality’ (772). As an example, they mention that as women became more equal to men in Western societies, the concept of sexism also became more omnipresent than before. Taking this into account, in the article ‘White’ Richard Dyer writes that it is still very hard to find a ‘representation of whiteness as an ethnic category’ (457). It is important to note this since it is simply not true that every human being is treated equal. The ‘culture of victimhood’ is finding a way to diminish or marginalize the effects of racism (and sexism, for that matter) to a point where it can be read as a way of blaming the victim. Dyer states that

Looking, with such passion and single-mindedness, at non-dominant groups has had the effect of reproducing the sense of oddness, differentness, exceptionality of these groups, the feeling that they are departures from the norm. Meanwhile, the norm has carried on as if it is the natural, inevitable, ordinary way of being human. (Dyer, 457)

Dyer’s text is about the representation of ethnicity in arts and culture. In relation to what Hughes, Campbell and Manning write, it is worth noting that Dyer marks an important difference in

2 Claudine Rankine’s Citizen gives a full understanding of what it means to live with racism and stereotypes and to try to debunk them. 9 experience here. When treating minorities as in the excerpt above, art becomes the preserve of those who are able to relativize or ironize their experience which, in this light, turns out to be a privileged position to come from. It is difficult to balance out the right way to ‘deal’ with race. The most important thing to take away from the ‘culture of victimhood’ is the strong line between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ that Hughes talks about and is visible in current daily life. By dividing everything into ‘good’ and ‘evil’, there is a lot that gets lost in between. That is why ambiguity is needed. In the article ‘Prudence and Racial Humor: Troubling Epithets’, Jonathan Paul Rossing argues that

racial humor represents a popular forum in which the public engages conversations on race and constructs understandings of prudence. (…) racial humor addresses particular problems of race and participates in shaping racial meanings and experiences. (Rossing 300)

In other words, Rossing approaches humor as a way to open the conversation about racism. He continues to say that humor diminishes neither the accountability of the actor nor the harm and pain that may have been caused (304). It is important to note that no meaning is static, and therefore ambiguity is such an important factor that cannot be overlooked. Rossing makes an important remark about the epithet nigger that could also fit the paradigm of Tarantino mentioned above. He does that by presenting a case study about an episode of The Boondocks. In this episode, a 2007 incident in Louisville, Kentucky was satirized. A high school teacher called a student ‘nigger’. The teacher did not see any harm in it, because the student was using that word all the time to talk about himself and his friends. The student did not agree. Rossing uses this example to show two things: first, a racist comment can be made without the intention of the speaker to be racist. Second, the intention to make a satire of this incident, is to possibly ‘unnerve’ possible tensions that the word ‘nigger’ brings about. It is meant to show the structure of intentions and outcome and what might have caused the situation to get out of control. Rossing states that

(…) the prudential response to contemporary racial controversies such as those that surround the epithet nigger would recognize the salience of race and the pervasive racial inequalities entrenched by history while simultaneously accounting for the shifts in racial meaning and practice in contemporary society. (Rossing 305)

In another example, Rossing mentions that The Laugh Factory (a comedy club in Los Angeles) ‘instituted a fine for any performer who used ‘hateful words’’. The city councils of Los Angeles and

10 the New York City also passed resolutions announcing a “voluntary ban’ on the word [nigger]’ (305). As we have seen before in the work of Hughes, the United States has a reputation when it comes to changing language in order to improve behavior. Rossing continues to show how the The Daily Show with John Stewart dealt with these prohibitions. The show asks the question ‘if a word is offensive does that mean that it should never be heard?’ and proceeds to interview the ban’s sponsor Leroy Comrie. One interviewer, John Oliver, who is white, avoids the word. The other interviewer, Larry Wilmore, who is black does use the word. The show tries to show how difficult both positions are. John Oliver is the personification of exaggeration and it is almost impossible for him to speak at all. On the other hand, Wilmore’s enthusiastic use of the word ‘nigger’ makes everyone uncomfortable. According to Rossing, what is portrayed here is the need for nuance (306). In conclusion, what Rossing is trying to say is that racial humor ‘requires sensitivity to recognize that the meaning of words or phrases depend on the speaker’s intonation and the context in which a remark occurs (309). In this light, it must be noted that white speakers might not be able to recognize the sensitivity of these speech acts. As Richard Dyer writes in the chapter ‘White’ in the book Visual Culture: a reader, whiteness is almost the equivalence of invisibility. Whiteness is often not recognized as a culturally constructed category (457). Therefore, as not experiencing white as a separate category and not having to deal with stereotypes or assumptions that such a category can bring along, it is difficult to identify with the consequences of speech acts that are not used in a delicate or sensitive way. It can therefore be problematic for Tarantino to use the word ‘nigger’, while perhaps not fully grasping the connotations and (historical) background and consequences of this word. Where Tarantino does not beat around the bush when it comes to racial issues, Wes Anderson is much more subtle in his movies. At the same time, Anderson is infamous for ‘decorating his margins with nonwhite, virtually mute characters’ as Slate put it in the article ‘How Wes Anderson Mishandles Race’. On the blog Racialicious mentioned above, a guest contributor notes that ‘characters of color in Anderson’s films are always caricatures, hilariously exotic. Anderson uses “race as a novelty’. It is interesting to look at the structures that are in place there, because it results in even more ambiguity. The films of Wes Anderson are often depicted as ‘quirky’. Michael Hirschorn wrote in the article ‘Quirked Around’, ‘We’re drowning in quirk. It is the ruling sensibility of today’s Gen-X indie culture (…)’ (142). In the article ‘Wes Anderson’s, tone and the quirky sensibility’ James MacDowell states that quirky is used to describe films that move away from the postmodern ironic, and move towards new sincerity (12). However, the movement to sincerity is still left with an ironic residue. In the words of MacDowell, the sincerity is aware that it is ‘always already arriving too late’ (13). The combination of irony and sincerity is what makes up the quirkiness according to MacDowell. What

11 happens then, is that serious or emotional moments are legit, but by making those moments humorous, the irony seeps through. ‘There’s the deadpan: dry, perfunctory, taking moments that we might expect to be made melodramatic and downplaying it for the comic effect’ (MacDowell 8). This tension between irony and sincerity also occurs here, in the same way it does with regards to hipster racism and the films of Quentin Tarantino, only in a more hidden way. There is another reason Wes Anderson is so interesting to look at. MacDowell notes that there is a certain ‘naiveté’ when it comes to his films. An innocence that seems to clear each character of responsibility. The naiveté, enthusiasm and childlike behavior amongst fully grown characters

simultaneously remind us that it [childhood] must finally remain forever out of reach. Together these elements help create a tone that exists on a knife-edge of comic detachment and emotional engagement – or, put in another, blunter way: a conflicted tone dealing in tensions between ‘irony’ and ‘sincerity’. (MacDowell 10)

Irony, (new) sincerity, racism, the tension between intended and unintended, and postmodernism all work together in creating an ambiguous environment in which racial jokes are made. In this research, I would like to explore all these concepts and their boundaries through looking at The Royal Tenenbaums (2001), The Darjeeling Limited (2007), and The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014). In all three films, explicit and implicit structures of racism, irony and sincerity come to the surface through close- reading. When discussing The Grand Budapest Hotel, the focus will be on protagonist Moustafa Zero, also known as ‘the lobby boy’. He is the right hand of the concierge of the Budapest Hotel, Gustave H. In supporting Gustave H, Zero has a submissive role. As a person of color, it is again the question of how these two things interact with each other. What choices are made, and how can they be interpreted? This chapter will research the way in which orientalism is used (un)intentionally to construct this character and the way other characters interact with him. It is meant as a general overview of how the concept of orientalism is still present in art and entertainment, even while it may not be obvious at first sight. In The Darjeeling Limited, three American brothers travel to India in order to ‘find themselves’ through a spiritual uplifting, something India is famous for. While traveling through this country, the three brothers seem to be oblivious to the actual culture, and a lot of stereotypes are passed through. The main focus here is to grasp the underlying structures of whiteness and cultural appropriation. In the chapter about The Royal Tenenbaums this research will focus on one of the main characters, Henry Sherman. He is the accountant of the Tenenbaums and is engaged in a battle with

12

Royal Tenenbaum for Etheline, wife of Royal and mother of the Tenenbaum children. He is an object of research because of his uncomfortable position, which may or may not resonate with the fact that he is black. I will look at the way his blackness (and the other characters’ whiteness) is constructed through décor and dialogue. This research will describe the discourses that are involved when art, politics, culture and criticism meet. Its purpose is to show how difficult it can be to unravel the layers of intentional and unintentional comments and choices, and how this is all part of recent cultural movements such as ‘hipsters’, new sincerity and irony.

13

The Grand Budapest Hotel

“Well, you can say that about most anything, “it depends”. Of course, it depends.”

- M. Gustave

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) tells the story of mister Gustave H. and his life as a concierge in the Grand Budapest Hotel. His job is to satisfy the hotel guests by tending to their omnifarious needs. One of the ways in which Gustave does this, is by sleeping with (elderly) women who visit the hotel. He is, therefore, much loved and very popular: many see him as the heart of the hotel. Mister Gustave has an assistant, a ‘protégé’, named Zero Moustafa. Zero Moustafa is the lobby boy of the Grand Budapest Hotel. The hotel appears to stand in an Eastern European country, the ‘Republic of Zubrowka’ in 1932. The film starts with the death of one of the regular visitors: an elderly lady with whom Gustave H. has slept multiple times. The woman has become very attached to him and consequently bequeaths him a painting called "Boy With Apple". Because of the great value of the painting, the family of the deceased is determined to get the painting back from Gustave H. In order to get it back, they blame Gustave for her death. What follows is a cat and mouse chase between the bereaved and the concierge of the Grand Budapest Hotel. In this chapter I will focus on the thin line between irony, humor and racism that comes to the surface in the scenes with the character of Zero Moustafa, whom is mostly referred to as "the lobby boy". He is the only person of color in this movie, and is treated as an outsider. His immigrant status is addressed on several occasions. His name "Zero" is telling, as we learn he does not have any family, education, or belongings. Besides this implied context around the name "Zero", referring to his desolate and seemingly worthless life, there are many occasions in the film where these notions of worthlessness are connected to the immigrant status of the boy. The website "Oregon Live" attributes this to the era in which the film is set:

Gustave as the last man standing for a 19th-century European idea of civilization, the movie also acknowledges the flaws in that idea. Despite his friendship towards Zero, Gustave's casual racism and chauvinism erupt at times, revealing a paternalistic, colonial mindset. (Oregon Live March 2014)

Postmodernism, pastiche and Gustave H. In his article "Postmodernism and Consumer Society" Fredric Jameson writes about the late Sixties. According to Jameson, this period of important transitions was signified by the rise of neocolonialism, the green revolution and the beginning of the "information age" (1962). All these concepts cause the

14 commencement of a new social structure, termed by Jameson "late capitalism" (1962). This new social structure of late capitalism is characterized by "pastiche", a notion Jameson explains as parody without the element of humor (1962).

Pastiche is, like parody, the imitation of a peculiar or unique style, the wearing of a stylistic mask, speech in a dead language: but it is a neutral practice of such mimicry, without parody's ulterior motive, without the satirical impulse, without laughter, without that still latent feeling that there exists something normal compared to which what is being imitated is rather comic. Pastiche is blank parody, parody that has lost its sense of humor: pastiche is to parody what that curious thing, the modern practice of a kind of blank irony (…). (Jameson 1963)

A parody mocks a certain style or thing, but in order to do this, Jameson states that there has to be a certain sympathy for the original. However, in the age of postmodernism, the linguistic norm supposedly disappears and creates "islands". The heterogeneity of the postmodern society makes it impossible to have sympathy for the original as there is no "original" anymore, and therefore the parody is ripped from its meaning, and turned into "pastiche" (1963). Jameson identifies historical films as examples of pastiche. He writes that we are "condemned to seek the historical past through our own pop images and stereotypes about that past, which itself remains forever out of reach" (Jameson 1965). In short, Jameson argues films do not represent our historical past, but our ideas or cultural stereotypes about that past (1967). The Grand Budapest Hotel, while not being a historical film per se, is part of this same logic. The narrative is, as Jameson puts it, "set in some indefinable nostalgic past, beyond history" (1967). The hotel is placed in the fictional Republic of Zubrowka, although the name of the hotel – Budapest - might suggest otherwise. Anderson seems to invoke a nostalgia for a certain day and age, but is actually setting the viewer off on the wrong foot as there was never such a hotel or even such a country. It is all about the suggestion, because even though theoretically speaking it is pure fiction, the result is a recognizable image of nineteenth- century Europe. The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) is thus relatable to Jameson's argument that postmodernism is all about vanishing originals and trying to relive the past through cultural objects:

[I]n a world in which stylistic innovation is no longer possible, all that is left is to imitate dead styles, to speak through the masks and with the voices of the styles in the imaginary museum. (…) it means that one if its essential messages will involve the necessary failure of art and the aesthetic, the failure of the new, the imprisonment in the past. (1965)

This "imprisonment in the past" is visualized through the semi-real location in the film. The nostalgia that comes in to play when using historical narratives mixed with fiction can be called pastiche. The

15 historical narrative in The Grand Budapest Hotel is also underlined by Wes Anderson himself. In an interview with NPR about this film, Wes Anderson says

I haven't ever made a movie before that had such a specific historical context, and at the same time I've made this choice to vaguely fictionalize it all, and it's an odd combination. It's very clear what moments we're referring to and what region this is taking place in, but we've made our own country and our own Europe and we've sort of combined the two world wars. Who knows why in the world I felt it had to be done that way. I usually feel the need to invent a world for the characters to live in in the movies I do ... Part of why I feel the impulse to reimagine [World War II] rather than just do it is because it's been done so many times before. This is such familiar historical territory. The reason I want to engage with it is because this series of events in Europe are somehow still right in the middle of our lives. (NPR 2014)

Roland Barthes writes in ‘Mythologies’ about how culture is drenched in myths presented as reality. This is why, according to Barthes, it is so difficult to get real access to reality or truth. He describes this in his famous piece ‘Romans in Films’, wherein he describes how the lock of hair on the forehead of the Romans is used to "authenticate" the historical setting in the film Julius Caesar (1953) (Barthes 26). The hair needs to be there since this is what a Roman looks like according to contemporary popular culture. In his words, ‘[t]he frontal lock overwhelms one with evidence, no one can doubt that he is in Ancient Rome’ (Barthes 24). According to Barthes, this is done to help the viewer understand the narrative and context of this narrative. At the same time though, it is so subtle that the choice to make this lock of hair the representative of a whole culture seems to be spontaneous, and therefore authentic. Barthes calls that "cheating": "it presents itself at once as intentional and irrepressible, artificial and natural, manufactured and discovered" (26). The lock of hair could be compared to the subtle references to the Second World War in The Grand Budapest Hotel. Every time Gustave H. and Zero travel by train, they get harassed by officers who ask for their papers. Of course, Zero, as an immigrant, has none. As Isabel Stevens puts in “The Anderson Touch”, ‘(…) the Nazis’ treatment of paperless immigrant Zero is captured by Anderson with a sense of real menace’ (34). This reference to the Second World War gives the film a historical framework. Jameson argues that pastiche is wrenched from all originality, and can have multiple references. That one thing has multiple references can make it meaningless. However, as Barthes states, it is precisely this lack of reference that makes pastiche dangerous. Moreover, James Macdowell argues that no form of irony is truly disengaged from its material (13). To come back to the first excerpt from Oregon Live about Gustave H, it is the confusing combination of artificiality and sincerity that caused the journalist of Oregon Live to cast Gustave H. as ‘just’ an image of the 19th century, instead of judging the (fictional) character in itself, based on traits and – plausible - flaws.

16

Gustave H and Zero Moustafa The ‘19th century’ approach of Gustave H. most notably comes to the surface in one particular scene where all his "white male" frustration comes together. During the ongoing battle over the painting, Gustave H. and Zero work closely together. At one point, Gustave H. is held captive, but manages to escape from prison (59:20). He has ordered Zero to prepare some things, but Zero fails. He did not find a safe house, he did not bring any disguises or costumes and, as if all of that was not disappointing enough already, Zero also forgot to bring the favorite perfume of mister Gustave H.: L’air de Panache. Gustave H. is disappointed and angry, and starts attacking Zero's immigrant status. Gustave H. speaks:

Precisely. I suppose this is to be expected back in Aq Salim al-Jabat where one’s prized possessions are a stack of filthy carpets and a starving goat and one sleeps behind a tent flap and survives on wild dates and scarabs. But it’s not how I trained you! What on God’s earth possessed you to leave the homeland where you very obviously belong and travel unspeakable distances to become a penniless immigrant in a refined, highly cultivated society, that, quite frankly, could’ve gotten along very well without you?! (The Grand Budapest Hotel 2014)

Gustave H. expresses his emotions towards Zero here in a context that appears racist. The again unspecified but presumably non-Western origin of Zero is connected to images of savagery and primitivism. Because Zero comes from another country, he must be unable to function in the civilized Western world. Wes Anderson shows a clear example of challenging a social hierarchy with regard to racism, and societies’ way of dealing with immigration and immigrants in The Grand Budapest Hotel. By using, and playing with the stereotype he defines a certain existing social hierarchy, while at the same time it could be argued that it is precisely this way of using it that debunks it. The abovementioned excerpt is interesting for various reasons. First of all, it can be placed in a line of simplified stereotypical thinking about immigration: the opposition between the (post)colonial but enlightened West and the poor, underdeveloped "rest" is perpetuated in the monologue. On the other hand, Zero might not be mocked here. The statement of Gustave H. is so bold and outrageous that in this scene, Gustave H. could be considered to be a parody of privileged white middle-aged Western men. The statement is so explicit and over-the-top that it loses its shock value, and becomes funny through its exaggeration: no one in their right mind would state such a thing in front of the immigrant itself. This statement could therefore also be seen as a reflection, an extreme mirror the viewer is confronted with. Also, the statement being so explicit and blunt mingles with the idea of a nineteenth-century politeness and at the same time our current society of freedom of speech and political issues around immigration.

17

In many cultural products such as movies, novels and television shows, irony is used to expose certain habits or processes of commodification. Irony can be a powerful way to present cases of racism and sexism. By using humor, the result is that these concepts are discussed but at the same time strip the message from any personal attachment or the feeling of responsibility of the viewer. Irony is therefore often intertwined with stereotypes. As Linda Hutcheon states in her book Irony’s Edge, the theory and politics of irony, irony can be used either to undercut or reinforce both conservative and radical positions (27). In that light, Hutcheon remarks:

Irony is often connected to the view that it is a self-critical, self-knowing, self-reflexive mode that has the potential to offer a challenge to the hierarchy of the very “sites” of discourse, a hierarchy based in social relations of dominance. (30)

The power of irony rests for a large part on the use of humor. On the one hand, humor enforces the strength of the argument that is made. Hutcheon states "humorous ironies can be deadly serious" (26). Furthermore, Hutcheon argues that irony "as a form of humor has also been seen as what 'disarms' and therefore offers access to material that is not, in fact, very funny at all" (26). In this light, she explains how irony is sometimes used to bring clichés to the surface that still "speak to us" in some way. Irony thus highlights clichés with the purpose of making us reconsider them. The element of humor is useful here because it can be regarded as the only way of presenting an inconvenient feeling or truth. In the light of Jameson’s postmodernism, this means also that there are always multiple references and therefore readings. This use of irony makes sure that no one is personally offended, while at the same time delivering a political message. Hutcheon discusses the exhibition Into the Heart of Africa of the Royal Ontario Museum to illustrate the difficulties of irony. This exhibition focused not on Africa itself, but on the colonial, paternalistic images of Africa made by Canadians (Hutcheon 186). An example of such an image is a photograph of a white woman watching a number of black women washing clothes, captioned “Taken in Nigeria about 1910, this photograph shows missionary mrs. Thomas Titcombe giving African women ‘a lesson in how to wash clothes'” (Hutcheon 192). The entire exhibition, and this picture in particular, was intended as ironic. The quotation marks used in the caption pointing at the activity were meant to show the ridiculousness of the comment. Furthermore, a hand-out asking whether Africans knew how to wash their hands before the Europeans came was distributed at the exhibition to stimulate an ironical perception of the shown objects (Hutcheon 192). Unfortunately, the irony was not that obvious to everyone. Hutcheon states that

18

Where certain white Canadians might find the exhibit a self-searching, ironic examination of historical intolerance, some black Canadians saw the “painful detritus of savage exploitation and attempted genocide” and a perpetuation of racist attitudes of white superiority. (Hutcheon 195)

Claire Colebrook writes about Hutcheon's example in her book Irony (2004). She states that irony not only displays a critical viewpoint, but also "allows the voice of colonialism to speak, even in quotation marks" (159). The repetition of the discourse of racism, in short, is not merely subverted but also reinforced. A more recent example of a similar confusion can be found closer to home. According to the website Jezebel, a new discourse called "hipster racism" follows roughly the same logic as the exhibition mentioned above. This term, first coined by Carmen Van Kerckhove, was adopted by the popular blog Jezebel which provided an in-depth exploration of the concept. They explain hipster racism as "introducing your black friend as 'my black friend'—as a joke!!!—to show everybody how totally not preoccupied you are with your black friend's blackness". Explicitly referring to a black friend as him being black is considered a way of showing you are aware of racism but clearly rise above the institutionalized oppressive structures in society through ridiculing them. Of course you know better, which enables you to make this joke. But again, as Colebrook and Hutcheon argue, the irony of using stereotypes to debunk stereotypes is built on a repetition of stereotypes to begin with. The ambiguity in readability causes them to be simultaneously subverted and reinforced. In the same way that black Canadians may not find it amusing to see colonialism from a white perspective, black people in general might not find it as funny to be referred to as someone’s ‘black friend’. To bring this back to the case of The Grand Budapest Hotel, the abovementioned monologue of Gustave H. reflects current debates and in this manner politicizes the narrative. The element of humor is present, not only in the monologue itself, which can be classified as absurd and therefore humoristic, but also because of the circumstances around this scene. The scene starts with Gustave H. asking about ridiculous "undercover" costumes and "safehouses", so the viewer is already mingled in the absurdity and non-realistic pretenses of this monologue. In this scene in which Gustave H. accuses Zero of taking advantage of his immigrant status, two stereotypes are used. One is the stereotype of immigrants who flee their countries to leech on the welfare states of Europe. The other is the stereotype of the angry middle-aged white male who tries to protect the Enlightened and civilized Europe from these "barbarians". After the fall-out of Gustave H., the sentiment quickly changes. Zero answers that he is not a fortune hunter but a refugee whose family has been murdered. When Gustave H. asks Zero why he came to this country in the first place Zero replies:

19

Zero: "The war." Gustave H.: "Say again?" Zero: "Well you see my father was murdered, and the rest of my family were executed by a firing squad. Our village was burned to the ground, and those who managed to survive were forced to flee. I left because of the war." Gustave H.: "I see, so, you’re really more of a refugee in that sense?" Zero: "True." Gustave H.: "Well, I suppose I take back everything I just said. Bloody idiot I am. Pathetic fool. God damned selfish bastard. This is disgraceful and it is beneath the standards of The Grand Budapest. I apologize on behalf of the hotel." Zero: "It is not your fault mister Gustave you were just upset (…)." (The Grand Budapest Hotel 2014)

When Zero explains why he has fled his country, the absurd rant of Gustave H. is made even more absurd. The stereotypical rant by Gustave H. is turned into a painful and awkward disgrace when Zero emotionally tells his life story. In "The Wes Anderson Touch", Isabel Stevens writes that "[n]ormally Anderson’s comedies swerve to a halt when their formal joie de vivre clashes with their melancholy subject matter", but that there are a couple of scenes, including this one, where the bright, multicolored palette is changed into a sombre black and white (34). According to Stevens, this is more emotionally engaged than Anderson has ever been before in other movies. However, the humor returns as quickly as it disappeared when Gustave H. apologizes "on behalf of the hotel". It is then ironic to remember that Gustave H. and Zero are both employees of the hotel; in theory there is not hierarchy, from the perspective of the paying guests they are both servants. That Zero is an immigrant also masks the fact that they are both on the run throughout this film; they are both equal outcasts until this moment. Gustave H is a concierge, a servant acting as a gentleman – or an idea of a gentleman that doesn’t actually correspond to any actual gentleman. So he is almost a ‘simulacrum’ of a nineteenth-century man - a copy without an original (Baudrillard Simulacra and Simulation 170). His behavior therefore, is so absurd that it lifts the situation out of the seriousness of the politics of this conversation. At the same time, Gustave H. apologizing on behalf of the hotel could also be read as an apology on behalf of the ‘western’ world. In this light, coming back to the excerpt of the interview with Anderson about the historical context of Grand Budapest Hotel quoted above, it is interesting that he felt the need to engage with this historical narrative while he has never had that feeling before. The fact that he is not from Europe, and has therefore never been ‘close’ to the European theatre of World War II obviously has something to do with this. But taking this thought a little further, Anderson says ‘because this series of events in Europe are somehow still right in the middle of our lives’. The refugee crisis in Europe has caused tensions and The Grand Budapest Hotel could be interpreted as a reference to this crisis. When Gustave

20

H. gets angry with Zero, there is made a ‘clear’ distinction between good and bad refugees; migrants and refugees, the same division Europeans also tend to make. At the same time, the function of the hotel has a layered meaning and could also be a metaphor for ‘hotel Europe’, the idea that some guests are more welcome than others, and that it functions as a place of short stays without the intention to stay. In "Notes on Quirky", James MacDowell writes that it is typical for Wes Anderson’s quirkiness that

Such humor mines a tradition of deadpan that achieves its effect through deliberate incongruity, juxtaposing histrionic subject matter with dampened execution, draining expected emotions from the potentially melodramatic. (Macdowell 3)

Put differently: Anderson's films are characterized by his awkward emotional comedy style. It may never get too sincere, or straightforward for Anderson. MacDowell writes in "Wes Anderson, tone and the quirky sensibility" that the quirkiness relates strongly to the new sincerity movement. New sincerity is the post-modern response to irony and the postmodern attitude of being "alien to the sentimental purpose" (13). New Sincerity is a revival of authenticity in a cynical world. Quirkiness however, could be seen as the way from irony to sincerity. It is not fully sincere, as it keeps in mind the struggle of multiplicity and has still an ironic mindset. But quirkiness is also a way to strive towards sincerity. Anderson is the best example of quirkiness because his films fits the three paradigms – pastiche, irony and sincerity - at the same time. Naturally, it is very difficult to use a detached and ironic tone but expect the viewer to engage emotionally (14), but it is only in this manner that Anderson can let sincerity seep through without getting mawkish. Macdowell states that it is precisely this blurring of lines that defines Anderson’s quirkiness. In the next chapter I discuss The Darjeeling Limited in which the same paradigms and tensions are visible.

21

Darjeeling Limited

“In the end, India is really the subject matter of the movie as much as anything else is.”

– Wes Anderson

Darjeeling Limited is a movie from 2007 which tells the story of three brothers traveling through India by train on a voyage of self-discovery. The oldest brother is Francis. He is the initiator of this journey. He wants to travel with his brothers in order to reestablish their bond after the death of their father. Halfway through the film, the viewer learns that their mother lives in a monastery in the mountains and has not been the most involved person in their lives. Francis has burdened himself with the task of reuniting his brothers with their mother, while at the same time also establishing a deeper mutual connection amongst themselves. In this chapter I will focus on scenes that explicitly involve the scenery of India. In the West, there has been a long-standing association of India with spirituality and it is no coincidence that a troubled family has chosen India to try to reconnect by making use of the presumed spirituality of this country. In this chapter, the relationship between tourism, orientalism and humor is questioned. What is the result of using the stereotypical images of India, and more importantly, how exactly are these images used? That filming in India, or, as some contend, using India as a background for a movie, would provoke a range of criticism of the director’s choices was evident from the start. Several prominent online blogs voiced strong opinions on this topic, ranging from bluntly calling Anderson a racist to more nuanced statements about cultural diversity in general. As editor Jonah Weiner writes on Slate: ‘(…) needless to say, beware of any film in which an entire race and culture is turned into therapeutic scenery’ (Slate 2007). On the website of The Atlantic, author Ross Douthat defends Anderson, but also shows quotes of other bloggers in the course of mounting his defense. One blogger writes ‘these characters are funny not because of their personalities or life situations – unlike Anderson’s white characters – but solely because they’re brown’ (The Atlantic 2007). In short, the Darjeeling Limited sparked debate across the internet. In the book Wes Anderson, Why His Movies Matter author Mark Browning quotes Wes Anderson who has made a remark on this topic: ‘in the end, India is really the subject matter of the movie as much as anything else is’. Browning counters that remark in his chapter “Brief Encounter or Strangers on a Train? The Darjeeling Limited” by saying that if that was the goal, Anderson completely failed (87). According to Browning, this movie ‘tells us virtually nothing about the country but only about the narcissistic

22 cultural obsession of some of those passing through it’ (87). For Browning, there is no sign of ‘genuinely clashed cultures or learning from each other with the possible effect of change’ (88). In defense of Wes Anderson, Ross Douthat writes on the website of The Atlantic about his own cultural background (Indian) and why he does not agree with statements as made above. He turns the paradigm upside down by saying that ‘[i]f anything, I actually think Wes Anderson movies are highly ethnic movies about highly distinctive white subcultures’ (The Atlantic 2007). For an understanding of all these statements, it is important to take a closer look at Darjeeling Limited. What scenes could be viewed as problematic and what is really going on there? In what follows, this research provides a close reading of scenes from Darjeeling Limited, unraveling the dynamics that are present. The first focus will be on authenticity and white privilege, and how these two concepts intertwine. The quest to be an authentic, unique individual has increased over the last decades, partly inflamed by technological progress and consumerism. The paradox of authenticity and technological reproduction is expressed in the new sincerity movement that was mentioned before. In relation to The Darjeeling Limited, it is remarkable to see the ironic structures of this helpless quest for authenticity in this day and age, tangled into an encounter with Western stereotypes of India. In the second part will take this ironic gaze into account, while addressing the role of India and Indians in the film.

Authenticity & White Privilege The call for authenticity started with the emergence of mass production. Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer wrote about this already in 1944. In their article ‘The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception’, the relationship between mass production, consumerism and authenticity is described. Here they stated that ‘Films, radio and magazines make up a system which is uniform as a whole and in every part’ (120). Although this may sound dramatic, uniformity has only increased with the arrival of television and internet. It may seem that diversity will be better served as the options increase, but in their article Adorno and Horkheimer argue that this only appears to be so, while in reality it turns out that the consumer’s options are actually limited by this tendency. ‘Marked differentiations such as (…) stories in magazines in different price rangers, depend not so much on subject matter as on classifying, organizing, and labeling consumers’ (123). This tendency is evident in the production and labeling of sub-cultures. Bjorn Schiermer writes in ‘Late-modern hipsters: New tendencies in popular culture’ that the most important trademark of a hipster their endless ironic approach to life is. As Adorno and Horkheimer already noted, the increasingly uniformity of everything makes it harder to really be unique, or for that matter, authentic. Therefore, the constant struggle of imitation and authenticity are the most important key concepts of hipsters (169). Schiemer states that

23

(…) the extreme consciousness of the imitational aspects of social life makes it still harder to live up to the requirement of authentic expression – and thus forces the individual into the negative or reflective, the sheer auto-distancing from the inauthentic; that is, into the ironic. (171)

Schiermer thus explains that longing for authenticity while being conscious of imitation inevitably leads to an ironic gaze. Though Schiemer is only including the past as point of reference in hipster culture, I would like to argue that it is not only the (recent) past that is attractive to this generation. Authenticity is not only found in the past, but also in the present. Experiences can be authentic, and, as Schiemer puts it, ‘every tourist likes to go the places where no tourists are’ (178). This quote is exemplary for this day and age in which the advantages of globalization slowly have turned into downsides. Accepting the fact that the whole world – and everything in it - is approachable for everyone diminishes the individual experience. To distinguish yourself as an individual has become harder, which feeds the need for authenticity and authentic experiences. Traveling is one of manifestations where the quest for authenticity is very visible. Jonathan Culler writes in the chapter ‘The Semiotics of Tourism’ that the tourist suffers from a bad image. He quotes Daniel Boorstin, who explains how this image is created. He makes a distinction between ‘travel’ and ‘tourism’:

The traveler, then, was working at something; the tourist was a pleasure seeker. The traveler was active; he went strenuously in search of people, of adventure, of experience. The tourist is passive; he expects interesting things to happen to him. He goes ‘sight-seeing’ (…). He expects everything to be done to him and for him. Thus foreign travel ceased to be an activity – an experience, an undertaking – and became instead a commodity ( 3).

This description shows not only the inferiority of the tourist, but also emphasizes the importance of authenticity. The ‘traveler’ has a more authentic experience because of his undertakings and search for new experiences. Culler writes that this distinction between the authentic and the inauthentic is ‘a powerful semiotic operator within tourism’ (Culler 5). Culler argues that places can only be recognized as such because ‘a great deal of its interest comes from its relation to its marker or ‘symbolic complex’ (Culler 6). In other words, if a traveler (or tourist) does not know what it is he sees, he will not be able to define it. ‘To be truly satisfying the sight needs to be certified, marked as authentic’ (Culler 8). Because without these markers, it is not experienced as authentic. Paradoxically, in order to have an authentic experience, something has to be marked by someone as authentic. Taking this into account, authenticity does not exist.

24

India, an equal partner? Wes Anderson also plays with the notion of authenticity and the tourist in Darjeeling Limited. The first scene that stands out is right at the beginning of the film. When the three brothers all have arrived on the train, the steward stops by to see their tickets. He is exactly what one would imagine, dressed in traditional Indian clothes, wearing a long shiny green jacket, long-bearded and with a turban. Next a stewardess walks in, offering them a drink called ‘sweet lime’. She is also dressed in typically Indian clothing, wearing a sari and a red dot, a ‘tikka’, on her forehead. She gives the three brothers a tikka as well. This stereotypical image of India has everything to do with Edward Said’s Orientalism. In Orientalism Said writes that Orientalism is a system of representations of the Orient framed by the West (203). Said notes that this came into being through an interaction between the dominant West and the weaker East. The East was submitted into being made Oriental (6). The motto of the book says it all ‘they cannot represent themselves; they must be represented’ (Orientalism). In short, the Western idea of the Orient is that it is an ‘exotic and romantic’ place (1). The perceived authenticity of India is omnipresent in these first couple of scenes of The Darjeeling Limited. At the same time, it is almost too present. The balance between what is exaggerated and what is factual is disrupted. The moment when the stewardess is handing out tea and at the same time painting a red dot on the forehead of the three brothers seems exaggerated. The line between authenticity and stereotypes is thin, and that is where irony comes in. Anderson’s authentic India is deluding, because it is stereotyped. Fredric Jameson describes in ‘Postmodernism and Consumer Society’ the same loss of identity as Adorno and Horkheimer. He notes among other things the industrialization and rise of the consumer society as causing ‘pastiche and ‘schizofrenia’, which are both symptoms of postmodernism (1962). Jameson describes how the notion of parody ‘capitalizes on the uniqueness of (…) styles and seizes on their idiosyncrasies and eccentricities to produce an imitation which mocks the original’ (1963). In postmodernism, this is not possible anymore. Because of the heterogeneity and fragmentation of styles there are so many ‘islands’ that parody becomes impossible. What is left is pastiche, a blank parody without anything to refer to, and thus, without humor. In short, there is so much differentiation that the concept of ‘uniqueness’ is devalued. Jameson draws somewhat the same conclusion as Adorno and Horkheimer when he states that today, ‘in the age of corporate capitalism, (…) the individual subject no longer exists’ (1964). That the individual is subjected to capitalism and consumer society causes new generations to excessively hang onto uniqueness and differentiations, however hard this may be. In Darjeeling Limited, Francis, the oldest brother, gives a speech on how much he loves his two brothers and explains the reason of this journey. It becomes clear that the three brothers have not spoken to each

25 other for over a year. Francis wants to make an agreement. They must become brothers like they used to be, ‘find’ themselves and bond with each other (6:21). On top of that he wants to make this trip a ‘spiritual journey’, where they will say ‘yes’ to everything, even if it is ‘shocking and painful’ (6:36). At 22:06 in the film, they start making plans for the first stop, which will last exactly an hour and forty-five minutes. Francis says that this is ‘just enough time for a visit to Temple of a Thousand Bulls, probably one of the most spiritual places in the entire world’. Mark Browning writes in Wes Anderson, Why His Movies Matter that ‘Francis’ vaguely defined and cliché-ridden notion of a spiritual journey is immediately undercut by the banality of his listing of their daily routine (including waking up and showering)’ (80). It is at this moment that the irony of it all becomes clear for the viewer. While the thought of traveling through India for spiritual reasons already provokes the thought of naiveté and brings stereotypical thinking to the surface, the fact that Francis thinks that a spiritual experience can be fixed in an hour and forty-five minutes is so ridiculous that it confirms the stupidity of the main characters. This continues when they arrive at the temple. When they sit down in front of the altar, the ‘spiritual moment’ should begin. Instead, Francis is suddenly worried about his belt, which seems to be in possession of his brother Peter (24:19). Then follows a fuss about the passport of brother Jack. Peter is so annoyed about this hassle that he says he will go pray ‘in another thing’ (24:56). These couple of scenes are funny because every action gets undermined, and above all, the reason of the whole journey is immediately dismissed. Apparently, the stereotypes of India do not function as expected; you cannot enter the country and automatically be enlightened. Rachel Dean-Ruzicka, in her article “Themes of Privilege and Whiteness in the films of Wes Anderson”, quotes Richard Cronin’s book Imagining India where he states that

for many Westerners, India is a state of mind. (…) India has always been a favorite goal for those who travel not to experience another country, but in flight from the constrictions of living within a real world. (36)

In this quote it becomes clear that this is precisely what Francis and his brothers expect when traveling through India. It is the disneyfication of an entire country. India is reduced to a place that can give the traveler a ‘spontaneous’ spiritual awakening just by being there. The notion of traveling to the other end of the world in order to ‘find’ your true self has everything to do with the desire for authenticity as decribed by Schiermer, and at the same time it deals with the inability to fulfill this desire. I have to repeat his words ‘every tourist likes to go the places where no tourists are’, as he uses to describe the hipster (178). This quote is powerful because the journey of the brothers in Darjeeling Limited does not fit this description at all. They pass all

26 tourist attractions without having any interaction with the native Indians, except for the staff on the train which is of course unavoidable. It is clear that India is misused in The Darjeeling Limited. The country is depicted through the Western gaze of stereotypes. This misuse is, however, does not only function as a mockery towards India. It also, at the same time, functions as a vehicle to show the ignorance of Westerners who travel. Even more so, it is showing the stereotype of ignorant and arrogant Western man who think they can ‘do’ a country quickly only in order to enrich themselves. Anderson is thus encouraging us to laugh at the Western ‘spiritual’ tourist by using India as an element within Western self-criticism. In short, this film mocks the Western tourist, but uses India as a vehicle. This usage shows, together with the fact that the brothers have no real encounter with the ‘other’, that India is reduced to a stereotypical image and is not taken into account as an actual actor. Francis has a clear goal: to tighten the bond with his brothers. In his mind, this can only be achieved by shared experience, in India. Seeing and/or experiencing the country is not the main reason of traveling, although the known spirituality of this country is the reason this journey does not take place in Australia or any other country. This particular country is supposed to magically resolve their issues, in which it is clear that those issues are the main focus. Dean-Ruzicka writes in ‘Themes of Privilege and Whiteness in the Films of Wes Anderson’ that the ‘concept of India as an appropriate place for a spiritual journey to take place is somewhat clichéd, which Anderson gives somewhat of a nod to in noting the brothers’ ineptness and general cultural insensitivity’ (36). Dean-Ruzicka makes this comment in relation to the ‘problematic characterizations from a postcolonial perspective’ she describes (36). However, the fact that Anderson chose this cliché could also highlight self-criticism toward the West by reinforcing the stereotype of India. There is another scene related to the tension between stereotyping India and stereotyping the white western male. This scene takes place at a ‘typical’ Indian market. Francis proposes to get a shoeshine, and so they do. Then, suddenly the kid who does the shoe shining runs away with one of Francis shoes. Francis panics and starts screaming. Peter notices that the kid left his shoe shine kit behind. Francis, still in panic states that his shoes are worth 3000 dollars. Jack reminds him that the kid only took one shoe. Then suddenly the panic is over and the conversation goes into another direction (25:34). There are multiple things noticeable about this scene. First there is the stealing kid, which can be seen as a trope. Poor children in India who do not go to school but instead have to shine shoes all day, of course also have to steal. Then there is the enormous amount of money Francis shoes are worth, namely 3000 dollars. Those are not regular prices. On top of all this is the fact that the kid steals only one shoe and leaves his shoe shine kit behind. That makes no sense at all. If this kid was stealing regularly, he would have left with his kit and the other shoe as well.

27

Anderson plays with the expectations of the viewer and the embedded stereotypes there are of India. In Linda Hutcheon’s Irony’s Edge the repeated question is if irony is in the eye of the beholder, or if it is always a matter of intention (115). There is no definitive answer to this question, which means that irony will always be up for debate. One of the many definitions Hutcheon mentions in her work is the notion that irony ‘springs from a recognition of the socially constructed self as arbitrary, and that demands revision of values and conventions’ (32). In this scene, everything is out of the ordinary. Francis’ shoes are too expensive, his outburst is out of proportion and the theft is not really credible. Even more, the whole situation is somewhat alienating. Francis’ brothers stay utterly calm while Francis has a tantrum. This, combined with the fact that the kid only stole one shoe, gives the situation a comic sphere. The irony is here deployed as a revision of what is stereotypical and what is ‘true’ within the context of this film. It is to be expected that poor kids in India steel shoes, but this is deployed and debunked at the same time. It is the image of India that the West has created that is fooled here. It almost came true, but then there is something off about it. As Dean-Ruzicka interprets it, stereotyping India is just another way of U.S. cinema to construct whiteness, representing Eurocentrism as the norm ‘by which all ‘Others’ fail by comparison’ (36). Every time a stereotype is used, whether or not it is used to debunk this stereotype, it is still always also reinforced through this use. Irony is always ‘affirming and negating’ at the same time (Hutcheon 28). However, it is interesting to also flip this paradigm as to where India is indeed ‘used’, and perhaps even in order to disrupt just this Eurocentrism and whiteness. It is the comic, clumsy way in which the white characters perform that it becomes clear how stupid they actually are, especially in comparison to the civilized native Indians in The Darjeeling Limited. Still, it remains a fact that India is only used to highlight a white story about being white, without taking India or Indians into account. As mentioned before, Peter buys a dangerous snake on the market. Back on the train, the snake has managed to escape which causes panic attacks with all three brothers (30:56). The steward hears the noise and grabs a cooking spoon, seemingly to attack the snake with. However, he does not need the spoon at all, as he grabs the snake with his bare hands and puts it in a pan. Is this what is expected of ‘the’ Indian man? That he can dismantle a snake without blinking because of his primitive nature? This is a stereotype in full function. On the other hand, the three brothers seem to be complete idiots next to the stewards. They were foolish enough to take a snake onto the train and were scared to death when it escaped. Their entire appearance screams naivety and dumbness. So who is fooled here? Irony offers this slippery slope in which both questions can be answered with ‘yes’. The steward, still in their room after the snake attack, also discovers the medicine that Francis bought in India. He asks ‘do you have a prescription for these?’ (32:08). Francis reacts surprised as he

28 was convinced that in India, no prescriptions are ever necessary and then tries to bribe the steward. The steward is not amused and lectures them about the poisonous snake. He then decides that the brothers have to stay in their compartment ‘until further notice’ (32:49). Here it is also clear that Francis and his brothers are put in their place. Their behavior is childish and naïve, and needs to be checked. Reinforcing the stereotype of India and its inhabitants causes Francis to be ‘disappointed’ every time. Every ‘image’ he had about how India was supposed to be appears to be false when put into practice. This not only debunks the stereotype, but also shows the stupidity of Westerners. Another remark that must be made here, is that al Indians speak perfect English. In the chapter of Jonathan Culler that was mentioned above, Daniel Boorstin analyses the American tourist as following:

The tourist seldom likes the authentic product of a foreign culture. He prefers his own provincial expectations. The French chanteuse singing English with a French accent seems more charmingly French than one who simply sings in French. (Culler 1,2)

While Francis and his brothers fit to the description of typical tourists, the fact that the Indians speak English so very well breaks with the stereotypical portrayal of this foreign culture. This is another instance where this country does not live up to the stereotypical image that exists. The same happens with the supposedly spiritual awakening that does not ‘appear’ as quick as it was supposed to. In short, the irony that is embedded in the way the brothers, and specifically Francis, approach the journey - by checking off temples from a list - displays the inability to have a truly authentic experience. On top of that, the brothers are forced to face the falsehood of stereotyped India. This all changes at 46:40, when Francis introduces a ‘ritual’ he invented. He hands each of his brothers a feather, and asks them if they read the instructions. They all carry a torch and divide themselves across the land. They make incomprehensible noises until Francis says ‘ok that’s it’ (47:05). It then appears that Francis’ brothers have misread the instructions after all, because they have lost their feathers while they were supposed to blow against them (47:30). Stefano Baschiera writes in ‘Nostalgically man dwells on this earth: objects and domestic space in The Royal Tenenbaums and The Darjeeling Ltd’ about this ritual. He states that at this point in the film, the journey is far from successful. Francis is very eager to perform this ritual, and it fails miserably (128). Baschiera blames this on their unwillingness to undergo the experience of spirituality. According to the author, the brothers are at this point ‘so close to their belongings’ and that Jack and Peter ‘do not even want to be there’, that this journey is bound to fail altogether (128). Baschiera notes that there is a turning point in the film. This is marked by the death of a child in a small village (49:29). The brothers see how three children are trying to get across the river on a

29 wooden float. The float tips over and the three brothers dive into the river to rescue them, unfortunately one child does not make it. According to Baschiera, this experience, ‘leads our protagonists to a new form of materiality’. This is an important remark because Wes Anderson is known for his infantile characters, something that will be broadly discussed in the next chapter. In short, the combination of childlike behavior and naiveté, brings to life the idea that the characters are children, captivated in mature bodies. This notion makes it hard for the viewer to hold the characters responsible for inappropriate behavior – they are children. All inappropriateness is therefore shrugged off, and dismissed as not intended. This is a slippery slope that enables characters to act in racist ways, without having to carry the responsibility for their actions. The mockery of assumed Indian rituals, for instance, is therefore covered in a layer of sweetness and innocence – they might not fully know how offensive it is to reenact rituals in a funny way. The ritual Francis invented at the beginning of the journey, goes wrong the first time because the other two brothers did not understand the invented rules. The second time, however, this ritual is performed as it should. At 01:21 Francis pulls out the one feather that is left from when they first performed the ritual. At this moment they are at the monastery of their mother. They climb several stairs to reach what seems to be the highest point. Again they make weird moves and noises, such as ‘whoo’ and ‘zip!’ and ‘shoo!’ and then come together to blow against the feather (01:22). After finishing this ritual they look at each other with satisfaction and content. It seems that they are finally in harmony with each other and the spirituality of the journey. This invented ritual is the closest the brothers come to authenticity, but could be problematized at the same time. Altogether, this ritual is a mockery of real (Indian) rituals. The viewer cannot pinpoint this assumption because the ritual is performed without any introduction. Francis only indicates that it is about to happen by asking his brothers if they are ready, or looking at them a certain way. He does not explain why he chose feathers, and the ‘instruction’ he gave his brothers is not available to the viewer.

Is ‘ironic orientalism’ still orientalism? As mentioned before, quirkiness always plays an important role in the films of Wes Anderson. This ‘certain sensibility’ which entails keywords like self-consciousness, irony and sincerity is often also combined with naivety and/or innocence (Macdowell 9). MacDowell states that the

common mixture of comic registers means we can simultaneously regard a film’s fictional world as partly unbelievable, laugh at its flat treatment of melodramatic situations and still be invited to be moved by characters’ misadventures. (10)

30

The ritual with the feathers fits this paradigm exactly. At the first attempt to perform the ritual, the viewer can only laugh at these grown-ups who awkwardly serious stand next to each other making noises and weird movements. The second time though, the viewer accepts this ritual as a moving way in which the band between the brothers is strengthened, just because of their seriousness. It is as if the viewer is watching children who are baking cakes made of sand, believing these are real, eatable cakes. It is endearing. MacDowell defines these elements as ‘comic detachment and emotional engagement’, which together create a conflicted tone dealing in tensions between irony and sincerity (10). The irony is based in postmodernism, as earlier described. MacDowell describes the shift to post-postmodernism and the ‘fatigue’ of irony in the 1990s and 2000s (12). This is where New Sincerity comes in, as a response to the pessimism and cynicism of postmodernism. However, left with the luggage of postmodernism it has become impossible to simply be sincere. Or, as MacDowell puts it, ‘they all seem somehow forced to use highly ironized and self-conscious means of doing so’ (12). MacDowell points out that Anderson needs both irony and sincerity in order to balance out his characters. The actions of the protagonists are often ridiculous or misguided, and by using irony he lets the viewer in on this weirdness. He is also granting his characters sincerity, which makes them vulnerable, although this sincerity is largely intertwined with infantilism and naiveté. When looking at the ritual that is performed in The Darjeeling Limited, the same tension can be seen. It is not only the ritual that stands by the notion of quirkiness, also the other scenes mentioned above rely on it. The question of stereotypes, race and irony in the scene with the shoe shiner and the scene with the snake can only work because of the sympathetic clumsy characters. The quirkiness of the characters is needed to expose the prejudices and stereotypes of India in general. If it wasn’t for this, the film would be bluntly racist whereas the viewer is now confronted with his own ideas and prejudices reflected by likeable characters. It is as if the viewer hovers above them indeed as if they were children, rethinking the insensitivity that comes about. Francis and his brothers form a mirror in which both implicit and explicit stereotypes pop up and get debunked. At the same time, this is not flawless or without remarks. Every time a stereotype is used to debunk a stereotype, that same stereotype is automatically reinforced again just by showing it (Hutcheon 28). It is this tension that makes The Darjeeling Limited interesting and worth peeling off its layers. Though at the same time, there can be no definitive answer, as there never is when using irony. In this chapter it became clear that there are certain tensions between stereotypes and irony, and authenticity and sincerity. Those four concepts are largely intertwined and cannot be used separately. What does appear through the concept of tourism in this film, is that the whole experience of traveling, and here in particular, is a solipsistic – there is only the view of the traveler, not of the thing that is traveled. There is no possibility for engagement with others, while the whole

31 purpose of traveling is understood to be just that: an encounter with otherness of which you are not aware. The irony that is embedded here is omnipresent throughout the sphere of The Darjeeling Limited. There is no way to break through the stereotypical images of the East, and if there is, it must be broken by using just these stereotypes. In short; there is no way out of this certain view of the West and East. By showing the stereotypes of the East and of the Western gaze, they are just as much reconfirmed as debunked.

32

The Royal Tenenbaums

“I didn't think so much of him at first. But now I get it: he's everything that I'm not.”

- Royal Tenenbaum

The Royal Tenenbaums is a Wes Anderson movie from 2001. It tells the story of the Tenenbaum family, consisting of father Royal, mother Etheline and their children Margot (who is adopted), Chas and Richie. All three children are geniuses. From when they were little all of them had special gifts. Margot writes plays, Chas was a brilliant real estate manager and Richie was a professional tennis player. Royal and Etheline separated but were never divorced. The film starts when all children have grown up, and there is little left of the prosperity that once could have been their future. Margot has not written a play in seven years, is married to neurologist and writer Raleigh St. Clair, and barely leaves the bathroom where she secretly smokes cigarettes. Chas has lost his wife in a plane crash and therefore raises his two boys in a military manner – in order for them to be able to escape if ever necessary. Richie has left his tennis career behind, and father Royal has to leave the hotel room where he spent the last 22 years. Mother Etheline is the only one who seems to be doing alright. She is a successful archeologist and has carried out many expeditions. At the beginning of the film, her accountant Henry Sherman asks her to marry him, and she likes the idea. The problem is, that she is officially still married to Royal. Royal, in the meantime, has been evicted from the hotel and needs a place to live. Pagoda, friend/servant of the family has been living in the house with Etheline, but is also still loyal to Royal. Pagoda is not white. His heritage is not made clear in the film, but is most likely Indian or Pakistani. The fact that his character is the servant of the house – and foremost the servant of Royal, can be seen as problematic in the racial discourse of the film and more broadly in the racial discourse of all Wes Anderson films. As soon as Pagoda hears the news, he calls Royal to tell him that someone has proposed to Etheline, and this news could not have come at a better time for Royal. It forms the perfect opportunity for him to get not only his house back, but also his wife. He does this by faking cancer. Again, this film of Wes Anderson plays with the blurry borders of irony, cultural criticism and racism. In this chapter I want to discuss the portrayal of Etheline’s suitor Henry Sherman, who is African-American. The fact that he is not white is addressed at several occasions. In which way is this addressed, and what does this mean for stereotypes, cultural criticism, irony and racism?

33

Surroundings It is fair to say that none of the characters of The Royal Tenenbaums is ‘normal’. Though this is not uncommon for Anderson. James Macdonald writes in his article ‘Wes Anderson, tone and the quirky sensibility’ about the flawed characters that are common in Anderson’s films. They are almost all ‘both comically deluded and admirably impassioned’ (19). As I described at the beginning of this chapter, all children were once absurdly talented and promising, but were not able to live up to the expectations when they got older. It has made them a little kooky, and above all, stuck in the past. Not only do they look exactly like they did in their childhood, they actually seem to be artefacts in remembrance of their talent. For instance, Richie still wears complete tennis outfits. In his article on nostalgia in Anderson’s films Baschiera writes that in The Royal Tenenbaums, there is no opposition between the subject and the object, the character and the thing;

The Royal Tenenbaums seems to recognize the fact that ‘we too are stuff, and our use and identification with material culture provides a capacity for enhancing, just as much as for submerging, our humanity. (Baschiera 123)

The characters literally are their talents, as their clothing implies. Their personality is molded around these particular traits that became imminant in the past. Dressing as they did when children not only dissolves the line between person and object, it also contributes to the ‘preoccupation with innocence’ which is another characteristic of Anderson’s films. As MacDowell writes in ‘Wes Anderson, tone and the quirky sensibility’, all Anderson’s films share ‘(…) adolescents who represent an uneasy tension between youth and its imminent loss’ (9). MacDowell also notes that childlike objects are often used to amplify this – such as the outfits of the characters of The Royal Tenenbaums, but also other objects like the tent in one of the bedrooms (10). MacDowell quotes Carl Plantinga in his article who argues that

(…) the film draws attention to its artificiality throughout, all the while attempting to elicit the strongly sympathetic emotions that depend on the spectator granting weight to the fictional characters and the wild of the film. (15)

The artificiality of the film is a result of the ‘eccentricity’ of all characters, which gives the film an ironic stance while at the same time invoking emotional attachment. Because of the childlike characters, innocence is the most important trait shared by them all. It seems that none of them really knows what they are doing, saying, or thinking about the consequences of their behavior. This is endearing, awkward and painful at the same time. It seems as if they are detached from reality,

34 which makes it difficult to determine if and when they have to be taken seriously. They are self- conscious and naïve at the same time. According to MacDowell, this is the specific tone that contributes to the power of ‘quirkiness’ (10). The artificiality, and the greater importance attached to objects and appearances over characters are important to understand the structure of race that is at play in this film. Etheline, who is an archeologist, is shown in her office. It is the scene in which Henry asks her if she wants to marry him. All around are pictures of Native Americans on the walls. Dean-Ruzicka writes about this. According to her, these pictures on her wall send a message to the viewer: Henry is, just as the Native Americans that ‘accompany’ him in this scene, ‘somehow different – not the same sort of American, not the same sort of person as the other Tenenbaum family members (33). But it is not only objects that shape the surroundings of The Royal Tenenbaums. Dean-Ruzick writes in her article that the lighting that is used, ‘contributes to an overall sense of whiteness’ (33). According to her, Anderson uses ‘depth and richness of color to highlight the color of his characters’ skin’ (33). It is the colorful décor that highlights the whiteness of the skin. On the other hand, in the scenes with Sherman, Anderson chose light colors, and a ‘highly detailed background (…) that highlights Henry’s non-whiteness (33).

The Dialogue After Royal has convinced his family that he is mortally ill, he moves back into the family house. Henry Sherman is doubtful about the situation, and does not trust Royal. The viewer knows from the very beginning that there is a tension between Sherman and Royal, of course founded on the fact that Sherman wants to marry Royal’s wife. When Royal lies in his newfound room for the first time, eating a burger provided by Pagoda, we see Sherman peeking around the corner and making eye contact with Royal for a brief moment. A powerful scene because of everything that is not expressed: the viewer feels the discomfort of the two men living together while fighting for the same woman. A little further on, Henry expresses his doubt to Etheline. He asks her to tell Royal that they are together now. Etheline does not think this is the right time because of Royal’s illness. Henry, who is very suspicious of Royals alleged disease, responds ‘Well I’d agree, if he was really going to die in six weeks. But I don’t believe it’ (56:42). This causes a tension between Etheline and Henry. Etheline is in spite of everything still somewhat attached to Royal and does not want to hear bad things about him. Pagoda, servant and spy, communicates the newfound tension between the two lovers straight to Royal, who is – of course - very pleased to hear this. These moments illustrate the competitiveness of the two men. They both pursue the love of Etheline, and they both want to disarm or unmask their competitor. Sherman focuses on Royal’s fake illness to reach his goal. Royal on the other hand, is not given such an obvious flaw to criticize when it

35 comes to Sherman. Where it is clear that Royal is an egocentric, unkind and unpleasant figure to be around, Sherman represents the opposite. He is polite, sweet and considerate. As Dean-Ruzicka states, ‘Royal Tenenbaum and Henry Sherman, both competing for Etheline’s affections, function in the film as definitive opposites to each other’ (44). As Sherman has an impeccable personality, the only thing Royal can pick on, is his blackness. According to Dean-Ruzicka Sherman therefore functions as a

(…) non-threatening, nonsexual black other [that is] not only a buddy, servant, and helpmate but also as a necessary ingredient in the film’s racial makeup to fully mark the whiteness of the nuclear family in the film and, by extension, the white audience. (33)

Henry Sherman’s blackness is addressed for the first time at the beginning of the film when Pagoda calls Royal to tell him Etheline got the proposal. He says on the phone ‘the black man asked her to be his wife’ (16:09). The second time, it is Royal who identifies Sherman explicitly as black. Both men get into a fight during breakfast, when they are alone in the kitchen:

Royal: Can I ask you something Hank? Henry: Okay Royal: Are you trying to steal my woman? Henry: I beg your pardon? Royal: You heard me Coltrane Henry: Coltrane? Royal: What? Henry: Did you just called me “Coltrane”? Royal: No Henry: You didn’t? Royal: No Henry: Okay (…) Henry: Listen Royal, if you think you can march in here… Royal: You want to talk some jive? I’ll talk some jive. I’ll talk some jive like you’ve never heard. Henry: Oh, yeah? Royal: Right on! Henry: Sit down. Royal: What? What did you say? Henry: I said sit down goddammit! (…)

36

Royal: I want your raggedy ass out! (…) (The Royal Tenenbaums 58:52)

There are a few moments in this conversation when Royal makes a reference to Sherman’s blackness: ‘Coltrane’, ‘jive’, and ‘raggedy’. Mark Browning notes that ‘the tone of this scene is not racial’, (…) [w]hat we are watching is two older adult men jockeying for position as to who is the alpha male in this particular family’ (118). In Judith Butler’s chapter ‘Passing, Queering: Nella Larsen’s Psychoanalytic Challenge’ she describes the same dilemma she has with Nella Larsen’s text when it comes to the intersection of race and sexuality. Butler concludes that

it is unnecessary to choose whether this novella is “about” race or “about” sexuality and sexual conflict but that the two domains are inextricably linked, such that the text offers a way to read the racialization of sexual conflict. (128)

This is also the case with the Royal Tenenbaums. There is no denial in that Sherman’s background is the focus of the fight in this scene, and Dean-Ruzicka explains why, bearing in mind that yes, these men are fighting and yes, it may fit Royal’s personality to act out, there is still a problem that needs to be addressed. Dean-Ruzicka also mentions that these racist comments are nothing to be surprised about, as ‘one expects him [Royal] by the midpoint of the film to not act in appropriate ways’ (33). While the problem lies not in this scene in particular, but in the construction of the film in general:

The problem herein lies not in the fact that Henry is a nice guy and Royal is not; it lies in the fact that Royal is the hero of the story. Placing Royal and Henry in such opposition to each other reinforces Royal’s superiority and whiteness, as he is the character that the story revolves around and end up rooting for in the end. Creating a hero from the white character (racist warts and all) undermines any power Henry’s character might have had to destabilize white privilege in the film and family. (33)

When close-reading the fight between Sherman and Royal, it is remarkable that Royal choses to compare Sherman with Coltrane, which must be a reference to John Coltrane, a widely known jazz- musician, and as Wikipedia notes, ‘one of the most important and influential innovator in the history of the genre’. While it hardly seems to be an insult, Sherman does interpret it as such. It fits the character of the conversation, which is supposed to be hostile. Still, in the context of ‘jive’ and ‘reggae’, ‘Coltrane’ is yet another reference to the irrelevant cultural background of Sherman, and by using these words, Royal is forcing this background forwards as a bad trait of Sherman (or foregrounding Sherman’s race through a cultural reference and thereby reducing him to his race). Furthermore, Dean-Ruzicka states in the excerpt above that Royal is the hero of the story ‘as he is the

37 character that the story revolves around and [you] end up rooting for in the end’ (33). The question is if that is really the case. The viewer is rooting for the children, who deserve to be happy. The viewer is rooting for Etheline, as she does not deserve to be deceived. And of course the viewer is rooting for Henry Sherman, who is the best thing that could have happened to the family, not only in a romantic way but also as a voice of reason – it is Sherman who unmasks Royal as a liar. As far as Royal is concerned, the viewer only empathizes with him because he does not seem to learn, he does not seem to have gotten any better during his absent years. His naiveté and innocence prevent the viewer from hating him, but to call him the hero of the story is highly overrating his influence in the story altogether. What remains is the conflict between the personalities of Royal and Sherman. They are definitely opposite characters, where Sherman is the good guy, and Royal the bad guy. In Post-pop Cinema: The Search for Meaning in New American Film Jesse Fox Mayshark writes that Anderson portrays Royal as a racist, but covers this up with the jealousy-argument. That is also what Mark Browning argues here above; it is not race that is the problem here, it is jealousy. However, this jealousy is expressed in a racist manner, while any other manner could have been chosen. Again, something that was noted as well in the other two chapters: sometimes it is hard to see who is being ridiculed. Is it Henry Sherman, or is it Royal Tenenbaum? The racist comments are so blunt, and Royal is such a maladjusted figure that he is the one the viewer is embarrassed of. In the article ‘Jokes, rhetoric and embodied racism: a rhetorical discourse analysis of the logics of racist jokes on the internet’, Simon Weaver touches upon the subject of ‘black’ jokes. About the term ‘black’, he states that this ‘is an example of an adjective that describes a racial group and encourages contested connotations that move between racist and non-racist descriptions’ (425). Weaver emphasizes the semantic potential to take on in different directions. It could evoke contradictory readings (426). It is interesting when Weaver takes on a case study about the following joke: Why does a black man’s funeral only have 2 pallbearers? Cause a trashcan has two handles. (Weaver 427)

Weaver identifies this as a non-stereotyped joke ‘because no dichotomous stereotypes are offered in it’. He continues to say that the word ‘black’ could be easily replaced here for another group (427) whose lives are deemed worthless. This is an interesting case because this joke entails a ‘micro- aggression’ towards black people, while at the same time this joke may not be specifically targeted at black people because the joke does not ‘depend’ on the subject to be a black man – it could also be ‘a German’ or another minority group. It is in that sense similar to the explanations that have been offered about the scene of Royal and Sherman. As noted, some might believe that the fight between

38 them cannot be characterized as racist, because they are in a fight and Royal is simply looking for something to upset Sherman. Along these lines: if Sherman would have had glasses, that would have been the object to bully. Now it is ‘coincidently’ his race that has to be criticized. Weaver’s research also contains a case study of the use of ‘nigger’ in Internet jokes. He states that the word ‘nigger’ is a master signifier, and has a denotative meaning in racism (429). This means that there is, according to Weaver, little room for interpretation when it comes to this word. While it may have the ability for ‘various reflections’, it always comes from ‘the position of being an extreme racist insult’ (430). Weaver concludes to state embodied racist humor has a dual logic. ‘This manifests in, first, the inclusion of the ‘other’ through inferiorization and, second, the exclusion of the ‘other’ through proteophobia’ (432). Proteophobia is described by Weaver in his book The Rhetoric of Racist Humour: US, UK and Global Race Joking as ‘fear or hatred of the multiform’ (56). Proteophobia is often used in humor through which ‘images of fear and hatred’ can be constructed. The ambivalence of humor and jokes works in a twofold manner; the metaphoric structure covers the message in a way that is always exaggerated and therefore ‘not serious’, and this same structure strengthens the joke and the ambivalence if it is successful (Weaver 60). In the article ‘Prudence and Racial Humor, Troubling Epithets’, Jonathan Paul Rossing takes another approach. He states that ‘racial humor represents a popular forum in which the public engages conversations on race and constructs understandings of prudence’ (300). That is not say that racial humor is always ‘good’ or ‘necessary’. Rossing emphasizes that there are ‘dynamic characterizations of racial humor that make it an important participant in struggles over prudential reasoning’ (310). Rossing notes that humor will always be a tough topic because it all depends on interpretation, but that this struggle is important as a way to keep the conversation about racism open (311). In this light, it is still difficult to categorize this particular scene of Royal and Sherman. While it is clear that the word ‘nigger’ is undeniably racist and represents a troubled past. At the same time, it is impossible to ‘ban’ the word and never speak of it again.

Quirkiness In ‘Irony, Nihilism and the New American “Smart” Film’, Jeffrey Sconce writes that

American smart cinema has displaced the more activist emphasis on the ‘social politics’ of power, institutions, representation and subjectivity (…), and replaced it by concentrating, often with ironic disdain, on the ‘personal politics’ of power, communication, emotional dysfunction and identity in white middle-class culture. (352)

39

What Sconce writes here fits the paradigm of ‘quirkiness’ as described by McDowell. The merging of irony and sincerity to achieve a ‘logic of earnestness in an ironic world, yet using ironized and self- conscious means of doing so’ (MacDowell 18). However, much of these characterizations refer to the personalities and relationships of the characters. Sconce states explicitly that the focus is shifted towards ‘personal politics’. Further on, he mentions that the ‘political agenda’ of these films lies ‘in the familiar theme that repression and miscommunication make the white middle class particularly ill-suited to either relationships or marriage’ (364).

Race and Sexuality This brings it back to the character of Sherman. It is now clear that every character is incapable of handling life on an emotional or practical level, at least ‘both comically deluded and admirably impassioned’ (MacDowell 19). Sherman on the other hand, seems to be the personification of reason. He is calm, steady and an all-round nice person. It is interesting to look at the chapter ‘White’ once again. Richard Dyer writes here about the representation of black and white people. White is the norm, and everything else is a deviation from that norm (457). Dyer calls this the colonization of the definition of normal (458). He states that therefore, there is actually no such thing as a representation of whiteness in the ethnic sense. However, whiteness becomes visible when encountered with non-whiteness. ‘[O]nly non-whiteness can give whiteness any substance’ (460). Butler also notes this in her article about the text of Larson, as she states that ‘unmarked bodies constitute the currency of normative whiteness’ (125). In other words; a dark person is dark because it is defined through a white person. In ‘White’, Dyer uses three films as case studies, and concludes that there is an overarching theme visible when looking at whiteness and non-whiteness. ‘All three films share a perspective that associates whiteness with order, rationality, rigidity, qualities brought out by the contrast with black disorder, irrationality and looseness’ (460). As mentioned above, the character of Sherman fits the paradigm of whiteness – he is calm and rational and he does not play along with Royal’s ‘games’ such as the fake illness and of course the fight Royal tries to start with him. In ‘Dark Continents: epistemologies of racial and sexual difference in psychoanalysis and the cinema’, Mary Ann Doane focuses on sexuality with regards to whiteness and non-whiteness in the chapter. Here she states that ‘the exotic and the erotic were welded together, situating the African woman as the signifier of an excessive, incommensurable sexuality’ (449). The eroticization of the African man was represented in King Kong (1933), which undoubtedly ‘linked to fears of black masculinity and its alleged uncontainability’ (450). This intersection of sexuality and racism occurs because sexuality is always linked to ‘structures of power and domination’ (451). These structures of power and domination are of course of great importance in racist discourses.

40

The collapsing together of the concrete, the corporeal, and sexuality indicates that the fate of the black is that of a body locked into its own non-generalizability. Such a contingently defined threat would need to be countered repeatedly in a constantly renewed racism. (Doane 453)

In short, the black ‘other’ is captured in stereotypes. Everything a black person does will be reduced to the stereotype that matches this behavior. Taking this back to the character of Sherman, it is remarkable that in the context of The Royal Tenenbaums, precisely he is the voice of reason. All white characters fit the (black) paradigm of disorder, irrationality and looseness, especially protagonist Royal. It seems that Wes Anderson is using the stereotypes of black and white in order to come to a new definition, or at least he tries to mix our stereotypical expectations of what it means to be black. Butler writes in her article on the text of Larsen about how Clare and Irene, two of the characters, often ‘pass as white’ (124). However, Irene thinks Clare is taking it too far. ‘Clare goes too far, passes as white not merely on occasion, but in her life, and in her marriage’ (124). Irene is against this, because it provides Clare with certain freedoms that she herself is not able to enjoy. The ‘passing as white’ as described here, is in part also applicable to Sherman’s character. In the scene where Royal and Sherman argue, (and also throughout the whole film) the ‘trope’ of the black man is transferred to the white man. Royal is the one who is out of control, looking for fights, showing irrational behavior while Sherman has the steady character. It is however, too simple to see this as a flipped paradigm. In Irony, Claire Colebrook writes that

some of the most complex forms of irony intensify contradiction; they do not clearly contradict the true or the logical in order to present themselves as in opposition to what is said; they do not allow for a truth of sense behind the speech act. The speech act produces a conflict of sense, expressing both sides of an assertion with equal force. (Colebrook 167)

As Colebrook states, this produces a conflict. It is not possible to wash away the stereotype of blackness by giving a black person ‘white’ characteristics. The viewer is misled because Sherman does not live up to the presumed characteristics or stereotypes that are expected from him. However, the viewer will still think within the paradigm of these stereotypes. That means that Sherman is still not a character an sich but confronting the viewer with his or her stereotypical way of thinking by not showing what is expected. The ‘white’ characteristics that are performed by Sherman (order, rationality, rigidity) also have another side to them. In her article ‘Themes of Privilege and Whiteness in the Films of Wes Anderson, Rachel Dean-Ruzicka states that Sherman functions in this film as

41

the non-threatening, nonsexual black other [that] performs not only as buddy, servant, and helpmate but also as a necessary ingredient in the films racial makeup to fully mark the whiteness of the nuclear family in the film and, by extension, the white audience. (Ruzicka 33)

As appeared in the articles of Dyer and Doane, racism is - among other things - about power relations. The black man is usually represented as hypersexual, to the extent ‘that the black impedes the closing of the postural schema of the white man’ (454). What happens in the excerpt of Ruzicka above, is that the black male is in fact desexualized, which resolves any threat he might have been to the white male, which is in this case Royal. It is therefore hard to come to any conclusions about the function of the characteristics of Sherman in the context of racism and stereotypes. On the one hand, he is represented in an unusual way: he does not represent the disorder, irrationality and looseness of Dyer. Therefore, Anderson shifts the paradigm and debunks the stereotypical way of the representation of blackness. On the other hand, by giving Sherman a gentle and calm character, he can also be described as weak and submissive to the film and to Royal in particular. This reinforces the stereotype of the powerful white male and the powerless black male. However, what can be taken away from this film is that it plays with stereotypes, and whether it is to debunk them or (perhaps accidently) reinforce them, it is worth noting that at least they cause conversation and stir up normative expectations.

42

Conclusion

Introduction

This research has tried to untangle the difficulties that come to life when humor and race interact with one another. Especially in a time where (the boundaries of) ‘freedom of speech’ is a daily topic of debate, it can be useful to reflect on cultural vehicles that nevertheless bring about the current state of affairs when it comes to this issue. Gloria Wekker states in an interview with Het Parool about her recently published work White Innocence that we are now in what she calls ‘the second anti-racist wave’. This wave is accelerated because of the increasingly heated debate on Black Pete and the racist treatment of Sylvana Simons entry into Dutch politics. Wekker states that the racist outrage caused by these events – in combination with the influence of social media – brings ‘hidden’ racism to the surface. There is a somewhat positive twist to this; as racism becomes more visible through social media, the counter-reaction also gets to have a voice and express itself.

The Grand Budapest Hotel All three films discussed in this research take another approach on the theme of humor and racism. In The Grand Budapest Hotel, it is all about the interaction between Gustave H. and Moustafa Zero. Gustave H. tries to incorporate the characteristics of a civilized, noble, high-minded, nineteenth century gentleman. At the same time, he has been touched by the twenty-first century in some ways; he is slightly queer and his values switch from open-mindedness back to a nostalgic fear of change – when it comes to the hotel in particular. This is most visible in the paradoxical treatment of Zero. In multiple encounters with the border police, Gustave is protective of Zero and expresses his dismay with such barbaric practices. On the other hand, the big scene where Gustave shows his true colors to Zero visualizes exactly this same kind of barbaric thoughts and treatment. In most reviews, this behavior of Gustave is diminished by referencing to this behavior as the embodiment of the nineteenth century – as if the film gives a (true) account of the ideas and flaws of a certain period in time that is good to look back at, but not really relevant for this day and age. It is interesting to involve some comments Anderson himself made about The Grand Budapest Hotel. As mentioned, Anderson felt the need to make a film that referred to the great wars of Europe and that his reason to do so is because ‘this series of events in Europe are somehow still right in the middle of our lives’. In other words, the behavior of Gustave and the overall depiction of the other in the nineteenth century is actually still present in this day and age – for instance in the way refugees are treated, but also the presence of racism in general nowadays. The comments Gustave makes to Zero, saying that he is only looking for benefits and does not want to contribute,

43 and the way he makes a division between the ‘civilized world’ and the uncivilized place Zero comes from, are comments that are still keep on being made nowadays, or at least thoughts that are still present in the minds of many people. The fact that Gustave takes such a blunt approach in a moment of an emotional outburst shows how quick the layer of alleged civilization can be pulled off to reveal the barbaric nature of perhaps human kind. This would underline the thought that the real fear of others is not bound to a certain decade but will always be a struggle that needs to be addressed over and over again.

Darjeeling Limited While in The Grand Budapest Hotel the interaction with the ‘other’ is very present and even part of the plot – Zero is, together with Gustave H., the main character of the film, in The Darjeeling Limited the interaction with the ‘other’ is very limited. The only encounters with the Indians function in order to reconfirm the whiteness of the main characters in some way or another. Throughout the film, the brothers only interact with the staff on the train, and by accident when they unwillingly get involved in the drowning of three boys from a far-away village. The people of this village are portrayed in a stereotypical way: they own some goats and live in wooden shacks in a desert, do not speak English and have ‘exotic’ rituals. At the same time, the Indian staff on the train are depicted as very ‘civil’. They speak English very well, they are very polite, and also very strict on the rules – in contrast to what the three brothers had expected. The question that remains is, is ironic orientalism still orientalism? Everything the main characters do or say, is ironic. India thus functions as a vehicle to enable the Western stereotypical way of presenting India, Indians and Indian habits. While the characters do meet with local inhabitants, this is only portrayed to emphasize their ‘otherness’ and reinforce the stereotypical images of a spiritual India. On the other hand, this Western stereotype of India is also debunked in a way, through showing the ridiculousness of the expectations and encounters that are portrayed. Take the scene in which the brothers buy a dangerous snake and lose them back in the train. They were foolish enough to take a snake onto the train, and then were scared to death when it escaped. Their entire appearance screams naivety and dumbness. An interesting factor is the childlike innocence of the characters; the way in which they perform rituals, and cannot see why it would be unwise to buy a snake all fits their naïve character. By giving these characters such childlike characteristics, it becomes hard to expect them to be responsible for their actions. They have a certain cuteness that excuses them for everything. It is as if they constantly do not mean it like this, or did not know that, the perfect blank slate to which anything can be projected. India is the background to which the characters can find out if the stereotypes of India are true. Still, they also

44 represent the average white ignorant tourist just because of their naiveté – it is also a mockery of the tourist. In conclusion, while the stereotypical white Western tourist is perhaps just as much mocked as the stereotypical India, it is hard to compare the two. India has lived for ages with Western- constructed stereotypes and images, while the Western tourist is able and free to mock itself through stereotypes. There is a difference in self-mockery and repeating colonial influenced stereotypes only to emphasize a story of three white brothers and their Western silliness.

The Royal Tenenbaums Wes Anderson does not use his films to make a clear political statements on race or racism . Nevertheless, it is also not something he completely ignores. Critics praise him for having such a diverse cast, but also condemn him for the characters that he made of people of color. The character of Sherman in The Royal Tenenbaums is therefore hard to grasp; what is happening here? Is it a mockery of racism, is it a mockery of whiteness, or is it really racism? The fact that Anderson does not draw a straight line, the ambiguity of it all, is what empowers the viewer to make up their own mind, but also causes misconceptions or makes it look like he might have made a racist film. The encounters in which Sherman plays a role, are put in the context of sexual rivalry. Sherman and Royal are fighting for the love of Etheline. The features in which race plays a role are therefore covered in what can be viewed as a normal fight between two men, where race is ‘only’ one of the vehicles through which the fight is fought. It is comparable with the situation in The Darjeeling Limited where India is ‘only’ used to emphasize the silliness of the Western gaze on India. On the other hand, while in The Darjeeling Limited the other is mostly ignored and has little to no voice, Henry Sherman does have a leading role in The Royal Tenenbaums. He is not only very important to the plot of the story, but also has a developed character and, in the end, wins. The shift in tropes between Royal and Sherman is therefore interesting. The trope of black men, as discussed in this chapter, is that of disorder, irrationality and looseness is given to Royal, while Sherman represents the white trope of calmness and rationality. One way of reading this is to say that Sherman only functions as a silent buddy, enabling the character of Royal to take in most of the space. However, that Sherman does not function as apparently is expected of him, shows that it is possible to look beyond the stereotypical portrayals. Still, it works on both ways; on the one hand, Sherman is desexualized and is therefore no longer seen as a threat to Royal. On the other hand is Sherman the one who gets the girl and is also the only sane one of the story. The inevitable way in which stereotypes work is that they are never fully debunked, because they always need to be at the center. There is no way in denying if the object that must be denied is not visible.

45

Conclusion This research has tried to untangle the difficulties around race and humor. Stereotypes are in large part of the problem. The stereotypes the Western world has developed throughout the decades, are still very much alive and active up to the present day. At the same time, the debate on racism is visible in other places than politics as well. Beyoncé’s performance of ‘Formation’ at the Super Bowl sparked a new debate on racism and the Black Lives Matter Movement. Her new album Lemonade continues to prove the activist side of the popstar and is widely discussed in journals and newspapers. Activism within capitalism is often viewed as possibly suspicious because within capitalism ‘it is all about the money’ rather than a purely focus on the good cause; in other words; the commodification of activism. Renowned feminist, critic and expert on black feminism bell hooks has devoted one of her blogs on her website to Lemonade. In this blog, ‘Moving Beyond Pain’, hooks comments on this view. There are voices claiming that Beyoncé’s album is made only for black women, however, bell hooks does not agree with this statement. She states:

Viewers who like to suggest Lemonade was created solely or primarily for black female audiences are missing the point. Commodities, irrespective of their subject matter, are made, produced, and marketed to entice any and all consumers. Beyoncé’s audience is the world and that world of business and money-making has no color. (bell hooks)

She states that although the album is obviously centered around black women, giving them a voice and address a certain history and background that is considered black, the capitalist environment in which it is created and released makes that there is no such thing as exclusiveness. There is, in short, no way to control the consumer, listener or viewer. Of course there can be a target audience, but there is no guarantee that the product will only cover this part of all consumers. Also, the fact that Beyoncé has an enormous fan base of all colors, means that the political message of Lemonade can work twofold: it can strengthen black women (and men for that matter) but, according to hooks, also educate the white mainstream audience on race matters:

It is the broad scope of Lemonade’s visual landscape that makes it so distinctive—the construction of a powerfully symbolic black female sisterhood that resists invisibility, that refuses to be silent. This in and of itself is no small feat—it shifts the gaze of white mainstream culture. (hooks)

Taking these current developments into account, the films of Wes Anderson can be seen as a product of their time. The new generation, the one that is actively involved in social media and increasingly

46 engaged in politics and social affairs3, also often referred to as ‘hipsters and ‘millennials’ are highly attracted to his works. In the foreword of the book Wes Anderson, Why His Movies Matter the editor of the series ‘Modern Filmmakers’, to which this book belongs, explains that this series consists of filmmakers who ‘celebrate modernity and postmodernism’ through their works. In the introduction, author Mark Browning further applies this postmodernism to Anderson in particular and calls it ‘hipsterism’ – which is applicable to his work as well as his own appearances (x). He also addresses that Anderson is often linked to the new sincerity movement, a style in which cynicism, irony and sincerity are intertwined. In this research, it was shown that a concept such as new sincerity is hard to grasp and causes tensions. For instance, the apology of Gustave H. towards Zero in The Grand Budapest Hotel is as much ironic as sincere. It is up to the viewer to weigh the words and meaning of this outburst, and that is also the most important outcome of this research: everything always depends on the interpreter, especially when humor is a part of it. Humor and race become touchy concepts when they meet. The controversy around Quentin Tarantino will never come to an end, because the use of the word ‘nigger’ can never be used without context. To bring that word into contact with humor is a bold move, especially as Tarantino is white and therefore, according to many, never will be able to truly engage in black history. To unravel the layers of intentional and unintentional comments and choices, it is most important to consider not only the context in which a comment is made, but also the history and relation of the interpreter to the comment. On the other hand, there is a sliding scale of being too careful. It has proven that it is very difficult to ‘manage’ racism by banning words or by simply being silent. Because it is a difficult subject to address, does not mean that it cannot be spoken about. Humor can also function as a way of opening the conversation, whether that is to condemn or to discuss the comments that have been made. Lastly, I would like to note that there is so much more that needs to be research. In this research, just a small part of the discourse of racial humor is discussed. Take for instance the character of Pagoda, the servant of the Tenenbaum family. I have not addressed this character in depth, because I decided to focus on Henry Sherman instead. Nevertheless, he is an important figure in the portrayal of non-Western figures in Andersons films. Furthermore, in a great amount of his work, there are non-Western – mostly Indian or Pakistani – background characters notable; sweeping the floors or working in the gardens. They need to be analyzed in order to understand the scope of the use of non-white characters. However, as this research has tried to show, it is not to say that these characters need to be condemned without further hesitation as a racist ‘move’ of Anderson. It is a fact that in Hollywood, non-white characters are not much present or represented. It is hard to

3 As explained in this article ‘Jongvolwassenen staren naar hun navels uit protest’ from De Volkskrant 47 praise Anderson on the one hand for using a more diverse cast, while at the same time it is also visible that the diversity is only used to present minor characters with minor roles. One of the best productions of recent times, therefore, is the series Masters of None, created by Aziz Ansari and Alan Yang. Ansari is an American Indian comedian and actor. Masters of None is in large a series over what it means to be not white in a white world. With humor, a lot of criticism and questions about the whiteness of Hollywood come to the surface. In the review article on the website of newspaper NRC ‘Harde grappen over slavernij en jihadi’s in twee Netflixseries’, a memorable scene from the series gets discussed. It is in the fourth episode that Ansari, who plays a commercial actor in the series, explains to his (also Indian) friend that Indians only get roles that reconfirm their stereotype; cab drivers, scientists, or IT-workers. Also, most of the ‘Indian’ characters in Hollywood are actually white actors with brown make-up. His friend is totally confused about this news, it was not something he had realized before. In short, this series is interesting because it confronts the viewer with racism, stereotypes and the fact that it is still unusual to see a non-white character in a leading role that is not a stereotype. Also, it is a comedy, it is a lighthearted way to reveal ingrained ideas and stereotypes of non-white persons in general, and Indians in particular. It would be a really interesting study object to analyze because it flips the paradigm in some ways.

48

Bibliography

Adorno, Theodor W. and Max Horkheimer. “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception”. Dialectic of Enlightenment. 1944. Trans. John Cumming. London: Verso, 1979. 120 – 167. Print. Anderson, Wes, dir. The Darjeeling Limited. Fox Searchlight Pictures, 2007. Film. Anderson, Wes, dir. The Grand Budapest Hotel. Touchstone Pictures, 2001. Film Anderson, Wes, dir. The Royal Tenenbaums. Fox Searchlight Pictures, 2014. Film. Barnes, Brendon., and Ingrid Palmary and Kevin Durrheim. “THE DENIAL OF RACISM: The role of Humor, Personal Experience, and Self-Censorship” Journal of Language and Social Psychology 20.3 (2001): 321 – 338. Print. Baschiera, Stefano. “Nostalgically man dwells on this earth: objects and domestic space in The Royal Tenenbaums and The Darjeeling Limited.” New Review of Film and Television Studies 10.1 (2012): 118 – 131. Print. Browning, Mark. Wes Anderson: Why His Movies Matter. Santa Barbara: PRAEGER, 2011. Print. Baudrillard, Jean. “Simulacra and Simulation”. Selected Writings. Ed. Mark Poster. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988. 166 – 184. Print. Buckland, Warren. “Wes Anderson: a ‘smart’ director of the new sincerity?” New Review of Film and Television Studies 10.1 (2012): 1 – 5. Print. Butler, Judith. “Passing, Queering: Nella Larsen’s Psychoanalytic Challenge”. Bodies That Matter. 1993. New York: Routledge, 2011. 122 – 138. Print. Cabrera, Nolan L. “But We’re Not Laughing: White Male College Students’ Racial Joking and What This Says About “Post-Racial” Discourse” Journal of College Student Development 55.1 (2014): 1 – 15. Print. Campbell, Bradley., and Jason Manning. “Micro Aggressions and Moral Culture.” Comparative Sociology 13.6 (2014): 692 – 726. Print. Collins, Jim. “Genericity in the Nineties: Eclectic Irony and the New Sincerity”. The Film Cultures Reader. Ed. Graeme Turner. New York: Routledge, 2002. 276 – 290. Print. Colebrook, Claire. Irony. London: Routledge, 2004. Print. Culler, Jonathan. Framing The Sign: Criticism and Its Institutions Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1990. Print. Dean-Ruzicka, Rachel. “Themes of Privilege and Whiteness in the Films of Wes Anderson.” Quarterly Review of Film and Video 30.1 (2013): 25 – 40. Print.

49

Doane, Mary Ann. “Dark Continents: epistemologies of racial and sexual difference in psychoanalysis and the cinema”. Visual Culture: a reader. Ed. Evans, Jessica., and Stuart Hall. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 1999. 417 – 420. Print. Douthat, Ross. “Reihan: Defending Wes Anderson”. The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly Group. 10 October 2007. Web. April 2016. Dyer, Richard. “White”. Visual Culture: a reader. Ed. Evans, Jessica., and Stuart Hall. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 1999. 457 – 467. Print. Ellen, Barbara. “Beyoncé: the superstar who brought black power to the Super Bowl.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. 14 February 2016. Web. April 2016. Fanon, Frantz. “The Fact of Blackness”. Visual Culture: a reader. Ed. Evans, Jessica., and Stuart Hall. London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 1999. 417 – 420. Print. Hirschhorn, Michael. “Quirked Around.” The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly Group. September 2007. Web. February 2016. Hollak, Rosan. “Harde grappen over slavernij en jihadi’s in twee Netflixseries”. NRC 20 November 2015. Print. Holpuch, Amanda. “Confederate flag removed from South Carolina capitol in victory for activists.” The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. 10 July 2015. Web. April 2016. hooks, bell. “Moving Beyond Pain” bell hooks institute. 9 May 2016. Web. May 2016. Hughes, Robert. Culture of Complaint: The Fraying of America. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993. Print. Hutcheon, Linda. Irony’s Edge: The theory and politics of irony. London: Routledge, 1994. Print. “Indians on TV”. Masters of None. Alan Yang Pictures, New York. 6 November 2015. Netflix. Jameson, Fredric. “Postmodernism and Consumer Society”. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch, William E. Cain, Laurie Finke and Barbara Johnson. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2001. 1960 - 1974. Print. “John Coltrane”. Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Web. N.d. Juzwiak, Rich. “The Complete History of Quentin Tarantino Saying "Nigger." Gawker. Gawker Media Group. 21 December 2015. Web. March 2016. Lim, Thea. “WES ANDERSON: THE ULTIMATE HEARTBREAKER.” Shameless. Shameless Media. 4 October 2007. Web. April 2016. Mayshark, Jesse Fox. Post-pop Cinema: The Search for Meaning in New American Film. Westport: Praeger Publishers, 2007. Print. McDowell, James. “Notes on Quirky”. Movie: A Journal of Film Criticism 1 (2010): 1 – 16. Print. McDowell, James. “Wes Anderson, tone and the quirky sensibility.” New Review of Film and Television Studies 10.1 (2012): 6 – 27. Print.

50

Meershoek, Patrick. “De Hollandse Identiteit volgens hoogleraar Gloria Wekker. Het Parool. 27 May 2016. Print. Naaijer, Janita. “Zelfreflectie en navelstaren is het protestmiddel van de jeugd van tegenwoordig.” De Volkskrant 21 May 2016. Print. Oluo, Ijeoma. “Uncomfortable fact: hipster racism is often well-intentioned”. The Guardian. Guardian News and Media. 13 February 2015. Web. May 2016. Rossing, Paul. “Prudence and Racial Humor: Troubling Epithets.” Critical Studies in Media Communication 31.4 (2013): 299 – 313. Print. Said, Edward. Orientalism. London: Penguin, 1978. Print. Sconce, Jeffrey. “Irony, Nihilism and the New American ‘Smart’ Film”. Screen 43.4. (2002): 349 – 369. Print. St. Clair, Raleigh. “Racism in Wes Anderson movies?”. Reddit. Reddit Inc. 7 April 2014. Web. May 2016. Stevens, Isabel. “The Anderson Touch.” Sight and Sound 24.3 (2014): 30 – 34. Print. Vognar, Chris. “He Can’t Say That, Can He? Black, white and shades of gray in the films of Tarantino.” Transition: An International Review 112 (2013): 22 – 31. Print. Weaver, Simon. “Jokes, rhetoric and embodied racism: a rhetoric discourse of racist jokes on the internet.” Ethnicities 11.4 (2011): 413 – 435. Print. Weaver, Simon. The Rhetoric of Racist Humour: US, UK and Global Race Joking. London: Routledge, 2011. Print. Weiner, Jonah. “Unbearable Whiteness”. Slate. Amazon Associates. 27 September 2007. Web. May 2016. Wekker, Gloria. White Innocence: Paradoxes of Colonialism and Race. Durham: Duke University Press, 2016. Print. “Wes Anderson: 'We Made A Pastiche' Of Eastern Europe's Greatest Hits”. NPR. NPR. 12 March 2014. Web. April 2016. West, Lindy. “A Complete Guide to 'Hipster Racism”. Jezebel. Gawker Media Group. 26 April 2012. Web. January 2015.

51