So I just read the review of The Namesake in the NYT and am predictably irritated by how cheesy it sounds. I didn't love the book so my disappointment in the review does not come from high expectations. I think I am just disappointed that the "betwixt and between cultures" theme is so stagnant. I think Jhumpa Lahiri has written some great short stories and she does meticulous Bengali-American ethnography, but The Namesake didn't hold together for me because the characters, especially Gogol (played by Kal Penn), are not given inner lives. We want to like them but we don't know who they are. What do they want? We are expected to believe Gogol is a nice guy (architect) who is struggling to please his parents. We need to infer most of this from vignettes about dating white women and his relationship with Maushumi, a grad student in French or cultural studies (something with Derrida). As I am writing this I realize that it isn't so outrageous to think that a mediocre book with a few subtle lessons about the generation gap in immigrant families would translate into a mediocre movie with obvious lessons about cultural hybridity.
I still plan on watching it in the next 48 hours.
9 comments:
So I saw it and there was something very comfroting about the experience. Look! People who look like me and my friends and family on film. On the upside: Kal Penn delivered. There were some beautiful scenes that felt familiar and others that prompted me to think about my parents' early experiences in the US in a different and maybe more empathetic way.
The down side: I stand by my comment about the stagnation of cultural hybridity in film. By focusing only on the most obvious aspects of navigating Indianness in America, Mira Nair (following Jhumpa's lead) only gives us a shallow protrait of Gogol.Ironically, the parents are more complex people, in part because we saw their lives in India before they came here. It is as if 2nd generation kids are too busy figuring out whether they should "rebel" against their parents or not to actually develop other interests. I would say that my relationship to my ethnic and racial background is one of several threads that make up the major themes of my life. Just focusing on that one wouldn't make sense because it is so intertwined with issues such as the influence of my parents' individual personalities and their marriage on me (in a way that goes way beyond culture). When the movie plays up Gogol's feelings of guilt about how he acted towards his father when he was in his rebellious phase, my response was, "I wish it were so simple". Focusing on just one theme should allow for greater depth, right? But it didn't work that way here and it left me thinking that the Namesake is one step towards depicting Asian-Americans on film in a nuanced way, but we have miles to go.
saw a preview a couple of weeks. i will obviously check it out...will let you know what i think! i agree, ac, about the book. it left me unsatisfied. partly because i thought she would just skip from one time in gogol's life to like few years later (especially when he becomes an adult) and it felt a bit rushed at the end.
Kal Penn talks about his character in The Namesake:
" Within the story of the film, i play an American kid (yes, who happens to be of Indian descent though that hardly has much to do with the essence of who he is) named Gogol. Gogol is moderately bothered by his name growing up - NOT because of the color of his skin, rather because the author after whom he's named (Nikolai Gogol) was largely thought to be insane in his personal matters. Gogol (the character in the film) is actually quite comfortable with who he is, and doesn't really struggle with any sort of identity issues. It's other people around him who always take issue with his ethnicity or his job. (I don't want to cite lines and give away scenes from the film, so i'll leave it at that).
It was sort of unfortunate to be asked about ethnicity and identity when my character struggles with none of those issues. It is actually the character of Ashima (the mother) who undergoes the types of nationalistic and ethnic identity dilemma in this story."
WHAT?
Why such harsh denials? I think that's the main thing the movie did well!
so saw the movie yesterday and i have to say i liked it a lot more than i thought i would. i definitely agree that the parents' personality and relationship comes through much stronger than gogol's--part of the problem is that the movie takes place over a LOT of years. there's lots of things that are just hinted at--including whatever gogol/nick's going through--but i thought it kind of fit with the kind of unspoken things that the parents' relationship is full of. and as for the specific relationsihp of gogol and his father, obviously the fact that he finds out about his name's origin right before his dad is a plot device but i feel like it's hard for me to know how i would feel in such a situation, so i didn't find his reation to be unbelievable.
hmm. was trying to do a new post about this, but can't figure out how. i'll have to have zuppe help me in person next weekend. ANYWAY, ac's comment post is a bit disturbing...especially because Kal Penn's going to be teaching two courses at UPenn next spring! Perhaps he doesn't want to be pigeon-holed into only "Indian" roles. Anyway, here's the link to the story: http://media.www.dailypennsylvanian.com/media/storage/paper882/news/2007/03/26/News/Kal-Penn.To.Teach.At.Penn.In.Spring.08-2791353.shtml
By focusing only on the most obvious aspects of navigating Indianness in America, Mira Nair (following Jhumpa's lead) only gives us a shallow protrait of Gogol.Ironically, the parents are more complex people, in part because we saw their lives in India before they came here. It is as if 2nd generation kids are too busy figuring out whether they should 'rebel' against their parents or not to actually develop other interests.
This seems to be a theme for Mira Nair. Watch Mississippi Masala -- the parents absolutely steal the show. Watch Monsoon Wedding -- the 'lead'" actress is by far the least interesting thing on screen. Ria (whoot) and the event planner are much more memorable.
I haven't seen The Namesake, nor do I especially want to -- though I like Tabu and I thought many of y'all liked this book? I'm not especially interested in reading it either because I didn't love the short stories.
Regarding Kal Penn's quotation about his character, first I think we should consider the source. Frustrating though it may be, I think it's important to remember it's a sound bite (byte?). It's probably not well thought out on his part -- and it sounds like it's not well thought out by Mira either. I'm sorry, but the guy made Harold and Kumar and Van Wilder -- he hasn't yet had to express thoughts about a complex character in press junket form.
But if we take the quotation for what it is, maybe that is the way he interpreted his character. I could easily make a similar statement about my own life -- for the most part, I've become comfortable with the wacky combination of Indian and not-Indian that I am. I could say it's been the interactions with people (e.g. the what are you?/what kind of name is that? question; this upcoming wedding that could potentially drive me mad) that have challenged my sense of balance and that have made me feel incomplete.
I think it's idiotic that he's teaching at Penn. This is stunt casting in academia. American Teen Cinema? OK. But Asian Americans in Media -- WTF? As a guest speaker, OK, but teaching the whole class? Nuh-uh. Those better be half-credit classes.
I don't know. I liked the movie quite a bit (more than I expected to) and I am not really terribly disturbed by Kal Penn's comments.
I think he may be projecting his own experience into the character, because I do think the novel's portrayal of Gogol was nuanced. But there are plenty of Indian-American (boys) who seem to be quite comfortable with their identity as American and Indian, and at least don't seem to have trouble reconciling the two (for better or for worse).
I actually think it is pretty interesting for him to be teaching these courses. I don't know how good he will be, but every university has lightweight courses. I think that there is the potential to make cinema studies more grounded, rather than so theory based. Maybe I am just jaded by academia such that stunt casting has its appeal.
Overall, I liked the book (although it is rather hazy in my mind) and I liked the film-- they were the most convincing represenations of a certain privileged Indian-American experience that I have seen. Maybe we want Gogol to struggle more, but I think don't think the lack of struggle is untrue.
I am currently listening to "Amazed" by Lonestar. We don't need to go into that. But cheesy as it may be, I just want to take this opportunity to tell you ladies that I am truly amazed by all of you. Your thoughtful critique of The Namesake (book and film) is really impressive and thought-provoking. I keep thinking that the 4 of you should be teaching a course Penn rather than Kal Penn. As for whether or not his courses are a good idea... the only thing that comes to mind is that it'll be something to intice the pre-frosh with when they visit UPenn next Spring. But anyways -- back to you -- let me just say ('cause I do love saying it): Brah. Vo. Ladies. Brah. Vo. ;). Ciao!
thanks for your post, lilbunny :-p as for the courses, i can see the point about courses too theoretical, but i also worry because asian american studies (along with other ethnic studies programs) isn't taken seriously to begin with and i don't know if this helps. but perhaps Penn will turn out to be a good teacher/professor and surprise the hell out of me ;)
Post a Comment