Should all cultural practices be held off-limits to outside groups? Should all people stick only to the traditions of their designated fellows, and studiously avoid all others?
The subject of cultural appropriation is not a new one; anyone who has been remotely aware of the social situation of the past ten years will have heard the phrase spoken countless times, generally in combination with the words “insensitive” and “racist”. It is then worth examining what the movement calls for, and, more specifically, what its complaint is.
The basic premise of the anti-cultural appropriation movement is that people of certain cultures – generally the dominant ones in western countries – should not imitate, borrow, or recreate customs or ideas from other parts of the world on account of it being supposedly racist. In this view, a white man cannot wear dreadlocks, nor can a white woman dress in Asian attire, etc. In essence, this “appropriation” of another culture is representative of the supposed idea of white dominance and colonialism.
There are certain parts of this idea which have merit. Generally speaking, countries should try to preserve their own cultures, instead of simply leeching off others. Nevertheless, the interchange of ideas and customs in a competitive market is an inherently good thing, and it is ridiculous to call it cultural appropriation for a European to benefit from certain Asian customs, or for an American to tell a story based in India, as Danny Boyle did nearly twenty years ago.
Recently, the aforementioned American filmmaker Danny Boyle gave an interview to the Guardian coinciding with the release of his new film “28 Years Later”, and in it spoke briefly on his highly-successful 2008 film “Slumdog Millionaire”. He admitted that “we wouldn’t be able to make that now,” but that “that’s how it should be. It’s time to reflect on all that. We have to look at the cultural baggage we carry and the mark we’ve left on the world”. Boyle stated that “you wouldn’t even contemplate doing something like that today…Even if I was involved, I’d be looking for a young Indian film-maker to shoot it”.
In an older example, Adam Driver, a Californian actor, played the part of Enzo Ferrari in the 2023 biopic, “Ferrari”. Driver was generally applauded for his performance, but a controversy arose at the Cannes film festival when Italian filmmaker Pierfrancesco Favino berated the studio for Driver’s casting. Favino complained that “There’s an issue of cultural appropriation”. He asked, “If a Cuban can’t play a Mexican, why can an American play an Italian? It only happens with us. In another time [Vittorio] Gassman would have played Ferrari. Now, Driver does it and no one says anything”.
The two examples differ of course, but the complaint is the same: that Driver and Boyle should not have taken part in the aforementioned films – or at least not in such central roles – merely on account of their country of origin. It will become immediately apparent to anyone who scrutinises it that the complaint itself quite neatly fits the definition of racism – discrimination against a person or group on account of their skin colour or ethnicity. In this inherently racist worldview, white people like Boyle or Driver should not participate in creating stories about other cultures or countries because of their own descent. The fact that Boyle himself is peddling such ideas against himself does not change its inherently discriminatory nature, and actually sets an even worse precedent for aspiring filmmakers, who perhaps look up to Boyle and the work he has done.
In the case of Driver, the complaint makes little sense. The studio did not cast a white man in the part of an Asian car manufacturer; Ferrari was ethnically white, and therefore it made perfect sense to cast a white man of any nationality in the part, provided he bore a passing resemblance to the man he was portraying and could imitate the Italian accent. Andrea Iervolino, the producer of “Ferrari” and himself an Italian-Canadian, responded to the criticism by pointing out that Italy as a country has produced significantly fewer major filmmakers than other places such as Spain, and that the important thing for the film studio is to “make films based on stories that speak to the whole world, with international stars who work side by side with our own talent”. He further pointed out that, rather than putting down Italians by featuring an American, “Films like Ferrari, which will be distributed in 150 countries, promote Italy and Italian genius”.
Likewise is it ridiculous to call “Slumdog Millionaire” a product of cultural appropriation – quite the opposite. Boyle even stated, when speaking about the production method: “only a handful of us would go to Mumbai. We’d work with a big Indian crew and try to make a film within the culture”. According to him, most of the people working on the film were Indian anyway, and yet the film appropriated their culture? What must the ratio of white to Indian be? Is it Boyle’s view that the involvement at a senior level of a single white person turns the whole project into one massive cultural appropriation incident? Boyle seems to move back and forth on the issue constantly, at one point saying that it is not a colonialist piece, and then immediately accepting that it is; at another time saying that he is proud of the film, but then admitting that he wouldn’t direct it himself today.
Before labelling an artwork as appropriation, people should consider the good it has done. Yes, Boyle is a white man, and even if one believes that the film should have been exclusively Indian, one cannot deny the good it has done for Indian filmmakers through Boyle’s involvement. Boyle was an established talent, already having the 1996 film “Trainspotting” to his name. His involvement likely helped the project to get off the ground, and probably was one of the major draws for theatregoers. Had Boyle not directed, there would probably have been a lesser-known and less experienced director attached, which might have cost the film its box office achievement and various awards. Not only this, but the careers of the stars Dev Patel and Freida Pinto might never have taken off, and thus two fewer Indian actors would be on the film scene today. Was Boyle’s involvement a theft of Indian culture, or was it the factor that gave the film and its Indian cast and crew worldwide recognition?
If people are to be restricted to participating only in their own cultures, where is the line drawn? What happens to people born into two different ethnic groups? What happens when a person may be identified as part of a certain ethnicity, but also as part of a certain sex, orientation, age, height, or any other metric? How is the person defined, and at what point can they be accused of appropriation? If Boyle should not be allowed to make a film starring Indians, should he have been replaced by a heroin addict to direct “Trainspotting”? Boyle has never lived the experiences of a zombie; was he unfit to direct “28 Days Later” on account of that?
Art should not be confined by the physical attributes of the artist. The work of people like Danny Boyle and Adam Driver should not be judged by the skin of the artist, but by the quality of the work. If artists today abandoned the vaguely-defined and inherently racist segregation systems imposed upon them by the “anti-cultural appropriation” movement and instead focused on making good and beautiful art, the world would be a better, and far less divided place – a place in which all peoples and all races could respect and build on each other’s accomplishments without fear of criticism.
____________
Patrick Vincent writes from Dublin
Loading ...