I was listening to a podcast recently that had a take I’ve never heard of before.
Basically one of the hosts claimed that any film that films overseas for a scene (they used Mission Impossible filming in Dubai as an example) is guilty of “cultural appropriation” since they’re literally using a foreign land and it’s buildings/aesthetic as set dressing for their movie about white American characters. They didn’t expand on this idea, just that any American film that uses a foreign location is culturally appropriating that area.
I could maybe see that argument for a film that went and shot scenes with local exotic “savages” to add colour (like the scene in Apocalypse Now with the slaughter of the water buffalo, or the banjo-playing boy in Deliverance). But a film segment that looks like a commercial by the Dubai Department of Tourism? That’s really stretching it.
Yes, the depiction of any part of any other culture is cultural appropriation. We should not ever view, hear, experience, or even contemplate the culture of others. I feel guilty right now writing out this post because I know the words I’m using were developed by other cultures.
Yeah, unless it’s a scene of a bunch of loincloth-clad natives chopping carrots into a giant cooking pot containing a couple of pith helmet-wearing white explorers, I’m not seeing the problem.
I agree. Some countries want movies filmed or at least set in their country because it encourages tourism. Some want the filming to happen in their country because it means dollars are spent locally, and local people and services are employed. And I think some are filmed in China because that increases the appeal to Chinese to want to see the movie.
Now, they may have a more valid issue with the part about “using a foreign land and it’s buildings/aesthetic as set dressing for their movie about white American characters”, but IMO that is different from “cultural appropriation” as I have normally heard it used. It seems to be along the lines of “Why do films where the lead roles are played by White Anglos behaving like White Anglos with First World Problems need to be set and shot in Cairo or Rio rather than Toronto or Charlotte?” [ * ] So, more like a critique of exoticization: IMO it would be a question even if the “interesting” location were just Oahu or South Beach. It’s a way to add a frisson of “oooh, the rules we play by in Mississauga don’t apply there!”
[ * because the paying audiences could not suspend disbelief about exciting action happening in Toronto or Charlotte ]
And as touched upon before, it’s often the location’s Tourism Promotion Office who eagerly courts producers to come film here, as a product placement of their own country.
Shifty-eyed traders from down the river, of course. Played by white actors in bad glued-on mustaches.
I think the issue shouldn’t or isn’t so much about appropriation as it is the depiction of the locality. When Entrapment (filmed and set in Malaysia, 1999) was released, a lot of local Malays were aggrieved, not because of appropriation (they were quite happy to have movies filmed there, AIUI) but rather because the movie depicted Malaysia as impoverished and backwards.
“Cultural appropiation” is such a moronic idea that it’s hard to see how this iteration is that much dumber than normal CA concerns, but yes it’s dumb.
It would have taken so little effort for the OP to tell us the name of the podcast and an episode number. I don’t trust them to accurately transfer information.
Ignoring whether or not this is an actual summary, the general answer is “not unless they didn’t have permission to film there.”
That is the key part. It is only a form of cultural appropriation if you don’t have permission to take what you took.
Granted, I could contrive a case where they knowingly got permission from someone who was only entitled to get it due to previous exploitation. Like, say, you got permission from some Australian company to film on land they had stolen from the Aboriginal population. But that has to be the exception, not the rule.
As someone who is a very big fan of an American director who has really had this label thrown at him a lot - Wes Anderson - I think it’s total bullshit. Aesthetics are aesthetics. Some cultures have very interesting ones. Nothing wrong with using them as a set for a movie just because they look beautiful.
The filming itself wouldn’t be cultural appropriation. But it could be argued that they appropriated symbols of the Malaysian culture to portray them in a negative light. They may not have–I haven’t seen the film. But it seems likely given your description–that they specifically showed aspects of Malaysian life to depict them as impoverished and backwards.
Still, it wouldn’t mean that filming in Malaysia (with permission) is itself inherently cultural appropriation. Even only using poorer stuff could be fine if it was intentionally showing poor life without implying that’s how the culture exists all over the country today.
But there’s something offputting about stories starring White westerners and intended for White western audiences set in exotic lands for the purpose of titillating White western audiences. Ooh, look at how beautiful this land is? Don’t you wish you were a tourist here?
I don’t know that “cultural appropriation” is the right term, but it’s a little off.
]