Wednesday, April 06, 2005
Email Dialogue with Santhosh Daniel - I
Cecilia: I was hoping if you could help me understand why is there such a spate of Indian Diaspora related films being made in the US and UK?
Santhosh: It's an interesting question and my answer comes in three parts:
a) I think that many South Asians in the U.S. and U.K. have a hard time fully understanding or rather, coming to terms with the fact that their presence in those countries was due to choice... In Africa, Malaysia, Fiji, etc., many of the South Asians arrived as laborers, some indentured,and most had no control over the decision. In the U.S. and U.K., however, people migrated over, established an interest in the culture and stayed (or vice-versa, especially in the case of the U.K.)
b) Understanding why someone makes a choice to move to the U.K. or the U.S.
is one of those things that can split the mind in two, three, more: Why choose to leave the homeland? Why choose another land? Am I choosing to be British or American? Am I choosing to just participate or completely assimilate into the culture? Do I choose this as my new culture? Did I choose at some point before emigrating to distance myself from my own culture? For each question, each person will create a different image of themselves to find an answer.
And then, the children of immigrants compound those questions by asking: Having had no choice in being here but given two choices of what to be, do I choose to be Indian or American/British?
Most don't have a good answer, most have a comfortable mid-point and just about everyone talks about having seen or "imaged" themselves as both Indian and American/British at some point in their lives. But everyone makes a choice, consciously or not and thus, when it comes to third- fourth- fifth- and so on-generations, how you answer that question depends on what subculture of choice you're in (i.e. politically Indian, culturally British; Indian-American, patriot through-and-through; Indian living in America; etc). Ultimately, however, there is always some level of discomfort with whatever choice has been made because it never entirely coexists with the image you have of yourself, what other people have of you, how India sees you...
c) In terms of understanding this image (or, self-image), film is a perfect medium. It allows for ambiguity (like photography), but it also allows for explanation (like literature). And that's necessary for the question of diaspora because there are no absolutes or governing rules to guide the investigation, it's a testing ground to stretch and play with the image, change or reinvent one's self to see how life "might have been" if certain choices hadn't been made. Moreover, it works because the entire diaspora is based on a maintained image of India, for whatever it means to each person,that lives in the mind. And deciding how to recreate, animate and ultimately, choose to let that image go is something that film--with it's textures, sounds and motion--can do, perhaps better than literature.
Santhosh: It's an interesting question and my answer comes in three parts:
a) I think that many South Asians in the U.S. and U.K. have a hard time fully understanding or rather, coming to terms with the fact that their presence in those countries was due to choice... In Africa, Malaysia, Fiji, etc., many of the South Asians arrived as laborers, some indentured,and most had no control over the decision. In the U.S. and U.K., however, people migrated over, established an interest in the culture and stayed (or vice-versa, especially in the case of the U.K.)
b) Understanding why someone makes a choice to move to the U.K. or the U.S.
is one of those things that can split the mind in two, three, more: Why choose to leave the homeland? Why choose another land? Am I choosing to be British or American? Am I choosing to just participate or completely assimilate into the culture? Do I choose this as my new culture? Did I choose at some point before emigrating to distance myself from my own culture? For each question, each person will create a different image of themselves to find an answer.
And then, the children of immigrants compound those questions by asking: Having had no choice in being here but given two choices of what to be, do I choose to be Indian or American/British?
Most don't have a good answer, most have a comfortable mid-point and just about everyone talks about having seen or "imaged" themselves as both Indian and American/British at some point in their lives. But everyone makes a choice, consciously or not and thus, when it comes to third- fourth- fifth- and so on-generations, how you answer that question depends on what subculture of choice you're in (i.e. politically Indian, culturally British; Indian-American, patriot through-and-through; Indian living in America; etc). Ultimately, however, there is always some level of discomfort with whatever choice has been made because it never entirely coexists with the image you have of yourself, what other people have of you, how India sees you...
c) In terms of understanding this image (or, self-image), film is a perfect medium. It allows for ambiguity (like photography), but it also allows for explanation (like literature). And that's necessary for the question of diaspora because there are no absolutes or governing rules to guide the investigation, it's a testing ground to stretch and play with the image, change or reinvent one's self to see how life "might have been" if certain choices hadn't been made. Moreover, it works because the entire diaspora is based on a maintained image of India, for whatever it means to each person,that lives in the mind. And deciding how to recreate, animate and ultimately, choose to let that image go is something that film--with it's textures, sounds and motion--can do, perhaps better than literature.
Comments
Post a Comment
<< Home