I know the U.S.A was guilty of using white actors in dark makeup to play other ethnic groups, but you'd think that you could find a few east Indians in Britain to be in this film. I know, I'm being too sensitive. It was common for the times to do it this way, etc. But it really stands out.
shareHello catcreswell,
I have to disagree with you. It is actually part of the story that the employees of the restaurant are all Engish - with the exception of the guy down in the basement that lies down on the bed of nails - the guy from the "mystic east". It's been a while since I've watched this film but I do recall that guy looking as though he has some kind of east indian heritgage.
So it looks to me like they cast the film just as they should have.
Spyders
What are unions for?
_______________________
Guacamole in my choos
Gee, does the fact that an Indian was cast as the "George" character in The Rutles: All You Need Is Cash make up for it?
shareYes, it was common practice at the time, and not entirely fair, but in this case that sort of casting works with a movie with the seriousness of a Christmas pantomime.
shareOh please! It was the 1960s. What do you expect????
share
I think it was so obvious, it was meant to be that way as part of a joke. All the actors supposed to be play Eastern characters did not make much of an effort to be convincing (check the accent of the lady who bathes the girl's sister in Part 2). Plus you've got the restaurant sequence in which all the waiters and employees minus one turn out to be english and talking with a cockney accent.
It was just fun, not offensive I think. Actually, it was so silly it was more making fun of phony Eastern performances than anything else. When the villain, Leo McKern is supposed to be in disguise with british clothes he looks like an old british farmer lol.
" You ain't running this place, Bert, WILLIAMS is!" Sgt Harris
Leo was Australian in real life.
So is John Bluthal.
For Christ's sake, it was a spoof made in 1965. Get over it.
share