One Giant Robot—The “Muslim World,” India, and Albert Brooks

One could be gracious and give the benefit of the doubt to Albert Brooks and those involved in his most recent film. One may assume that the title of the film, “Looking for Humor in the Muslim World,” is itself meant as a joke on the western perceptions of the named region. I’m not too gracious. And in seeing how the movie has be promoted in the weeks coming up to the recent release, and how the trailer itself promoted the film, I feel somewhat justified. The opposing stance, is that this film, set in a country that is predominantly Hindu but has a sizable Muslim population, and cultural influence from Arabic Muslim culture, is meant to broaden the outlook of the American populace. Show the masses that the term so often tossed around these days, is often misleading, if not harmful.

This is an appropriate place for a significant qualifier: I have yet to see the film, and probably wont, given that except for a poor bootleg, it wont be reaching Kabul anytime soon.

So for the past several weeks, I’ve been subjected to a flood of promotion for the film on quite a few websites such as Slate.com and Salon.com and other similarly leaning ones. Something about it bothered me, and I decided to write on just how the film is being promoted. As always, what we take away is heavily dependant on what we bring in. Further, I wouldn’t be surprised if the total amount of time I had seen the ads for the film was equivalent to the length of the film. Also, it’s fairly certain that significantly more people have seen the promotion of this film than will actually go see it. That’s my rationalization for writing on the cultural significance of a film that is meant to be culturally significant.

The film is set primarily in India with a small portion set in Pakistan. The first clip, shown upon loading the film’s website, is a joke where the punch line is a play on the words ‘Gandhi’ and “candy” (said in English with a mock Indian accent). Yes, Gandhi is significant to the ostensible “Muslim world”, the sub-conti’s independence and the ’47 split and all. But I’m guessing a joke about Jinnah would have bombed in both India, Pakistan and most importantly, in the U.S. As equally a joke about Gamal Nasser, Abdul Qassim, or Sukarno would have failed. But we westerners know Ghandi.

The film’s website also includes an interview with Brooks. In it, Brooks states that the motivation for the film was to make a comedy looking at contemporary issues post-9/11. In answering what his inspiration for the film was, he says, “...this was the 700-lb. gorilla sitting in my comedy office saying, ‘deal with this, find a way.’” I’ll take that as a noble intention, and a good route for dealing with some aspects and issues of our post-9/11 state. After that we get some crap about inter-cultural understanding and comedy and such. It isn’t till the sixth question that the fact that the film was shot in India comes to light. The question and answer only address the difficulties of filming in India, and mind you, I believe India produces more films than any other country in the world.

In the next question, Brooks talks about approaching an Imam to get permission to film inside the mosque. Here Brooks makes note that he is Jewish, and that he doesn’t “think that there’s been 15 Jewish people in that mosque ever.” That may very well be true, it is India after all, and though I don’t know for sure, I don’t think there is a notable Jewish population in India. There is, however, a notable Hindu and Sikh population in India, these religious populations being the focus of Muslim extremism and intolerance in the sub-continent. And I’m sure that more than 15 people of those religions have entered the mosque. It is here that I most start to doubt Brooks himself, and how he views his film’s message and assumptions.

I would have been willing excuse Brooks and attribute the film promotion and message to the studio were it not naïve statements like the above. Carrying the stereotype of Arab intolerance of Jews to India, placing it upon the Muslims there and more detrimentally the entire population of India, and making himself a martyr for entering a mosque there is a bit much. And in gaining the Imam’s approval, Brooks says of himself, “...so I felt like a diplomat for two minutes.” I greatly hope U.S. diplomats in India have a better understanding the nation than Brooks does.

Two questions further, we have Brooks deftly dodging a question on his understanding of the “Muslim world” upon leaving India. Rather than saying that he has a limitedly furthered understanding of the “Muslim world” upon leaving a country with a Muslim minority, which would in part acknowledge the fundamental flaw of the film, he basically says comedians aren’t as useful as anthropologists at understanding cultures. Self-deprecation, one Brooks’ trademarks, with a joke about the mistake he made in choosing India as being representative of the “Muslim world” would have been used brilliantly here, and made a significant cultural point. Especially as Brooks, a bit further on, acknowledges that his character is the buffoon of the movie. He states this in a question on how the film would be received in the “Muslim World.” This only furthers my assumption that Brooks deserves no benefit of the doubt.

In the final question of the interview, Brooks says it “would be the greatest thing” if the film were to play in India or to a Muslim audience. This because, “America needs to kick itself in the butt a little bit so these people see that we’re human...not this giant robot that’s going to kill them...”

Brooks too needs to kick himself in the butt, a hard and swift kick for coming out of one of the most religiously diverse countries, one that is predominantly non-Muslim, and not having realized this. Brooks needs to kick himself again for promoting a film with many images of Brown skinned South-Asians, who probably have no affiliation with Islam under the title “Muslim World.” Brooks needs to kick himself once more for making a film with images of Sikhs in turbans under the idiom “Muslim world.” (Haven’t the Sikhs in America suffered enough because of this type of idiocy already?) Brooks needs to kick himself until he sees that brown skinned people, the people of the Middle East, the people of South Asia, and Asia in general are “not this giant robot” named the “Muslim World.” Perhaps then I would be a bit more gracious to Brooks.