Search results
-making process itself.15 In the end, Shérazade does achieve a measure of success. The film director is forced to concede that she is not merely a stereotypical figure: no replacement can be found for her when she goes missing – only she will do (Le Fou, p. ). Her young neighbours from the housing estate share in this subversive process, transforming her portrait into a fully-fledged icon over which they mount guard, while the other pictures of naked odalisques are attacked (Le Fou, pp. –). It is now the filmmaker’s turn to see this as sacrilegious by claiming that the
and flapping lips appeased everyone. A general tittering spread through the assembly. Rustomji the clown was triumphant. He had restored to himself the harmlessness of the original entertaining spectacle’ (TFB, 18). This moment has been seen as an instance of Mistry consciously reworking the well-known stereotype of the Parsi bawaji, beloved of Indian film directors for generations. Tanya Luhrmann describes how this figure is typically ‘an old, eccentric man, the kind of elderly man who needs to get off the bus, battling his way to the door, at exactly the wrong
means that allows for immense pleasure and consumption while at the same time creating the illusion of equality. As a consequence, a question arises: what happens to the negative affects that diversity projects might entail? The ‘bad feelings’, the discomfort, the calling into question, the call outs, the pain that it may cause? Are they simply swept under the carpet? Where and with whom do these negative affective residues end up? Despite the vagueness of the diversity goal in the film agreement, Baker Karim, a Swedish film director who was appointed a public film