>>211748752
>Because the movie has received plenty of criticism from actual Indians about how their culture was depicted, sometimes inaccurately
So, just because people from the culture being represented complain about how a film represented them, that means it's an inaccurate portrayal?
Do you really think it's that simple, though?
I mean, think about it. What if conservative rural americans complained that society at the time and place Brokeback Mountain is set in was not as homophobic as the film makes it out to be, that it's propaganda designed to make rural americans look more backwards that they are - or alternatively, that homosexuality didn't exist in society at the time - then this wouldn't necessarily mean the film is inaccurate, would it?
If someone made a movie in modern China, where China was depicted as an oppressive, totalitarian regime, and chinese people complained, would that make it an inaccurate movie?
If someone made a movie in modern Russia and Ukraine during the war, where Russian soldiers are shown behaving in a brutal way towards the peoply the occupy, and russian people complained, would that make it an inaccurate movie?
I think you get my point. I don't know exactly what those complaints are that you mentioned coming from indians towards that movie, and I'd be interested in knowing what you consider those inaccuracies to be. But if my guess is correct, it probably has to do with how much the movie focuses on the extreme poverty in India. And that, I'm afraid to say, is for the most part an accurate portrayal. It's changing, and I have no doubt indians will eventually rise out of poverty like everyone else did, but it's a reality for the time being, even more so back then. In that sense, Brokeback Mountain is actually a more accurate representation of India than 90% of Bollywood movies out there. Which should probably dispell any idea that someone from a specific culture is necessarily more apt at representing that culture accurately.
