If you're going to use India as a prop, at least get things right.

Sanjuro-15

Your interpretation of the imagined stories is ridiculous, typical film snub trying to see things that are not there.

Yea, doesn't Peter ask Jack "Was it supposed to be so sad?" when reading his book (i assume this is the part where they get their dad's car since Peter later mentions the attendant) or something along those lines? There is a little bit of flair and bias to Jack's writing even if it is basically factual.

i think you are onto something very important here - that the view of india here is highly exoticized. to add to your list of cribs, funerals in india don't involve people getting into white rickshaws, and the entire scene being completely white with everyone's clothes and tractors and camels matching.

but i think this accusation of exocticised localities misses a simple point - is it possible to authentically display an area? no it is not.

had this film been about indian characters, the exoticism would have been more dubious. but this is about clueless americans trying to go on a spiritual journey. hence, for them everything about this place is magical and exotic. i think that is pretty much obvious. the more interesting bits are the ones that seem to be unplanned, such as adrien brody's comment about cricket with tennis balls, or the boy on the bike who shakes jason schwartzman's hands. those seem to have caught the filmmaker by surprise as well. but the rest of it is about the american view of things.

of course the stewardess's character is fake. i don't think anyone can imagine someone who had the ability to speak english in an english accent would be stuck as a stewardess on a train with her boyfriend. there are too many contradictions there that have been deliberately put in.

i think what is oriental is your assumption that there is some intrinsic respect that should be accorded to the foreign, but not the local, like NYC in your case. that's what creates an "other" which keeps such stereotypes alive. when someone makes those stereotypes ironic and unreal, such as is being done here, it becomes more poignant.

finally, mean streets is often cited as one of the quintessential New York movies. it was shot predominantly in LA.

Everything is Becoming, Nothing Is - Plato

"If Anderson wants to make a fairy-tale NYC for Tennenbaums, that's cool. An American audience can easily tell that it's not realistic, and as an American he's free to do that."

So, all American's are born with extensive knowledge of New York City? Even the ones in Alaska?

Also, I now have to be from a country in order to make a film about that country that isn't 100% accurate to geography, culture, and religion or I'm being 'racist'? Isn't that a 'racist' point of view? I mean, should you even watch a film made for an American audience, in the first place. That's kind of disrespecting the filmmakers, who weren't prepared for your 'foreign' interpretation of their film.

It can be noted I'm in no way an Anderson fanboy and I hated this movie.

To be honest, not having any presumptions or any presets based on race is kind of the opposite of racism. The whole part about how people would behave is extremely iffy, I really don't think you can fault anyone for not immediately presuming stereotypes are correct however correct they may be statistically. I'm German for example, does that mean if i was to be portrayed in a movie it would be unrealistic that i speak english with an australian accent, care in no way about the prussian ideals (tidiness, precision etc.) and am not a nazi, (rather the extreme opposite)? Because all those things are true about me. German stereotypes are way more annoying then seeing a rather odd german in a film.
So point being= Racial Stereotypes are woarse than just a random character.

Cogito ergo Sum

I have never been to India, but there were still aspects of the portrayal of the country and its people that made me cringe a bit while watching. I don't agree with blanket prohibitions of "cultural appropriation" in all contexts, because blending cultures is a natural and positive aspect of human society--when done respectfully. So Peter Gabriel and Paul Simon incorporating "world music" elements into their albums, totally cool by me. David Bowie with the satirical "Asian" motif in the song "China Girl", maybe not such a great idea.

And this whole movie was so lightweight, it comes across like a lark. Which makes the Orientalism in it a little sketchy, because it really does use India as a prop, kind of a goof.

Sure, Anderson plays with his settings in a lighthearted way across his filmography. But I think the OP nailed it in the above comment:

"If Anderson wants to make a fairy-tale NYC for Tennenbaums, that's cool. An American audience can easily tell that it's not realistic, and as an American he's free to do that. But in this day and age, when you use a foreign country and it's religion and culture as a major part of your film, you need to show some respect. Part of showing respect is getting at least a few details right. Not doing that is called Orientalism, or racism."

So if someone is going to make a movie that mocks India and Indians, it probably ought to be a South Asian person, not a white American who is doing it all like ": "Duuude, check out how weird this place is, lol".