offoffoff film



Site links
  • Contact us

    Get our newsletter:
    Search the site:

    Film section
  • Film main page
  • Film archive
  • Audio index
  • Film links

    Top 10 lists

  • Top 10 films of 2004
    (Andrea, David, Joshua, Leslie)
  • Top 10 films of 2003
    (Andrea, David, Joshua, Leslie)
  • Top 10 films of 2002
  • Top 10 films of 2001
  • Top 10 films of 2000
  • Top 10 films of 1999
  •  All of our top 10 lists, 1999 - 2004

    Current movies

  • Afterschool
  • Antichrist
  • Babies
  • Broken Embraces
  • Dare
  • District 9
  • The End of Poverty?
  • Fix
  • Food Beware
  • The Men Who Stare at Goats
  • Pirate Radio
  • Precious
  • Red Cliff
  • The September Issue


  • Brooklyn International Film Festival
  • Human Rights Watch Film Festival
  • New York Film Festival


    Complete archive

    Recent reviews:
  • (500) Days of Summer
  • Anita O'Day: The Life of a Jazz Singer
  • The Art of the Steal
  • The Beetle
  • Blessed is the Match: The Life and Death of Hannah Senesh
  • Boy A
  • Brideshead Revisited
  • The Brothers Bloom
  • Burn After Reading
  • Cold Souls
  • The Duchess
  • Elegy
  • Enlighten Up! A Skeptic's Journey Into the World of Yoga
  • Five Minutes of Heaven
  • Flame and Citron
  • Frozen River
  • Happy-Go-Lucky
  • How to Lose Friends & Alienate People
  • The Human Condition
  • Hunger
  • Inglourious Basterds
  • King of Shadows
  • The Lemon Tree
  • Lorna's Silence
  • A Man Named Pearl
  • Man on Wire
  • Memorial Day
  • Mister Foe
  • Morning Light
  • My F√ľhrer
  • My One and Only
  • Paris
  • The Pervert's Guide to Cinema
  • Peter and Vandy
  • Police, Adjective
  • Pray the Devil Back to Hell
  • Profit Motive and the Whispering Wind
  • Rachel Getting Married
  • A Secret
  • Sleep Dealer
  • St. Trinian's
  • Thirst
  • Throw Down Your Heart
  • Valentino: The Last Emperor
  • What's the Matter with Kansas?
  • Wild Grass
  • Jay DiPietro


    Reader comments on Raja

    Subject: Re: a bad film
    Date: Jun 14, 2006
    Sender: Tohmm CPrevious | Next

    I think you've just taken a predigested response out and layered it over the film. We all know about jpower relationships, white males, colonialism etc. While much of what you write is accurate, i think there was more to the film. for one, I thought the whole different languages/translation/asides was really interesting as a device and actually believable in a way which lent real tension to the relationship. For another, i thought there was a total shift in power. there may have been a point where Raja actually contemplated a relationship with the Frenchman. Rightly or wrongly. As the film progessed, however, the power shifted as far as I could tell. Initially all the action and fantasy happened in his interiors, his house, his language, his terrain basically; by the end, we'd moved into another landscape. Initally more of the outside world began to penetrate his; by the end he and we were in a totally unfamiliar landscape, hers and the boyfriend pimp ( if that's really what he was.)Arabian Moroccan interiors, language and values. Hey, I'm winging it. I enjoyed the film immensely and your comments on it as well.

    Previous: Re: a bad film | Next: a good film

    Respond to this message | Return to original article: Raja

    Response to this comment:
    a bad film

    This film suffered problems, the main one of which this review squarely identified: the unironic treatment of a relationship not just influenced by a skewed power dynamic, but defined and enabled by it. The filmmaker proceeds as if the relative positions of Raja and Doillon are simply an accident of history and birth which must be overcome as an „obstacleš standing in the way of „true love,š echoing Hollywood‚s Maid in Manhattan. The film never calls into question the „loveš that Doillon and Raja apparently share, as evidenced by their apropos-of-nothing asides (which is the only clue of such feelings), and never explores the ethics of seeking such a relationship, or likelihood that genuine regard could develop where so many things are working against it, including a language barrier. Rather, the „loveš is taken for granted by the filmmaker, and the film treats the apparently sad way that cultural differences, pride, and misunderstandings destroy a love. As the grumblings and stifled laughter that rippled through the NYFF audience indicated, this is a ridiculous premise. This may have been a suitable premise in the 1950's, when French colonialism was perhaps perceived by the French as benevolent and the white expatriot as some sort of iconoclast. Today, however, I think most people, especially people likely to see a film like Raja, understand that genuine loveŲrather than a relationship based on lust, exoticism, escapism, racial and class privelege, and gender imbalancesŲhas great difficulty developing in a milieu where power flows entirely to the white male conneisseur of the exotic, and the woman is mired in a culture of poverty and gender domination even before our white hero arrives on the scene. At any rate, a film treating such a love would surely dwell on the difficulties that both lovers would have to transcend the greater forces which would influence their perceptions and actions. That did not happen in Raja.
    Which is a shame, because the setup was rich: here was a woman in a state of total exploitation: orphaned, controlled by a boyfriend-pimp and an abusive brother, mired in poverty, forced into prostitution, and absolutely without the slightest control over her life. And the film admirably and skillfully did not portray her simply as a victim, an object of pity, but showed that she had a vitality and humor that helped her get through it all, despite instincts for self-destruction (like her devotion to her exploitative boyfriend). With this setup, the film was poised to make an excellent study of a woman with great natural strength be forced to contend with a new development, and new kind of exploitation: the attentions of an older, rich satyr. How would she react? Would she use this man as a lever of escape? Would she finally see that the attentions of the men in her life were strictly self-serving? Or would she surrender to the white‚s desires, becoming yet another male‚s instrumental object? Nope...none of this. Instead, we get to see what a cool, yet conflicted guy Doillon if we are to sympathize with his frustrated desire. And we get to see a Raja, who develops „feelingsš for this man, yet acts maddeningly ambivalent. In fact, her actions are completely inexplicable...probably exactly what the filmmaker desired, to keep her a distant, unexplainable exotic being...oh, the whims of dark women! Pretty repugnant stuff, on the director‚s part.

    Comment index:

  • a bad film   from Peter T., Oct 26, 2003
  • Re: a bad film   from Jean Charles, Apr 25, 2004
  • Re: a bad film   from bill, Jul 22, 2004
  • » Re: a bad film «   from Tohmm C, Jun 14, 2006
  • a good film   from emma, Feb 13, 2006
  • Not A Bad Film   from Paul S., Dec 21, 2006
  • the meaning of the movie   from Bill Strain, Aug 27, 2009
  • outside the box   from Jeanne, Sep 11, 2010
  • confusing...   from mrs.p, Dec 11, 2012
  • a bad film   from Peter T., Oct 26, 2003
  • Re: a bad film   from Jean Charles, Apr 25, 2004
  • Re: a bad film   from bill, Jul 22, 2004
  • » Re: a bad film «   from Tohmm C, Jun 14, 2006
  • a good film   from emma, Feb 13, 2006
  • Not A Bad Film   from Paul S., Dec 21, 2006
  • the meaning of the movie   from Bill Strain, Aug 27, 2009
  • outside the box   from Jeanne, Sep 11, 2010
  • confusing...   from mrs.p, Dec 11, 2012