Educational Media Reviews Online

Originally released in 1987, David Rathod makes his directorial debut with this independent, feature-length semi-Bollywood film. The Encyclopedia Britannica describes Bollywood as an Indian moviemaking industry that dates back to the 1930s with similarities to Hollywood features, because of its narrow focus to make box-office smash hits. Feature films usually contain “formulaic story lines, expertly choreographed fight scenes, spectacular song-and-dance routines, emotion-charged melodrama, and larger-than-life heroes.” Bollywood films are considered to offer viewers “time-honored values, continuity, familiarity, and a chance to escape from everyday pressures.”

West is West is indeed formulaic and predictable. However, Rathod should be commended for his independent filmmaking abilities. The film manages to touch on issues about cultural identity, India’s “untouchables” caste society, interracial relationships, and racism in the United States. Yet, West is West still comes off as a low-budget, lackluster film. The characters are painfully melodramatic and unbelievable as they try to give meaning to their roles not on the streets of India, but on the streets of San Francisco during the eighties punk-era.

Vikram (Ashutosh Gowariker), a young man from Bombay is in search of the American dream. He arrives in America with hopes of attending the University of Berkeley, being prosperous, and living like a yuppie. However, problems abound immediately upon his arrival. U.S. Customs officials issue Vikram a one-month visa (dismissing Bombay’s American Consulate’s issuance of a six-month visa), his U.S. sponsors have returned to India, he is rejected by Berkeley, and after 30 days, he faces immediate deportation by INS officials.

In an attempt to prolong his residency in the U.S., Vikram finds shelter and employment in a cheap, Indian-owned motel. He soon encounters Sue (Heide Carpenter), a loud, non-conformist punk-rocker - think Madonna in Desperately Seeking Susan (1985). After exhausting all alternatives to remain in the U.S., Vikram suggests he and Sue marry so as to obtain residency status. The only common denominator the two characters share is when Vikram remarks that “in India, they both would be considered “untouchables,” a reference to India’s undesirables i.e., Vikram’s dark skin, and Sue’s independence, outrageous dress, and behavior. In what appears as the filmmaker’s attempt to hurry a conclusion, Vikram and Sue are chased through the streets with INS officials hot on their heels. Under duress, Sue halfheartedly agrees to an instant, bizarre curbside wedding ceremony. The wedding does not save Vikram, and he is immediately deported. Surprisingly, Sue eventually joins him much to the horror of Vikram’s mother. The film abruptly ends with Vikram, Sue, and a few over-achieving children performing a formulaic Bollywood song-and-dance amidst the slums of India.

The film makes excellent use of 1980s punk and Indian music, but the editing is choppy, and lacks an experienced cinematographer and writer. This is not to say the film is a total failure, it’s not. The film can be referenced by serious researchers of the San Francisco punk movement, and 1980s West-East relations. However, if you like other Bollywood comedies that contain antithetic relationships, try watching The Guru (2002) or Bollywood/Hollywood (2002). Unfortunately, this reviewer could not find the enough substance in this film for classroom use. I do not recommend this film.

Additional footage on the DVD includes two worthwhile film shorts by David Rathod, Henry's River (1980, 7 minutes) and Distant Traveler (1982, 11 minutes), Rathod’s two short video documentaries San Francisco: Then and Now (2005) and The Cast (2005), production notes with stills, and the original press kit to be used with Adobe Acrobat Reader. However, this reviewer was unable to access the press kit.