The Reluctant Fundamentalist (Film)
The Reluctant Fundamentalist (Film)
| The Reluctant Fundamentalist | |
.jpeg) |
|
| Directed by | Mira Nair |
| Screenplay by | William Wheeler |
| Story by |
Mohsin Hamid Ami Boghani |
| Based on |
The Reluctant Fundamentalist by Mohsin Hamid |
| Produced by | Lydia Dean Pilcher |
| Starring |
Riz Ahmed Kate Hudson Liev Schreiber Kiefer Sutherland Om Puri Shabana Azmi Haluk Bilginer |
| Cinematography | Declan Quinn |
| Edited by | Shimit Amin |
| Music by | Michael Andrews |
| Production companies |
Doha Film Institute Mirabai Films Cine Mosaic |
| Distributed by |
IFC Films
(United States) PVR Pictures (India) |
| Release dates |
29 August 2012 (Venice Film Festival) 26 April 2013 (United States) 17 May 2013 (India) 24 May 2013 (Pakistan) |
| Running time | 130 minutes |
| Countries | United States India Qatar |
| Languages | English Urdu |
| Budget | $15 million |
| Box office | $2.1 million |
A. Pre-Watching Activities
Beyond Center and Margin? Deconstructing Globalization with Loomba, Hardt, and Negri
For decades, the "center-periphery" model has been a foundational lens for understanding global power. It describes a world where wealthy, powerful colonial metropoles (the centers) exploit and dominate poorer, subjugated regions (the margins or periphery). Postcolonial studies has rigorously used this framework to analyze the cultural, economic, and political aftermath of empire.
But in our era of seamless digital finance, multinational corporations, and global supply chains, a pressing question emerges: Is the old center-margin dichotomy still useful, or has globalization created a new, borderless world of power that renders it obsolete?
This is the exact question Ania Loomba tackles in the conclusion to the second edition of her seminal work, Colonialism/Postcolonialism. She does so by critically examining one of the most influential theories of 21st-century power: Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri's concept of Empire.
Hardt and Negri's "Empire": A Decentered Network of Power
Hardt and Negri's central argument, as summarized by Loomba, is that the old model of imperialism—where a distinct European nation-state conquered and directly ruled foreign territories—is over. In its place is a new form of sovereignty they call "Empire."
This new Empire has three key characteristics that reframe globalization beyond the center-margin model:
It is Decentered and Deterritorialized: Unlike the British or French empires, this new Empire "establishes no territorial center of power and does not rely on fixed boundaries or barriers." There is no single capital city ruling the world. Instead, power is exercised through a "network of powers and counterpowers" – a global web of international institutions, treaties, corporations, and NGOs.
It is Inclusive, Not Exclusive: Old imperialism worked by exclusion and oppression, drawing clear lines between colonizer and colonized. Empire, they argue, works by incorporation and modulation. It "manages hybrid identities, flexible hierarchies, and plural exchanges," absorbing difference into its system rather than crushing it under a boot. They compare it to the Roman Empire, which integrated subject peoples rather than simply subjugating them.
The U.S. is a Catalyst, Not the Center: Crucially, Hardt and Negri do not simply label the U.S. as the new center. They argue that while the U.S. constitutional project was a blueprint for this inclusive, network-based power, Empire itself is a supranational entity. The U.S. acts "in the name of global right," not merely its own national interest.
For many, this was a liberating theory. It suggested that postcolonial studies, stuck in a binary of resistant margins and hegemonic cores, was ill-equipped to analyze the fluid, interconnected operations of contemporary power. As Loomba notes, supporters like Susie O’Brien and Imre Szeman celebrated Empire for helping us "think past the reinscription of globalisation as a centre/periphery dynamic."
Loomba's Critique: The Lingering Ghosts of Empire
Loomba acknowledges the provocative nature of this thesis but offers a powerful critique, arguing that dismissing the center-margin model is not only premature but dangerous. She does not deny the reality of global networks but insists they operate on a landscape still brutally shaped by colonial history.
The "New" Empire Feels Very Old: Loomba points to voices from the Global South that experience contemporary globalization not as a break from history, but as its continuation. She quotes an unemployed Bolivian miner who declares, "Globalization is just another name for submission and domination... We’ve had to live with that here for 500 years." The report details how free-market reforms in Bolivia, enforced by international financial institutions, led to increased poverty and unemployment, mirroring colonial extractive patterns.
The Violence of "Market Fundamentalism": Drawing on economist P. Sainath, Loomba argues that the mobility of capital has created its own "market fundamentalism"—a rigid ideology as destructive and cross-border as any religious fundamentalism. This fundamentalism, enforced by institutions like the IMF and World Bank, has led to "imposition, disintegration, underdevelopment and appropriation" in the developing world, intensifying pre-existing global asymmetries.
- The Return of the Repressed Center: Most damningly, Loomba shows that while theorists like Hardt and Negri shy away from naming a center, the advocates of a "New American Empire" have no such hesitation. She quotes figures like Niall Ferguson and Robert D. Kaplan who openly call for the U.S. to embrace its imperial role, drawing direct and celebratory parallels to the British Empire. This rhetoric, used to justify the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, blatantly re-establishes a very clear center of military and political power.
- Cultural Racism in a New Guise: Loomba also critiques Hardt and Negri's optimistic view that biological racism has given way to more fluid, cultural notions of difference. Following Etienne Balibar, she argues that this "neo-racism" (e.g., framing Muslim culture as inherently incompatible with the West) can be just as rigid and pernicious. This culturalist logic, dominant after 9/11, directly fuels the engine of the new imperialism.
Conclusion: Not Beyond, But Through
So, how do these theories reframe globalization?
Hardt and Negri reframe it as a decentered network (Empire), suggesting we need new tools that move beyond the geographic and political binaries of classical imperialism.
Loomba argues that this network is layered onto and energizes older colonial hierarchies. The center-margin model isn't obsolete; it has been reconfigured. The margin is still exploited, but now by a diffuse network of capital supported by the hardened military core of a U.S.-led hegemony.
For Loomba, the task for postcolonial studies is not to abandon its focus on domination and resistance but to apply its historical lens to these new/old formations. It must trace the connections between the colonial past and the globalized present, revealing how the "borderless world" of capital still very much depends on and creates brutal borders, immense inequality, and new forms of cultural domination.
The resistance, as seen in the Narmada Bachao Andolan case she discusses, must therefore be both fiercely local and intelligently global, understanding how local power elites collaborate with international networks. It proves that the spirit of anti-colonial struggle is not redundant but essential, evolving to meet the challenges of a world where empire no longer always dares to speak its name—but acts nonetheless.
Reflect in 300-word responses: How might these frameworks illuminate The Reluctant Fundamentalist as a text about empire, hybridity, and post-9/11 geopolitics?
Early Life in Lahore: Born in 1971, Hamid spent much of his childhood in Lahore, Pakistan, giving him a deep connection to and understanding of the country's culture and socio-political landscape.
Education in the US: He moved to the United States to attend Princeton University (like his protagonist, Changez) and later Harvard Law School. This experience allowed him to not only succeed within the pinnacles of American meritocracy but also to intimately understand its nuances, contradictions, and underlying social codes.
Professional Life: After graduation, he worked as a management consultant in New York City for McKinsey & Company. This experience provided the firsthand, gritty detail of the high-stakes, hyper-capitalist environment that Underwood Samson (the fictional firm in the novel) is based on.
Multinational Residency: As noted, he lived in New York just before 9/11, in London during the 7/7 bombings, and in Lahore during the peak of terrorist attacks and U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan. This placed him at the epicenter of the "War on Terror" from all three perspectives, deeply informing his worldview.
The Pre-9/11 Novel (c. 2000-2001): Hamid has stated in interviews that he began writing a novel in 2000 about a young Pakistani man in love with a troubled American woman in New York. The initial focus was primarily on the personal: a cross-cultural romance, the experience of immigration, and the protagonist's journey in the corporate world. The title, The Reluctant Fundamentalist, was already conceived, but its meaning was anchored in economic fundamentalism—the ruthless, numbers-driven ideology of global finance.
The Post-9/11 Reshaping (2001-2007): The 9/11 attacks acted as a massive historical shockwave that utterly transformed the context of Hamid's unfinished manuscript. The personal story of a Pakistani man in America was now irrevocably politicized. The narrative had to expand to encompass the new, terrifying reality where:
Cultural identity became a matter of suspicion and scrutiny.
A "clash of civilizations" rhetoric dominated public discourse.
The same American society that celebrated meritocracy and diversity began to exhibit insularity and xenophobia.
Hamid set the manuscript aside for several years to process these events. When he returned to it, the story was no longer just a personal one; it was a political thriller, a psychological drama, and a direct commentary on the post-9/11 world. The existing narrative was retrofitted with the looming presence of the attacks and their aftermath, making the date—set in 2000—deeply ironic and tense, as the reader knows the catastrophe that awaits the characters and their world.
How the 9/11 Attacks Reshaped the Narrative
The critical article posits that 9/11 forced Hamid's narrative to evolve from a personal story into a novel that actively challenges the dominant post-9/11 literary and political paradigms.
Shift in Perspective: Instead of focusing on American trauma, the novel focalizes the experience of the "other"—the Muslim man who becomes a subject of suspicion. It highlights the trauma inflicted by the response to 9/11: the racial profiling, the existential alienation, and the violence of the ensuing wars.
Deconstructing "Culture Talk": The novel dismantles the reductive idea, as explained by Mahmood Mamdani, that culture is a "tangible essence" that explains politics. Changez is not radicalized by religion but by politics, by empathy for victims of American power, and by the humiliation of being perceived as a threat solely because of his identity. His fundamentalism is economic first, and his reluctance is to the fundamentalism of American empire.
The "See Something, Say Something" Paranoia: His essay about not reporting a suspicious Pakistani man on the London Tube illustrates a "different sense of responsibility—the responsibility not to act" born from the knowledge of anti-Muslim hysteria. This empathy and solidarity inform Changez's character, making him more than just a political symbol; he is a compassionate individual navigating an impossible situation.
The Humiliation of Scrutiny: Hamid's experiences at embassies and airports (e.g., JFK) directly feed into Changez’s degrading experiences, such as being singled out for extra security checks. These personal indignities become the building blocks of his political disillusionment.
Creating Dissonance and Distrust: The one-sided conversation forces the reader into the position of the American listener—unnerved, suspicious, and unable to verify anything they are told. This replicates the very atmosphere of paranoia and uncertainty that defined the post-9/11 world. We are never sure if Changez is a victim, a predator, or a revolutionary.
The Hoax Confessional: The title sets an expectation of a confession of Islamic radicalization, parodying books like Ed Husain's The Islamist. By subverting this expectation, Hamid critiques the Western demand for Muslims to explain themselves and confess to a radicalism they may not possess. The novel becomes a "confession that implicates its audience," turning the gaze back on the reader and their own assumptions.
Beyond East vs. West: The novel argues that "our civilizations do not cause us to clash. No, our clashing allows us to pretend we belong to civilizations." The conflict creates the illusion of separate, monolithic entities. Hamid, through Changez, shows that identities are fluid and permeable: "Something of us is now outside, and something of the outside is now within us."
A Novel for World Literature: As the critical article concludes, the novel forces the reader to be "deterritorialized." It refuses to be a simple Pakistani novel "writing back" to the West. Instead, it occupies a global space, examining the interconnectedness of power, finance, and violence in the modern world. It records the experiences of those affected by the "reverberations from the response to 9/11" that are often ignored, making it a vital work of world literature that holds a mirror to the "hyper-conscious western world."
In conclusion, 9/11 did not just provide a backdrop for Hamid's novel; it fundamentally reconfigured its DNA. It transformed a story of personal ambition and romance into a complex, unsettling, and essential political and psychological inquiry into identity, power, and the perils of empire in the 21st century. The novel is a direct product of Hamid's unique background as a "global hybrid" who experienced the seismic shift of 9/11 from multiple, conflicting vantage points.
Write a short summary (150 words): What is the significance of Hamid having begun the novel before 9/11 but completing it thereafter?
B. While-Watching Activities
1. Character Conflicts & Themes
Generational Split & Corporate Modernity
Changez and Erica: Objectification and Emotional Estrangement
The relationship with Erica (Kate Hudson) is the primary emotional vehicle for exploring Changez's experience of alienation and objectification in America.
Research/Theoretical Lens: Erica functions as an allegory for America itself. Her name, Erica, is a homophone for "America." Her character is not just a love interest but a symbol of a nation that is beautiful, alluring, but also melancholic, self-absorbed, and trapped in its own past (her obsession with her ex-boyfriend Chris, a symbol of a pre-9/11 America).
Cinematic Depiction & Thematics:
Visual Objectification: The cinematography often frames Erica through a soft, romantic, almost dreamlike lens, objectifying her as an ideal. Conversely, Changez is frequently shot looking at her, his gaze filled with a desire not just for her, but for the acceptance into the world she represents.
Thematic Estrangement: Erica's emotional unavailability mirrors America's inability to truly see or accept Changez after 9/11. His famous line, "I was looked at like a monster," is foreshadowed in their intimate relationship. When he tries to connect with her, she asks him to pretend to be Chris—a literal demand for him to erase his identity and mimic another. This is a profound visual and thematic representation of the emotional estrangement and conditional acceptance he faces.
Profit vs. Knowledge
Tittle Significance & Dual Fundamentalism :-
Corporate Fundamentalism – In several scenes, Changez reflects on his time at Underwood Samson. The company’s motto—“Focus on the fundamentals” is shown as a cold, unfeeling devotion to profit above all else. This is framed visually through sterile office spaces, numerical projections on glass walls, and conversations where human cost is ignored. The obsession with efficiency mirrors the rigid devotion often associated with religious dogma.
Religious Fundamentalism – Post-9/11, Changez faces suspicion in the U.S. simply for being Pakistani and Muslim. Scenes of him being profiled at airports, watched in cafes, or trailed by police evoke the paranoia around Islamic extremism. The film draws subtle parallels—showing that extremism can exist in both Wall Street boardrooms and militant groups.
Duality in Visual Form :-
In Istanbul, the same framing and lighting used for corporate meetings is used in a later scene where Changez speaks with Pakistani activists—suggesting that both worlds demand loyalty, discipline, and sacrifice for “the cause.”
Changez even points out in conversation with the American journalist that both corporate and militant ideologies demand a kind of absolute, unquestioning faith.
Moments of Reluctance :-
Refusing Terrorist Recruitment – When approached by a militant group, Changez turns them down, making it clear he does not want to take up arms despite his anger toward U.S. foreign policy.
Quitting Underwood Samson – His resignation scene, especially after the Istanbul episode, shows that he is equally unwilling to keep serving a corporate machine that erases culture for profit.
Ambivalence in the Café – The framing device of Changez narrating his story to the American journalist is filled with pauses, half-smiles, and cryptic remarks—suggesting that even in telling his story, he resists fitting into a simple “pro” or “anti” category.
Empire Narratives
Post Watching Activity:-
Discussion Prompts (Small Groups) Does the film provide a space for reconciliation between East and West—or does it ultimately reinforce stereotypes? o How successfully does Nair’s adaptation translate the novel’s dramatic monologue and ambiguity into cinematic language ?
1. Space for Reconciliation or Reinforcement of Stereotypes
The film tries to create a space for understanding between East and West through Changez’s conversation with Bobby, the American journalist.
For reconciliation – Changez shares his story honestly, and Bobby listens, showing that dialogue can bridge cultural gaps. The film shows good and bad people on both sides, avoiding a simple “villain/hero” divide.
But stereotypes remain – Some characters still fit familiar post-9/11 stereotypes:
The suspicious American security officers
The militant-looking Pakistani protesters
The “exotic” romantic figure of Changez for Erica
This means the film both challenges and, at times, repeats old images of East and West.
2. Nair’s Adaptation of the Novel’s Monologue and Ambiguity :
In Mohsin Hamid’s novel, the whole story is told as a single, dramatic monologue from Changez to an unnamed American in a Lahore café.
Cinematic translation – Mira Nair uses flashbacks to show Changez’s life in America, his love story with Erica, and his career. This makes the story more visual and easier for film audiences to follow.
Ambiguity – The film keeps the question open: Is Changez linked to terrorism or not? Is Bobby only a journalist, or is he working for the CIA? The final scene, where violence breaks out and the truth is unclear, keeps the audience guessing—just like the book.
Difference from the book – The film is more direct about showing political tension and action scenes, whereas the book is slower and leaves even more to the imagination.
3. Changez: Resistance, Victim, Both, or Neither?
Changez defies easy categorization. He resists Empire by rejecting the dehumanizing logic of corporate capitalism and speaking openly against U.S. foreign policy. Yet he is also a victim of that same Empire—racially profiled, mistrusted, and alienated in a post-9/11 America. His hybridity means he is both empowered by and vulnerable to global systems of power. This complexity makes him a compelling figure: neither hero nor villain, but a man navigating the fractures of our interconnected, unequal world.
Short Analytical Essay – Key Points (Postcolonial Lens)
1. Hybridity & Third Space (Homi Bhabha)
Changez occupies a “third space,” balancing his Pakistani roots with his Western education and corporate career.
Visually shown through contrasts—Lahore’s warm tones vs. New York’s cold, corporate palette.
His hybridity shifts from an asset (Wall Street success) to a liability (post-9/11 suspicion).
2. Orientalism & Re-Orientalism (Edward Said / Lau & Mendes)
The film partially resists orientalism by humanizing Pakistan beyond conflict zones.
Yet, certain exoticized street and cultural scenes risk reinforcing “otherness.”
Lau & Mendes’ concept of re-orientalism applies: the narrative critiques Western stereotypes but also uses them for dramatic framing.
3. Identity & Power
Underwood Samson’s corporate “fundamentalism” mirrors the dogmatism of extremist politics.
Power is deterritorialized (Hardt & Negri’s “Empire”)—Changez is constrained by global systems rather than just U.S. policy.
4. Resistance
Changez’s final stance—rejecting both terrorism and corporate exploitation—frames him as a reluctant resistor rather than a militant rebel.
The film’s dialogue scenes in Lahore act as microcosms of East–West negotiation.
5. Adaptation Choices
Novel’s monologue replaced with back-and-forth interrogation, softening ambiguity but widening accessibility.
Additional subplots and visual flashbacks give more cultural context but reduce interpretive openness.
Reflective Journal
As a viewer, I approached the film with an awareness of post-9/11 narratives shaped largely by Western media. Initially, I expected a clear moral alignment either a condemnation of terrorism or a critique of American foreign policy. What struck me instead was the film’s refusal to let the audience settle into a comfortable position.
Watching Changez navigate spaces where he was celebrated, then suspected, mirrored the experiences of many diasporic individuals who must constantly negotiate their identity. The Istanbul scene resonated deeply—it revealed how power operates quietly, through economic decisions that erase culture as effectively as any military campaign.
This reflection has shifted my perspective on postcolonial subjects: they are not simply “caught” between worlds, but actively reshape and resist the terms of their existence. The film’s ambiguity reminded me that in the globalized world, identities are fluid, alliances unstable, and the work of resisting empire is as much about telling one’s own story as it is about direct confrontation.
.jpeg&description=The Reluctant Fundamentalist (Film)){kind=link}