Hollywood’s fascination with “Eastern mysticism” has long shaped its portrayals of South Asian religions, particularly Hinduism. Arjun Shaji’s study, Religious Appropriation in Hollywood: Hindu Deities, Orientalism, and the Aesthetic of Mysticism in Doctor Strange, explores how Marvel’s Doctor Strange (2016) appropriates Hindu symbols and rituals while stripping them of their theological and cultural depth. Through semiotic and textual analysis, combined with audience reception research, the paper situates the film within the broader genealogy of Orientalist cinema.
Drawing from Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism (1978), Shaji demonstrates that Doctor Strange reproduces colonial stereotypes of the East as mystical, irrational, and spiritually potent, yet subordinate to Western rationality. The film follows Dr. Stephen Strange, a Western surgeon who journeys to Nepal seeking healing and enlightenment. There, he encounters “The Ancient One,” a character who embodies a blend of Hindu, Buddhist, and Taoist philosophies. While the movie presents itself as multicultural, its syncretic spirituality ultimately privileges Western mastery over Eastern wisdom, reinforcing the colonial trope of the white hero who conquers the mystical East.
Using Roland Barthes’s semiotic theory (1972), the study identifies how Doctor Strange converts sacred Hindu symbols—mandalas, Sanskrit-like scripts, and ritual mudras—into cinematic shorthand for magic and mystery. These symbols, once rich with theological significance, are emptied of meaning and refilled with Hollywood’s ideological codes. Mandalas become weapons and portals; mudras turn into gestures of combat; and temple spaces are transformed into backdrops for spectacle rather than devotion. In this myth-making process, Hindu spirituality becomes aestheticized entertainment.
The analysis also draws on Homi Bhabha’s theory of hybridity (1994) to explain how the film merges multiple Eastern traditions under a vague “Oriental” label. Though hybridity might appear to promote cultural fusion, Shaji argues that it often conceals ongoing hierarchies of power. In Doctor Strange, hybridity functions less as intercultural dialogue and more as a means for Hollywood to universalize its narratives while erasing religious specificity.
Audience reception data reveals striking contrasts. Western viewers largely celebrated the film’s visual splendor without recognizing its cultural implications. In contrast, South Asian and diasporic audiences frequently criticized its superficial treatment of sacred imagery. Online forums and academic commentary described the film as “whitewashed Orientalism” (Patel, 2018), highlighting its failure to engage respectfully with Hindu traditions.
Ethical concerns form a central focus of Shaji’s argument. Drawing on Liz Bucar’s Stealing My Religion (2022), the study asserts that the use of sacred symbols for profit or entertainment constitutes a moral violation, diminishing the spiritual value of those traditions. The author calls for stronger ethical frameworks to guide Hollywood in representing non-Western religions, urging filmmakers to move beyond exoticism toward genuine cultural understanding.
Ultimately, Shaji concludes that Doctor Strange exemplifies how global popular culture continues to appropriate and commodify Hindu religious motifs under the guise of hybridity and inclusivity. While its visual allure captivates audiences, the film perpetuates Orientalist imaginaries and cultural asymmetries, underscoring the urgent need for responsible and informed portrayals of the sacred in mainstream cinema.
Instagram Link: https://www.instagram.com/author_arjunshaji?igsh=ZjR4aHAzbDZ5ZWI2
