Why as an Asian I have no problem with Rooney's character
-
cuteandcudly81 — 14 years ago(July 02, 2011 02:56 PM)
I agree with Laurence Dang here. Can't judge a movie made in the 60's with a 21st century mind. Quite a shocking comment made by a non-Caucasian. Nevertheless, this is a classic movie with minor flaws and a most wonderful actress!
"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" -
singjohn — 10 years ago(March 23, 2016 02:20 AM)
THANK YOU LAURENCE!!
I like Breakfast at Tiffany's. And as a person of color, I do find Yunioshi offensive. But as a classic film lover, I too can put it in perspective and see it as a minor (maybe somewhat bigger that minor) flaw in an otherwise perfectly enjoyable film. -
laurence_dang — 16 years ago(March 09, 2010 08:08 PM)
This reply reeks of so much emotional immaturity I have nothing pertinent to say.
It is interesting to note however that whenever a non white person does not agree with the consensus prescribed by others on race issues, he is labelled a "sellout" or a "house negro", thus implying that a racial war is being waged.
This truly belittles the actual depth of human relationships which transcends racial barriers.
The second point I would make is that nowhere did I condone the performance of Rooney but simply put it into its proper historical and social context. If being able to appreciate a movie beyond minor flaws is "selling out" then perhaps we should simply eradicate every single movie made which does not correspond to our modern sensibilities.
Such excision would then include- Gone with the Wind - a movie where numerous actual "house negroes" are depicted and one even wins an Oscar for her performance (I would label Prissy's portrayal as far more offensive to blacks than Rooney's even though the actress was genuinely black)
- Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom in which all indian characters are evil or ignorant
- Out of Africa - another movie filled with house negroes in love with white imperialism
- The Temptation of Christ - in which all Jews are bad people
- Duel in the Sun - in which Native American origin seems to be equated with moral depravity and overt racism and prejudice sems to be excused or even condoned.
- Charlie Chan movies - where the only acceptable asian character is the detective himself played of course by a non asian (while asian characters are portrayed as servile and stupid)
Essentially a host of otherwise good movies (save the chan movies) would be bnned for the crime of not matching our modern sensibilities. Again I am not condoning here the poor taste or prejudice inherent in these movies but putting the whole thing into perspective.
Some apparently have great difficulty with this.
-
rainbowdelacruz — 16 years ago(March 10, 2010 12:01 PM)
I dont think this should be justified, at all.
I think thats why its still considered "Ok" to make fun of asians these days. Its because we accept it. Well at least, causcasians think we're ok with it.
Damn, this would never be accepted by blacks or arabs. Im sorry to say it, but theres too many "asian house negroes". So sad -
laurence_dang — 15 years ago(May 21, 2010 11:33 PM)
This movie is not the origin of stereotypes in Asian movies by a long shot. Once again you are attributing modern feelings and issues out of CONTEXT with the movie itself.
The true origin of stereotypes affecting asians today as yesterday is not the movies themselves but the lack of exposure and understanding between individuals and groups in real life. The fact however is that since then (and even before then) many movies have indeed furthered this understanding and therefore movies which continue such stereoptypes TODAY are indeed the ones you should rightfully condemn.
Again social and historical context is KEY.
To dissociate a movie from such context is to profoundly misunderstand the true nature of movies, which is at its very best a snapshot of the society and times in which it was made, for good or for evil. -
propatria_1985 — 16 years ago(March 15, 2010 08:47 PM)
Well well, aren't you the typical French chauvinist pig. I think it's a miracle that you actually know a little bit of English.
Who cares about stereotyping anyway? I'm half Asian and half white. What does that make me in your narrow mind?
OT: the fake-Jap (who actually reminded me more of a Chinaman than a Japanese guy)was extremely over the top, making the character an obvious joke. So what? The man is actually the owner of an apartment complex. How many Asian immigrants could say that in the sixties? -
jane_bront — 16 years ago(April 02, 2010 08:44 PM)
I agree with the OP. If you ban this film, you'll have to ban a bunch of other films. It's not going to happen. And I doubt that a version without the Yunioshi scenes will ever be released for those of you who would be interested, so?
~"Chris,am I weird?"
~"Yeah, but so what? Everybody's weird." -
telegonus — 15 years ago(May 10, 2010 11:49 PM)
Laurence: Charlie Chan is presented as far and above the smartest and most perceptive character in the Chan films, his sons may bumble (as was the custom in movies at the time for the sons of distinguished fathers), however they are college educated, articulate and sharp witted, just a little wet behind the ears, that's all. Besides, all the villains are white! As to Charlie being played by a Caucasian, for me this adds a certain playfulness to the film
a la
Gilbert & Sullivan: they're murder mysteries, and therefore serious, yet the movies don't take
themselves
all that seriously. I find them delightful, urge you to give them another chance. There's a website devoted to just the Chan films, and it has a lively message board; most of the posters are white, with an occasional Asian dropping in now and again, also a black guy, and they all love Charlie and everything Chan. He's like the Lone Ranger of detectives, the Asian Sherlock Holmes. I see nothing demeaning in this. -
laurence_dang — 15 years ago(May 21, 2010 11:46 PM)
Yet he is played by a white person too! Meanwhile his sons who do seem a bit more inept than just "wet behind the ear" are played by Asians. Many Asian stereoptypes are also depicted in the series, and while they are meant perhaps in a more gentle way than Yunioshi, there are nonetheless stereotypes.
This being said, I do agree that Charlie Chan is an enjoyable series and certainly SHOULD be viewed in its own historical and social context as well!
This was simply mentioned as a comparison.
As I said, while I do find Roney's characterization in poor taste, I find the general outcry against it as completely disproportionate and excessive. -
rooprect — 16 years ago(March 22, 2010 01:46 PM)
Your post, while being more or less grammatically correct and intelligently phrased, has absolutely no logical merit. Let me understand you; you're saying that people should not be offended by the racist portrayal
because everyone else was doing it
?
That's called a "tu quoque" argument, and it's a logical fallacy. In law & in logic, you cannot excuse your crime by saying someone else did it, too. That would be like saying "Stalin killed Jews, too, so everybody should lighten up on that Hitler fella. Everyone was doing it!" -
laurence_dang — 15 years ago(May 21, 2010 11:48 PM)
Not by any means. I am simply saying it should be viewed in its proper historical and social context.
The outcry against this particular movie seems to me out of proportion with the context of movies which had come before it. -
ChorusL106 — 10 years ago(January 06, 2016 12:47 AM)
Your description of the tu quoque fallacy is incorrect. And it's an informal fallacy, which isn't plagued by lack of logic but rather by making shaky assumptions. It's not necessarily incorrect, but simply unsound.
(and yes I am also a French native).