nogard64
: i just find it odd how when the Media makes fun of sians, asian people just takes it and swallow their pride and accept the abuse, but all other races, genders, gays, straight, anyone, when there mocked imediately there is a strong protest and strong reaction against it?
This thread is about a movie filmed in 1960 and released in 1961. There's no way the Japanese photographer would have been played by a Caucasian actor with fake buck teeth today.
People in movies before our time were depicted in ways that would be offensive today. That's a reality of history that we can't do anything about. It should not be suppressed.

is it ok for a black guy to fly on to the screen, chomping down on half a water melon? Running around screaming for fried chicken, and dressed as a pro basketball player.
i just find it odd how when the Media makes fun of asians, asian people just takes it and swallow their pride and accept the abuse, but all other races, genders, gays, straight, anyone, when they are mocked imediately there is a strong protest and strong reaction against it?
Are Asian people truly this weak and feeble minded?

Bruce Lee was Chinese. China still has not forgiven Japan for the horrors Japan inflicted on China in the 1930s. Why would Lee care how a Japanese was portrayed any more than an Englishman would care how a Frenchman was portrayed?

has anyone ever seen the biopic "Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story"?
in one scene, Lee and his girlfriend (who is white) go out on a date, and decide to see Breakfast At Tiffany's. He is the only Asian person in the theatre. The entire audience is laughing their asses off at Rooney/Yunioshi. She looks over at Bruce, who is clearly very uncomfortable.
Food for thought.
2011 Academy Award for Best Picture:
How to Train Your Dragon

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.

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.

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!"

This message has been deleted.

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.

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.

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."

This message has been deleted.

-To Bordeaux Boy
Says the one with a French screen name and a French quote for signature (and yes I am also a French native).

This message has been deleted.

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?

And I thought Mickey Rooney was channeling Truman Capote.

This message has been deleted.

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.

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

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.

This message has been deleted.

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.

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"

This message has been deleted.