Trackbacks & Pings

1. New Keanu movie: Asians are "zipperhead dog-munching dinks" at Racialicious - the intersection of race and pop culture on 22 May 2007 at 8:01 am

   […] as we discussed back in October in the thread about The Departed, isn’t racism — like smoking — a really lazy way to handle character […]

Comments

1. dcase wrote:

   Well, probably not quite Crash because this movie, ostensibly, doesn’t purport to help heal race relations. It is unfortunate because Infernal Affairs is an enjoyable movie.

   Posted 09 Oct 2006 at 8:51 am ¶

2. Caroline wrote:

   Isn’t Nicholson’s character supposed to be the scummiest of scum-bags? Therefore, the racist dialogue is appropriate for his character. I wouldn’t think that an immoral crime boss would be written as simultaneously racially tolerable and peace-loving… do you?

   Posted 09 Oct 2006 at 11:06 am ¶

3. ryanmffjm wrote:

   The entire film is filled with gutteral language and nobody comes away clean, Catholics, Irish, Italians, you name it. There is plenty of offense to go around. Jack Nicholson’s character is a real psychopath and the Asian scenes are consistant with the overall tone of the movie.

   It’s called art and if art is to reflect real life then racist attitudes are going to be part of it.

   The difference with Crash is that that film tried to sell itself as a unique statement on race relations. It didn’t quite work. The Departed is a look into the Boston mob and undercover cops. It’s filled with thoroughly unsavory characters, and their language and attitudes refelct that, anything less would be a lame co-out for such a gritty story.

   Posted 09 Oct 2006 at 11:22 am ¶

4. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

   dcase and ryanmffjm - you’re right that my comparison to ‘Crash’ is not quite on point, since ‘The Departed’ does not bill itself as a race relations-changing movie.

   I haven’t seen ‘The Departed’ yet so I don’t really feel like I can weigh in on the issue of Asian representations in the film. I see both of your points that the racist attitudes are in line with the rest of the characters/story.

   But how necessary were the Asian characters in the first place? I’m just curious if they played any real role in the plot, or if they were kind of just stuck in there in order for the various racist jokes to be cracked.

   I guess there’s a lot of sensitivity around the subject because the studio has been severely downplaying the fact that it’s a remake of a Hong Kong film. So much so that the credit to the original screenwriters is completely buried in the *closing* credits of the film, *after* the entire cast and crew’s names roll by.

   There’s some good discussion of this at
   Angry Asian Man
   http://tinyurl.com/z75yw
   and Kaiju Shakedown
   http://tinyurl.com/ksmn2

   Posted 09 Oct 2006 at 11:34 am ¶

5. jeff wrote:

   The opening dialogue of the movie has “Frank”–Nicholson’s character–going on about “niggers”. That scene takes place in the early 70s, and later scenes take place present day. It made it pretty clear to me that Frank’s racism is part of what made him The Bad Guy, although there were really no Good Guys in the film. And showing us Frank’s racism then and Frank’s racism now–showing that it simply is transferred from ‘one race’ to ‘another race’ plays even more into the concept that he’s just a big freakin’ asshole. (In the movie, even the “most good” guy, played by Whalberg, is really a complete asshole. A funny one, but still.)

   That said, the whole scene between Frank and his men and the Chinese gangsters was pretty laughable–that they would stand for Frank’s lame racism, that they would fall for his trickery…it was all even more unrealistic than the rest of the movie; I kept waiting to find out that they screwed Frank over.

   On the other hand, the Chinese gangsters were portrayed as better than Frank and his cronies in at least one way–they were portrayed as honorable in a way that Frank obviously isn’t–he convinces them to put away their machine guns; meanwhile, he’s got machine guns trained on them that they don’t know about.

   Also, I didn’t see the Chinatown shown in the movie to be seedy at all…nor did I see “Chinese villains lurking”–I thought the movie did a good job of showing that one character knows he’s being followed by another, and it’s a chaotic environment to some extent–in fact, what happens at the end of that scene could even be seen as a not-subtle analysis of euro-centric colonialism.

   I think race was given a pretty complicated conceptual view, really, in this film. (Ok, not so much with the Chinese characters–the “Chinese buerocrat”, in particular was such a caricature so as to ruin the dramatic tension of the movie for quite a while, for me.) Heck, even Frank, proud of his Irish heritage, gives somebody more “recently Irish” a hard time (”Who let this IRA motherfucker in he’re?”).

   Posted 09 Oct 2006 at 12:33 pm ¶

6. lavanya wrote:

   “it’s chock-full of Asian stereotypes”

   You mean East Asian stereotypes. They didn’t stereotype desis or Pilipinos in this movie.

   Posted 09 Oct 2006 at 12:35 pm ¶

7. merq wrote:

   “It made it pretty clear to me that Frank’s racism is part of what made him The Bad Guy, “

   Jeff,

   While I totally get what you’re trying to say, I must add that this is one of the things that annoy me most about Hollywood. Screw character development, just make him say “nigger” and they’ll know he’s eviiil.

   I think that’s one of the main things crippling racial discourse in America. Rather than actually analyzing race or the motivations behind racism, the system of (what I call) “Appropriate Outrage” demands that as soon as one is deemed racist, he is henceforth a worthless scumbag.

   As a black man who, these days, cannot seem to step into a bar without encountering some racist asshole, I still know that aside from their racist notions, there are bigots out there who are lovely human beings. (Saintly, aren’t I?)

   The point of this rant:
   Racism used to establish villainy? Lazy, dude. Just lazy.

   Posted 09 Oct 2006 at 8:06 pm ¶

8. brad wrote:

   I have to agree with Merq. I hate having to watch a movie where the villian is known because he uses the n-word. Sorry, but I’m tired of hearing the word. My sister and I could barely tolerate watching “Pulp Fiction” because of the machine-gun use of the word. It’s not cool to hear Samuel L. Jackson say it anymore than it is to hear Nicholson or Deniro.

   Karl Rove is an evil man and I don’t think his evil comes from his use of the n-word. Over all, I think this is about lazy filmmaking and disrespect for the Chinese creators of “Infernal Affairs.” Why inject such blatant anti-Chinese racism in a film based on the successive of Chinese artistry and industry.
   Yeah, it’s possible an Irish mob boss would be racist, but does it have to such a defining part of his character? Did the movie bother to explore the irony of an Irish-descended person casting bigotry on another group? A sly comment about the kettle and pot can go a long way…

   Posted 10 Oct 2006 at 2:40 am ¶

9. Jay wrote:

   *You mean East Asian stereotypes. They didn’t stereotype desis or Pilipinos in this movie.*

   Filipino isn’t an ethnicity, it’s a national identity (though the concepts are closely related). There are Chinese Filipinos and non-Chinese Filipinos.

   But on the other hand, how much does the average American differentiate anyway?

   The bad Chinese doesn’t annoy me as much as they used the Standard Hollywood Incompetent Asian Gang. Seriously, there was no point except to show that dem white people are better than Asians. And that’s ugly considering the source material.

   jeff, while that analysis may be valid, 90% of the people who watch the film will not get this and instead think American good, Asians incompetent. I’m tired of this, I’m tired of lazy writers using that kind of thing and when they’re called on it bring up every excuse in the book to try and hide themselves from scrutiny.

   Posted 10 Oct 2006 at 2:58 am ¶

10. Lisa wrote:

    I think many people are a bit overly sensitive about racial issues in movies. I’m Chinese and I didn’t even blink when that scene occured. Also, I’m not sure where someone came up with the whole “inscrutable Chinese villians lurking in a seedy Chinatown” bit. There was one scene that happened in Chinatown, and the Chinese character was a worker of sorts., not some villain. I think the whole point of this movie is that there are no real good guys, only varying degrees of bad. Race isn’t a main focus in this film, nor was it ever intended to be, so let’s get that straight.

    Posted 10 Oct 2006 at 10:54 am ¶

11. jeff wrote:

    “While I totally get what you’re trying to say, I must add that this is one of the things that annoy me most about Hollywood. Screw character development, just make him say “nigger” and they’ll know he’s eviiil.–merq”

    I get what you mean, merq, and I agree that as a shortcut to creating a character, making a person an obvious racist is a lame shortcut. But I think in this case, in this movie, it’s just the beginning of showing us what this character is like. That he is a racist isn’t the defining characteristic that makes him evil–it’s one piece of the puzzle.

    Yeah, it’s possible an Irish mob boss would be racist, but does it have to such a defining part of his character? Did the movie bother to explore the irony of an Irish-descended person casting bigotry on another group? A sly comment about the kettle and pot can go a long way…–brad

    I think the movie does explore the irony that Frank is Irish (and proud of it) and a racist–as I mentioned, he’s even ‘racist’ toward people just in from Ireland; also, his whole first speech displays that very irony, actually, in that he is “explaining” why the Irish aren’t discriminated against the way black people are…his explanation is wrong-headed, and that’s part of the complexity of his character, and his racism. Not that it’s Othello or anything.

    Posted 10 Oct 2006 at 12:14 pm ¶

12. lavanya wrote:

    “But on the other hand, how much does the average American differentiate anyway?”

    You’re absolutely right, Jay. Since the average American is dumb, we shouldn’t bother trying to educate people that a) Asia has 58 different countries, b) there’s no such thing as an “Asian” race, c) “Chinese” and “Asian” are not interchangeable terms. I am tired of people using the term “Asian” to describe only East Asians, but hey, the average American doesn’t know any better, so let’s just continue promoting that sterotype.

    Posted 10 Oct 2006 at 3:17 pm ¶

13. S wrote:

    This stuff starts in primary school. When I first pointed out that some of the “Indian” countries were in Asia and that made them Asian (citizenship) the kids and teacher laughed at me like I was stupid. “No, Indians are NOT Asians, Asians have slanted eyes and cook chinese food.”

    Ohhhhh.

    That would make ME Asian (I cook chinese food and, after I get my hair braided, my eyes are really “slanted” too!).

    Yep, dumb seems like an appropriate word to use, sadly.

    Posted 10 Oct 2006 at 3:44 pm ¶

14. DAB wrote:

    What puzzles me is Andy Lau’s reaction to “The Departed”. The only thing that seemed to bug him was the profanity. Reminds me of how Jackie Chan never notices how he plays into stereotypes with his movies. What’s wrong with these guys? It just goes to show the difference between Asian & Asian-American people.

    Posted 11 Oct 2006 at 7:55 am ¶

15. Leo Martin wrote:

    I just saw The Departed. I was motivated to find a forum to discuss how I feel after this viewing experience. Sad to say, at one level it is another case of some white writer regurgitating racial stereotypes. How often is it a person of color writing like that? I was just in the shower thinking about the sequel. The Departed II is the story of all the people offended by Monahan in The Departed uniting in racial/ethnic harmony to beat the crap out him. I’d pay ten bucks to see that.

    When I hear racial epithets in films, I always ask if it’s necessary. It never is. In Monahan’s world too many people are racists. If his writing is any reflection of who he is, this man obviously loathes himself. It is cheap, lazy, stupid writing. Do I even need to mention that it defies logic that Costigan fled when he found out? I don’t want to spoil it. Please. I won’t even get started on Matt Damon. Well…I can’t resist. He is a Bostonian when he is interviewed, but he really is a Cantabrigian. Homie is cashing in portraying racially insensitive characters from South Boston. You would think that a liberal from Cambridge would have some balls and say that this language will not stand!

    According to Hollywood, Boston is Southie. Who knew?

    Posted 15 Oct 2006 at 11:43 pm ¶

16. IkoIko wrote:

    You didn’t have any problem, then, with the high level of violence, misogynistic undercurrents, or promotion of sociopathic anti-institutional behaviour in this particular crime drama, just the epithets?

    People of color never write crime dramas with racial epithets. Never ever happens at all. We only display the utmost in manners, courtesy, and etiquette. And when that rare swear word, racial taunt, or derogatory term towards women, gays, immigrants, or marginalized groups does– you know, accidentally sneak out– we never hide behind lame arguments like, “I’m just trying to provide an accurate representation of…”. And even if did, at least an argument like that would have more balls than “freedom of expression” and might even be more refreshing than “artistic license”.

    So, you walked into a film directed by Queens, NY Italian boy Martin Scorsese and scripted by South Boston Irish boy William Monahan, who both intimately knew cops and criminals growing up. It’s quite a logical leap to assume they are the characters they write about. Instead of automatically negating their ability to filter and channel their experiences into creative works, one could equally argue that they’ve been able to accurately capture and portray that world with those characters to such a degree that it apparently packed a punch with you.

    Are racial epithets necessary in a crime drama? Valid question. Nope, they’re not. But if I want people to see the film and take it seriously and walk away with some impact and memorable, vivid characters, then yeah. It’s almost like asking “don’t real people cuss?”. Cops cuss, criminals cuss, citizens cuss– and they do with racially coded language. *Should* they do so is a whole ‘nuther matter. *Why* they do so in the manner they do, and to whom is that great shifting contextual slippery slope.

    But why on earth would good liberals (and even good conservatives) who are in the acting business ever portray racially insenstive characters? Because it’s their job, and if they role is meaty and juicy enough, you have to say the things they would. If I’m making the film, whether I’m the actor or director, it doesn’t mean that I have to like the words on the page and they don’t make me uncomfortable. But I have to maintain a wall in order to be effective. If I do my job well, you’ll feel the impact. I don’t have to like the epithets, but without them, I’d be accused of lacking realism and credibility, no one would take the film seriously, and I’d be missing the flavor of the language.

    Posted 16 Oct 2006 at 9:34 am ¶

17. Leo Martin wrote:

    I commented about one level of the film. Personally, I didn’t think it was that violent of a movie. I was expecting more of it from Martin.

    To say it packed a punch is a bit much. I had a reaction to the film based on my experiences growing up in Boston and knowing lots of cops that resembled our melting pot. They didn’t speak like that in front of me. They did on occasion beat the crap out of people. Some admitted that if they weren’t cops they would be criminals. Some maintained their relationships with lower environments after graduating from the academy. You can easily depict that world in a film without racial insults.

    Hey, it all starts with the writing. That great shifting contextual slippery slope needs many more diverse writing voices. Maybe this will inspire people. The Departed just wasn’t a movie I would embrace. That is not to say I didn’t enjoy aspects of it. If you want to see a movie that demands emotional immediacy without the swears, see A Time for Drunken Horses. That is filmmaking.

    Posted 16 Oct 2006 at 10:33 pm ¶

18. Mr PoohPhun wrote:

    Are you joking?

    You never lived in Hong Kong?

    Well I have. And as a cantonese speaking whitey I can tell you - EVERYONE engages in racist remarks.

    The film is attempting to be a reflection of reality - not a sugarsweet bed of roses.

    So those chinks who dont like it - tuff.

    Posted 01 Nov 2006 at 9:10 am ¶

19. piak wrote:

    yeah. I didn’t like the representation of the chinese in the film either. Sure, its a gangster flick and they are partial to a bit of profanity and stereotype and often you can forgive it in the midst of a bunch of entertainingly profane thugs (OZ is a good example of that for me)… but scorsese can do better than having a bunch of voiceless, irrational, corrupt, and kalashnikov wielding triad members lurking about. I reckon its a real shame. and my only real gripe with a very decent remake.
    Also when did the mention of his indebtedness to the creators of IA appear in the credits? was it after all the extras were named??? or did i miss it at the start?
    …Smells like bad film etiquette to me.

    Posted 06 Nov 2006 at 7:37 am ¶

20. piak wrote:

    and geez Poohphun, bein white in HK doesnt give you the right to talk such rubbish. its irritating to hear people who think its acceptable to be racist because they ‘know’ non-white people or are somehow more familiar with another culture than others. Whats that you say? ‘But they’re racist too’… whatever, whoever ‘they’ are, it doesnt mean you can use such pointless and derogatory exxpression.

    Posted 06 Nov 2006 at 7:46 am ¶

21. wraith wrote:

    Funny how Hollywood finds any and EVERY excuse to use the n-word in movies…from Pulp Fiction, Capote, True Romance, and the list goes on. The reason they’re doing this is NOT to drive home the point that someone is a villian. Rather, it reflects the racist nature of the filmmakers themselves, and how they strive to portray other races in a negative light. Think about it-Hollywood is heavily populated with Jewish directors and producers. Funny how you never hear any anti-Semetic slurs (and I know a few) in movies-even when they’re trying to portray someone as “villianous”, or something.

    Posted 07 Dec 2006 at 7:00 pm ¶

22. Jack wrote:

    Racism is promoted through seeing other people being racist. Sure, Jack Nicholson’s character is supposed to be evil, but he’s also considered cool as well. Some people may take the racism as part of his “gangster cool” persona, and use and actually believe his racist remarks.

    There are millions of ways to portray evil, but racism shouldn’t be one of them.

    Why even do a remake? Because Americans are so racist that they can’t handle seeing an Asian person in a dramatic, non-stereotypical lead role.

    Posted 17 Dec 2006 at 12:53 pm ¶

23. Daniel wrote:

    There are many racists in this country but they have learned not to speak openly in the work-place. I think the screenwriters, directors and actors are often racist and use the “c” word in films because they have always gotten away with it in the past. But no longer. The power of the internet allows the oppressed to fight back. I have started a blog which calls for those responsible to be admonished if they ever decide to enter a Chinese or other Asian restaurant. Let them and their families become paranoid about eating in or even ordering from an Asian restaurant. I have begun a campaign which will spread exponentially. My blog is at http://chinainmovies.blogspot.com/index.html.

    Posted 10 Mar 2007 at 2:54 pm ¶

24. Daniel Lee wrote:

    Clicking on the above blog link does not work. But simply typing out the same url does take you to the actual blog. I encourage all Asians to read it and to support this campaign and take part. Don’t just stand around and do nothing. You can effect positive changes. Or at least get your revenge. Read my blog and the list of those offenders we need to target.

    Posted 25 Jun 2007 at 8:08 am ¶

Post a Comment