Comments

1. Jeffrey wrote:

   Well, this will only be a problem if Reeves’ character is portrayed as a good guy, right?

   Posted 22 May 2007 at 9:21 am ¶

2. Rob wrote:

   Don’t blame him. Blame the writers and producers.

   Posted 22 May 2007 at 9:48 am ¶

3. dnA wrote:

   I was okay with it in the Departed, because it took place in Boston, which is the most racist city I’ve ever lived in. I feel like it was fairly representative. I think racism is a part of American life and I’m hesitant to criticize it in art, depending on how its handled.

   I think what bothers me is how hard it is to convince people that Keanu is Asian. They really REFUSE to believe it.

   Posted 22 May 2007 at 11:28 am ¶

4. gandalf mantooth wrote:

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

   Not necessarily. The quote could be just one of his character’s many bad behaviors.

   Scorcese, like in The Departed uses this in many of his films. One or more of his characters will casually toss out an epithet. In total, their use of the words don’t add much to character development, however, they do alert us to the kind of world his thugs live in. Consider that in The Departed the racism comes from cops, which to me makes it a more important point. It isn’t that Nicholson’s character is a horrible person, it’s that cops don’t give a f*** about people of color, or, as with the mob films shot in the era of the Bensonhurst beat downs, that Scorcese is acknowledging racism within the community he grew up in.

   (Please everyone note that I’m a card carrying member of the Anti-Asian Film Remake Brigade so please no calling me sellout, etc. lol. )

   However, that’s Marty. I don’t know much about this new Keanu film other than it’s based on an Ellroy book. It’s also about cops in Los Angeles . . .

   Posted 22 May 2007 at 12:01 pm ¶

5. atlasien wrote:

   I read an Ellroy book - Suicide Hill - that I liked a lot, and boy was there a lot of racism portrayed. It was dripping with hate and nastiness… and the characters that came off the worst, and were clearly the most unsympathetic, were white. So I wouldn’t want to make a judgment based on a small part of the script.

   Posted 22 May 2007 at 12:31 pm ¶

6. dnA wrote:

   Yeah another thing comes to mind with the Departed, Matt Damon’s homophobia comes across as the overcompensation that it is, its a deliberate choice and a good one, since it identifies his character as perpetually insecure, and its by no means the only faulty element of his masculine identity in the film. I think it really depends how well its handled.

   Posted 22 May 2007 at 1:16 pm ¶

7. Latoya Peterson wrote:

   I think racism is a part of American life and I’m hesitant to criticize it in art, depending on how its handled. - dnA

   My boyfriend and I had this conversation last night. He believes racism, or having racist characters is a reflection of society, and therefore entitled to be portrayed in film.

   I agree to some extent, particularly when race/racism plays a pivotal role in the development of the plot.

   I personally disagree when racism is attributed to a character as a way of making them all around evil. It is not enough to make him a jerk…they have to add racism for extra effect. My thoughts:

   1) It is lazy characterization - if you make a character racist, there is a pretty good chance that the audience with react to him, hating the character with more passion than if the racist aspect was left out of the characters personality.

   2) It plays into one of the biggest stereotypes with racist behavior - that all racists are inherently evil. This conveniently allows us to ignore that people with racist sentiments have multiple aspects to their personality. So if someone is a nice guy, by default, he cannot be racist. If someone is a bad guy, by default, make him racist. Translate these ideals into real life and there is a problem.

   Finally, I do agree with atlasien - I haven’t read the book, and we don’t know anything about the finished script, or why Keanu chose to sign on. I am sure more will be revealed post-production.

   Posted 22 May 2007 at 1:53 pm ¶

8. Vox wrote:

   My measuring stick is, do the writers/actors portray people of color in a way that make the racism obviously incorrect? If the Korean American characters in the movie are depicted as individually distinct, and don’t “dress white, talk black …” etc., then that’s one thing. If the writers have them fulfilling the stereotypes, then it’s something else entirely.

   So movies that break down stereotypes are okay, movies that reinforce them, not so much.

   Posted 22 May 2007 at 2:17 pm ¶

9. dcase wrote:

   I agree with gandalf. Displaying racist tendencies is one of the easiest manners in which to show mark one as a bad guy and it is reflective of the world real bad guys (and good guys, for that matter) live in. There exists a considerable amount of racism and real people, unfortunately, express it constantly.

   Moreover, I often notice when films try to smooth over the race issue or portray a racial reality that we have not achieved yet. One of the things that really stood out to me when seeing Spider-Man 3 last weekend is that when Peter Parker/Tobey Maguire was in his bad boy state walking down the street, almost every other woman he flirted with was black and many of those women were walking with white women. Or in other movies I am often in disbelief when people of color and whites are friends.

   It is unfortunate, but things like that definitely stand out to me as a flags and I don’t know how to interpret my feelings about it. Especially when I can watch movies like American History X and hardly notice the large number of racial epithets thrown around. It is almost as if I feel more comfortable with the racist portrayed on screen than racial harmony. This is all the more troubling because I have good friends who are white, Asian, and latino and never feel unnatural with them. I think I’m probably not alone with this feeling either.

   Posted 22 May 2007 at 2:53 pm ¶

10. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

    Great discussion, everyone! I’m really enjoying all these different points of view.

    This may be a stupid question but I just realized that I actually have no idea what “zipperhead” means. Can anyone clarify?

    Posted 22 May 2007 at 2:59 pm ¶

11. Wendi Muse wrote:

    Leave it to Urban Dictionary to give us all the answers. Apparently, it’s terminology from the Korean War. Enjoy: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=zipperhead

    Posted 22 May 2007 at 3:06 pm ¶

12. gandalf mantooth wrote:

    1) It is lazy characterization - if you make a character racist, there is a pretty good chance that the audience with react to him, hating the character with more passion than if the racist aspect was left out of the characters personality.

    That’s a pretty big assumption that even most movie viewers will react that way. Hell, they might even identify with the character. They might even be drive time radio DJs.

    I wonder if there might not be an unintended consequence there — that if the villain says something like nappy headed hoes and say Imus is watching the movie, does he wonder, Am I a bad guy, too?

    Going back to Marty, I don’t think that he ever intends for us to believe his characters are “all around evil” even when spewing epithets. I’ve been trying to think about an example of the kind of simplification you’re arguing against and I can’t think of one, maybe in one of the Die Hard films . . . # of movies I’ve seen >>>> my memory. Anyway I’m sure some hack writer has used the device, I don’t know.

    Posted 22 May 2007 at 3:19 pm ¶

13. FEB wrote:

    Carmen,

    “Dude. I know homeboy identifies primarily as white (which is totally cool with me - I’m all about the right to self-identify however you choose), but does he need to go out of his way to shit on Asians? I know, I know, he’s acting. But damn…”

    I know Keanu Reeves does not speak for all Hapas and I hope you won’t find it insensitive of me to raise this point, but shouldn’t the Hapa community take this opportunity for introspection? Maybe it’s time to addresstwo important questions:

    1) “To what extent do Hapas understand or appreciate the legacy of anti-Asian racism?

    2) “Is it right for Hapas to claim their Asian heritage only when it’s convenient?”

    Posted 22 May 2007 at 3:40 pm ¶

14. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

    Feb -

    1) is definitely a good point. Though I think that lack of knowledge about the legacy of anti-Asian racism is widespread - it’s not just a Hapa thing. Many non-Hapa Asian-Americans are underinformed too.

    As for 2) Hmm… which Hapas do you think claim their Asian heritage “only when it’s convenient?”

    Maybe you could clarify that idea a bit. Because the idea that mixed people are opportunistically trying to “have it both ways” is a very damaging stereotype that mixed folks have to contend with.

    See a few examples of this stereotype here:
    http://tinyurl.com/yvw7tk
    http://tinyurl.com/yv5tr5
    http://tinyurl.com/29euhq

    Posted 22 May 2007 at 4:12 pm ¶

15. FEB wrote:

    Carmen,

    You make good points as well.

    1) is definitely a good point. Though I think that lack of knowledge about the legacy of anti-Asian racism is widespread - it’s not just a Hapa thing. Many non-Hapa Asian-Americans are underinformed too.

    I suppose that what prompted me to raise this question is that for me and other mono-racial Asians; it’s one thing to receive racial insults from whites, but it’s much worse when you get it from Hapas- someone you expected to have an understanding of what it feels like.

    Hmm… which Hapas do you think claim their Asian heritage “only when it’s convenient?”
    Maybe you could clarify that idea a bit. Because the idea that mixed people are opportunistically trying to “have it both ways” is a very damaging stereotype that mixed folks have to contend with.

    It was laziness on my part for not having qualified my second question. I did NOT mean all Hapas. The Keanu Reeves article evoked another story about anti-Asian denigration; the case about the Adidas “Yellow Series” sneakers. If you recall, the outrage was started by Barry McGee, a Chinese-American Hapa, who marketed sneakers with an anti-Asian racist caricature. When he came under pressure, took refuge in his Asian heritage as if it gave him license.

    To be sure, I understand that opportunistic behavior exists among mono-racial people as well. If Tiger Woods had only turned out to be a mediocre golf pro, how many Asian commentators would have rushed in trying to claim him as “one of us”? And yes… you are right… we have to watch out about the stereotype label.

    There are Hapas like yourself who are fully conscious of the legacy of anti-Asian racism and take great pride in your Asian heritage, but there are those who don’t. I just feel that if we want to seriously examine race and race-relations in this country, these attitudes must be taken to task.

    Posted 22 May 2007 at 6:36 pm ¶

16. Blanky wrote:

    dcase:

    I’m not sure what area you live in, but the shocking reality of people of separate races (gasp) walking and (double gasp) talking together isn’t such a crazy dream heareabouts. –or in the diverse New York, where Spider-Man takes place.

    Posted 22 May 2007 at 11:48 pm ¶

17. JD wrote:

    Sorry don’t see anything wrong with this since it does have historical context; except for Keanu’s bad choice, though this is not the first one.

    Posted 23 May 2007 at 12:29 am ¶

18. dnA wrote:

    As for 2) Hmm… which Hapas do you think claim their Asian heritage “only when it’s convenient?”

    The stereotype is frustrating, but I’ve definitely seen it happen. I was dating a girl who was mixed exactly like me, half black and half white/jewish, except almost all her friends were white. (That isn’t the part that bugged me).

    What bugged me was during the state of the union that year, she declared that Colin Powell “wasn’t black” because he worked for Bush. I laughed and pointed out that he’s been black longer than she’d been alive, but I found it really odd that after months of spending large amounts of time together, this was the first time she’d openly discussed race in this kind of way.

    But the truth is, both mixed people and non-mixed people employ race when its convenient. Just look at the way Fox News trots out a person of color to say something racist that they don’t want a white host to get in trouble for saying.

    Posted 23 May 2007 at 8:19 am ¶

19. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    _That’s a pretty big assumption that even most movie viewers will react that way. Hell, they might even identify with the character. They might even be drive time radio DJs.

    I wonder if there might not be an unintended consequence there — that if the villain says something like nappy headed hoes and say Imus is watching the movie, does he wonder, Am I a bad guy, too?_

    —Gandalf

    I agree that it is a big assumption, but that does happen to be the popular view. While some people may still harbor racist sentiments, being easily identified as racist in our society is a shun-worthy offense. (Those drive time radio DJ’s are quick to say things like - “it was a joke…I don’t really think like that!”) Even with the rush to be “un-pc,” no one wants to be called a racist.

    Being racist is one of those qualities that causes an immediate, gut level reaction in people. It is similar to having a character that molests children or is a rapist. The majority of viewers will have a strong reaction to that attribute of the character, thereby pulling them into the reality the screen/script writer created a little more. It’s not just that you relate to the protagonist - you want the antagonist taken down, humilated, maybe even killed.

    In other words, it is a hook. A quick, effective hook. As opposed to quietly building a character that viewers grow to hate (or the more complicated love-hate antagonist) playing the racist card ensures your audience will react.

    As much as I did not care for Neil LaBute’s play “This Is How it Goes,” LaBute nails the complex protagonist. The narrator, the simple, nerdy, every man you want to like, ends up being a subtly racist tool. Or maybe not, considering the black character in the play, and the subject of the unnamed narrator’s ire, is also an asshole. It is an uncomfortable 90 mins, where no one really turns out the victor.

    The play review is here, for those interested:
    http://www.talkinbroadway.com/ob/03_27_05.html

    I agree it would be nice if people saw reflections of themselves on the screen and chose to question their behavior - but we as humans tend to be pretty good at rationalizing away all the fucked up things we do to others.

    Posted 23 May 2007 at 8:32 am ¶

20. merq wrote:

    at the risk of jinxing it, I’ve got to agree with Carmen that it’s great to see Racialicious returning to its normal level of discourse.

    Sure, I could contribute to this discussion, but…

    Posted 24 May 2007 at 1:23 am ¶

Post a Comment