One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing

Just when we thought there was going to be a lot more movies with some REAL representation, this little film came along and screwed everything up. 

London, 1923. Lord Southmere (Derek Nimmo) is a Queen's messenger and he has just arrived from China with a piece of microfilm concerning the mysteeeeerious "Lotus X." A group of Chinese spies find out and try to capture him, but not before he puts the bit of microfilm on the bone of a dinosaur in the Natural History Museum. Along the way, he enlists the help of his old nanny, Hettie (Helen Hayes) and her fellow nanny Emily, to thwart the Chinese spies. They are then captured by Hnup Wan (the "inscrutable" Peter Ustinov), the head of the London division of Chinese spies, whose old nanny was friends with Hettie. However, the nannies escape and plan to help Lord Southmere escape as well. Meanwhile, Lord Southmere won't tell Hnup Wan and his right hand man, Fan Choy (Bernard Bresslaw) where the microfilm is. All they know is that it was hidden on a dinosaur in the Natural History Museum - so they decide to steal one of the dinosaurs in order to find the microfilm. The Chinese spies load the dinosaur onto a truck in the middle of the night, but before they can run away with it, the nannies steal the truck and the dinosaur, with Hnup Wan and Fan Choy following close behind. There's a long chase scene, which ends in the dinosaur and truck accidentally running onto a flat wagon of a train, and the nannies and the dinosaur are carried away. The nannies continue to look for the microfilm but are forced to conclude that it just isn't on the stolen dinosaur. Then a little boy points out that there are multiple dinosaurs in the museum, and everybody realizes that the Chinese spies and therefore the nannies stole the wrong one! Hnup Wan gets to the dinosaur first and finds the microfilm of "Lotus X," which he prepares to look at properly, until Fan Choy replaces Hnup Wan as the head of the London division of Chinese spies. The nannies have now realized that Lord Southmere is in danger, so they recruit other nannies and they fight the Chinese spies in a Chinese restaurant, and Hnup Wan saves Lord Southmere. Later, everyone gathers in Hnup Wan's office to see what "Lotus X" was. And the piece of microfilm that started this whole mess turns out to be a recipe for wonton soup. And everyone is happy. 

Wonton soup???? Are you serious? All that plot for wonton soup? Not only is that just stupid... it implies that Chinese people only really care about food! It shows us as greedy gluttons who desire only to keep our precious wonton soup recipes to ourselves! Disgusting!
One of the most racist portrayals I have seen so far is from a children's movie. Horrifying.

Remember how I kept saying in previous yellowface portrayals that the accents weren't all that noticeable or prominent? How they were really only slowing down their speech or using an ambiguous accent that wasn't really specifically Asian? This is the first film I have watched that has that stereotypical, over exaggerated accent. One of Our Dinosaurs Is Missing is just the most God-awful representation of someone of Chinese descent that I have seen yet. Every "r" gets mixed up with every "l." The speaking characters add the suffix "-ah" to every other word and butcher the English language shamelessly. Ustinov and Bresslaw employ a funky gutteral "nnnnnnnnnnnnn" noise after every sentence. When Ustinov reads "Chinese" out loud it sounds like this: "foy toy mee shee loo mah tung ah..." 

Then there's the yellowface. It consists of some crazy taping of the eyelids, some blue (blue?) eyeshadow, and some Charlie Chan-esque facial hair. It doesn't sound like much, but man oh man... It's terrifying. It's blue, sparkly eyeshadow! What about smearing blue sparkly eyeshadow across an actor's eyelid makes them Chinese? Absolutely nothing! Interestingly, there was no darkening of the actor's skin or prosthetic buck teeth. Not a single Asian person was seen in this movie either. All of the extras were white men as well, unlike Good Earth or Bitter Tea of General Yen, which at least had the good sense to at least include extras... Combine this level of scary yellowface with the heavily exaggerated and ugly ugly accents and you have got some scary Chinamen.

Hnup Wan is a bad Charlie Chan and a friendly Fu Manchu. He is roly-poly and bumbling like Charlie Chan, and is mysterious, manipulative and sly like Fu Manchu. He dresses in Western clothes and sometimes employs stupid aphorisms like Charlie Chan. He has crazy henchmen like Fu Manchu. Hnup Wan has the Charlie Chan facial hair and the Fu Manchu super-slanty eyes. He is asexual like Charlie Chan and employs funky-strange torture methods like Fu Manchu. And this character was in a children's movie (Ironically, he was played by Peter Ustinov, who then portrayed Hercule Poirot, which is most definitely a Charlie Chan parallel). 

The big fight scene between the nannies and Hnup Wan's henchmen is awful as well. It shows little old nannies beating up kung fu masters. Painful! But that's not all! The "masters"aren't even doing kung fu, or any martial art I know of. They're jumping in the air, doing a pirouette, then landing with a high kick and a hair-raising "HOOOAAAAAAAIIIEE!" Cue karate chop hands. Dear me. Two years after Enter the Dragon and you can't even hire proper martial artists? Shameful. 

Even more terrifying is that this was a Disney film. A children's movie. Hnup Wan and Fan Choy (Heavens to Betsy, those names!) are in the movie for comic relief and as the antagonists. On the one hand, this presents the Asian (male? There are no Asian women in this film at all) as a bumbling, slightly stupid and funny person that is really only good for making fun of. On the other hand, it shows the Asian as one who is sly, manipulative, cunning, dastardly clever and mysteeeeeeeeerious. These contrasting (conflicting?) portrayals end up sending only one message: Make fun of Asians because you can and because it's funny. One reviewer on IMDB wrote about how seeing this movie in theatres led him to do Hnup Wan impersonations. Is that a good thing? Absolutely not. That's like asking the Asian kids on the playground to do Long Duk Dong impersonations despite the obviously painful connections. In fact, Hnup Wan, Fan Choy, Mr. Yunioshi, and Long Duk Dong all belong in a new, separate category - Stereotypes That Exist Solely For Comic Relief and Playground Taunts.

Not cute at all. Listen to that soundtrack. It's got a stupid little xylophone. And the stupid little flutes and zithers and CRAP? It's racist! It sounds like the Mr. Yunioshi theme, only... mysterious. Gross. Makes me wanna cry. This stuff makes Flower Drum Song sound good. 

Children's movies relying on caricatures and stereotypes for comic relief? Shameful. 

Asian Ken Doll

     I first read about this new Ken doll from the lovely ladies at Disgrasian. However, I had read only the title of the post (Welcome to the World, Asian Ken Doll!) and thought to myself, Golly gee, an Asian Ken Doll! It's about time! I wonder what he'll look like? What will he be wearing? This is so cool! 
     And then, of course, when I saw the picture...

     Oh my god. Oh dear Lord. Spare us, please, O Mighty Ones at Mattel!
     This is not Barbie's boyfriend. This is Barbie's cousin who's got an Asian festish. This looks like... an obviously white Ken doll dressed in faux-samurai garb with facial hair and... Is that a samurai outfit? It can't be! Is Mattel striving for authenticity? No. Could they try? Yes. What's with the hair? THE HAIR?
     Take it away! Take it away!
     Why are they releasing this now? Shouldn't they have made a Captain Shang Ken-esque doll back when Mulan came out in, oh when was it, 1998? Oh they did... he's just soft and plushy... Mmm. Real "Ken" material... So Captain Li Shang, one of the few "eligible" Disney boyfriends, gets made into a shapeless, cuddly Happy Meal Toy and not into a Ken doll? Even this Captain Shang isn't the plush doll, but it's still not Barbie's boyfriend "material." Then comes along this regular Ken doll who gets some new, ugly ugly hair, a - I don't even know what to call what he's wearing - and a dinky little sword, and voila! Asian Ken doll! Barbie's new boyfriend! Ta-da! 
     Is this an example of yellowface? Because it's still the "regular" Ken model with some minor minor adjustments? Or is it an example of whitewashing? Obviously this is Ken with long hair, funky clothes and some hair in need of a trim. Why does Asian Ken got to have this sort of un-specified Asianism? Shade of his skin and non-Asian features aside, why does he wear such a modernized "Asian" outfit? Is there something wrong with dressing him in a traditional samurai attire? Or does it even have to be Japanese? Why not Chinese? Why not a Korean Ken doll? 
     Is a doll like this only marketable if it is recognizable as a Caucasian face? Is it more approachable than a more Asian-looking Ken doll, clothes aside? Are authentic clothes so irrelevant and dated that the only way to really sell something that looks even remotely "exotic" and unrecognizable is to make it more... dare I say it, white? Did Mattel even hire a cultural consultant with the design of this new Ken doll? 
     Above all, why can't Asian Ken doll be a contemporary Asian male? Why can't he be Barbie's boyfriend who just happens to be Asian? 
     I suppose it's better than having a doll of Charlie Chan or Fu Manchu.