Keep on Wondering...

What are the connections between social and historical forces and the representations we see?
Why is yellowface still acceptable? When and how did yellowface turn into whitewashing?
How do these representations create and/or perpetuate stereotypes that are present in our world? What is the impact?
Showing posts with label not so awesome. Show all posts
Showing posts with label not so awesome. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 16, 2011

The Hangovers: An Examination of Mr. Chow

Warning: Explicit Content Below.
Like all good (cough) teenagers, I have seen both The Hangover and The Hangover 2. And yeah, they were funny. Funny whenever Ken Jeong wasn't onscreen. 
The Hangover (first one) was a very funny movie. The writers were very clever in taking the three protagonists out of the Wild Night and putting them in the horror of the next day. However, I think that the movie could have worked very well without the character of Mr. Chow or even without the performance by Ken Jeong. 


Yeah. Mr. Chow is the weirdest portrayal of an Asian that I have ever seen. And none of it is funny. He's a kind of Fu Manchu stereotype because he's quite threatening and he does kidnap and is an international crime kingpin - but he isn't a Fu Manchu because he's... well, he's supposed to be comedic. He's also not going to rape all the white women - he'll probably assault some squeaky white males with a crowbar first. Mr. Chow is some sort of Charlie Chan stereotype because he's rotund-ish and effeminate and supposed to be funny... He's also a bit of a Jackie Chan stereotype because he kicks Alan/Stu/Phil's butts in Hangover 2 while being weird and slapstick and obnoxious. So what is he? 

I suppose he's the vulgar version of Slim Chin. Which is just as, if not more painful. Oddly reminiscent of Long Duk Dong as well.
So. What exactly does Mr. Chow do that is so terrible and painful to watch? Well... he frequently mispronounces words with that typical Asian accent. You know, "Engrish." "Lun away." You know. Read the script of both Hangovers and replace every "l" with and "r" when Mr. Chow speaks. Cheap and overused stereotype? You betcha. Hath Ken Jeong no shame?
He makes up strange, "Asian-sounding-Asian-language" verbal commands for his henchmen (Henchmen! What is this, The Mask of Fu Manchu?!)
Also damaging is Mr. Chow's highly vulgar vernacular (alliteration!). While it is great to hear an Asian, normally portrayed as so demure and goody-goody, cursing like a sailor, there is a line that needs to be drawn. Perhaps the swearing streak was merely for over-the-top comedic effect. Who knows? I certainly thought it was too much... his constant streams of curses just pushed it too far.
There's also the issue that Mr. Chow is as effeminate as... the most effeminate thing you can think of. Jeong's portrayal also pokes fun at gay people - wow, managing to offend two minority groups at once! Fantastic! (Sarcasm done) The vulgarity earns big yuks, of course. Constant male genitalia jokes, you know. There's the issue of him running around stark naked all the time. There's the issue of him beating up people with crowbars. It's just... too much. Too much. It goes beyond being mildly humorous to being incredibly offensive and difficult to watch. Not sure that was what the writers and directors were aiming for (who, by the way, are middle-aged Caucasian males)...

The most painful part about the whole Hangover franchise is that I hear more people quoting Mr. Chow's lines than any other funny lines in the whole movie. I hear more people talking about "that hysterical Asian asshole." Mm. Lovely. Of course, both Hangover movies poke fun at all types of people - women, people of color, old people, babies, harmless monks... It's just that the character of Mr. Chow is based on cheap, degrading stereotypes that are horrifying to watch. It's completely based on the stereotypes that have been around since Asians have been appearing in films - in other words, not progressive at all. In addition, the only characters that are not made fun of extensively are upper-middle-class Caucasian males - which isn't really a departure from certain trends in Hollywood... Disappointment abounds.
Ken Jeong's big-screen debut was actually in Knocked Up, where he played a doctor (and oh my LOLs, he's a doctor in real life). 

This scene is actually pretty funny. Wanna know why? I don't have to listen to some fabricated and screeching accent a la Leslie Chow. In fact, this scene proves that Ken Jeong does not have an accent - so why did he adopt one for both Hangovers? I'm currently tearing my hair out in frustration.

Basically, the character of Mr. Chow is the next Charlie Chan stereotype. The Charlie Chan of our generation. He was created only for this movie and already an ad campaign used the exact same formula to sell a product. He'll last forever and people will love him - and a few generations from now, people will be frantically trying to erase and move beyond him.

The one thing that I am very grateful for is that both Hangovers were rated R. Which means, unlike the character of Long Duk Dong, desperate pleas for Mr. Chow imitations will not be heard on elementary school playgrounds at all. Asian-American children will not be asked to yell, "Toodaroo mothafucka!" or something like that. 

Jeong's portrayal of an effeminate and dangerous FOB, exorbitant use of profanity, and horrendous accent crossed the line. It was never a positive portrayal of an Asian to begin with, and it got more and more offensive as the movie went on. Sadly, it looks like Mr. Chow and his henchmen are here to stay, possibly spawning several more rip-offs before the year is through. 


Angry Asian Man's take on the Hangover

Friday, April 22, 2011

Romeo Must Die

I was so excited to watch this movie. You have no idea. I was ready to move on from the horrendous Jackie Chan stuff and onto some real action and some real representation. But alas... it didn't really come true. It fell flat. On its face. 

Disclaimer: This movie does not follow the original Shakespeare play at all. 
It starts with the son of an Oakland Chinese gangster being at a "black" club called Silk's. The son's bodyguards, headed by Kai (Russell Wong) show up and there's a lot of gunshots. The bodyguards, Kai, and the son are asked to leave. Kai berates the son for going into an "enemy" club, but The Son rolls his eyes and drives away. His body is found the next morning... dead. The father, Chu Sing (Henry O), finds out, as does his rival head-of-the-stereotypical-black-gang, Isaak O'Day (Delroy Lindo). It makes the situation between them very sticky. The Son's brother, Han (Jet Li), finds out while he is imprisoned in Hong Kong, so he escapes using his badassedness and somehow gets to Oakland (which is really Vancouver but whatever). Isaak gets worried that the Chinese gang will retaliate and attack his daughter, Trisha (Aaliyah), so he puts a bodyguard on her, comic relief by the name of Maurice (Anthony Anderson). They go to a record store together and Trisha runs away because she doesn't like her bodyguard. She jumps into a cab that Han has just stolen and then they drive away. Han can't drive. That's okay, because it starts a nice conversation. And they flirt and it's reaaaaaaally cute. Meanwhile, Isaak meets with a white businessman named Roth (Edoardo Ballerini) about selling some of his waterfront property to build a NFL stadium and own a football team. Isaak has decided to give up his life of crime to own the stadium and team, so he is willing to do whatever in the deal with Roth. Later, Han drops off Trish at her store (yeah, she owns a store) and she finds her brother Colin (D.B. Woodside) making shady business deals over the phone. Naturally, this upsets her, but he consoles her and they hug. It's cute. Meanwhile, Han breaks into his brother's swanky high-rise apartment and finds out that the last number his brother dialed was that of Trish's store. Trish is then called to a diner to meet with Isaak's second-in-command, Mac (Isaiah Washington), who warns her to be careful. Trish rolls her eyes and goes home... and Han followed her home! He asks her about the phone call but she says she doesn't know what it's about. But then Maurice and some of his cronies show up and immediately suspect Han of something, even though he presents himself as a dim sum delivery kid. No matter. There's a badass fight anyways, and Han wins, because he's a winner. Han then steals Maurice's SUV. Han then goes to his brother's funeral and confront his father, Chu, about his brother's death. Apparently, Han and his brother were very close. Chu refuses to even talk about his son's death, so Han decides to talk to Kai. Kai informs Han that the Chinatown gangs (yeah, you read that correctly) and Isaak's gang are fighting over the waterfront properties, as both gangs want to own the NFL stadium and stuff. Kai and Han have a fight because it's fun, and Han goes back to Trisha's and they hang out and flirt some more and it's really cute. Later that night, Colin and his girlfriend are thrown out of the window of their high-rise apartment by someone mysterious and they both die. The next day, Han returns to his brother's apartment and finds it completely trashed. He then finds his brother's car with a list of addresses of waterfront properties. Going back to the apartment, Han finds Trisha, who tells him about Colin's death. They decide to work together to figure out the mysterious waterfront property list. They arrive at the first waterfront business, which is owned by a Chinese man, but he's been murdered, along with his coworkers. Han and Trish spot the assassins as they are motorcycling away, so they give chase. While fighting, Han discovers that the assassins are Chinese, which makes him worry. Han then informs his father, who dismisses it as a plot by Isaak to "get even" or one-up him on the waterfront properties. Meanwhile, Mac tortures a black waterfront property owner into handing over the property deed to him. So both Kai and Mac are killing and doing bad things to obtain the businesses and land that they want. Isaak freaks out and has Trisha move back into her childhood home to be safe. He also forbids her to see Han ever again and stresses the dangers of the Chinese. Trisha then gets suspicious and asks her dad if he had anything to do with the murder of Han's brother, which Isaak denies. Then they have a heart-to-heart, but Roth calls and tells Isaak he wants to seal the deal now. They agree to meet at the Silk's, the bar where the first fight scene takes place. Han and Trisha decide to go to Silk's too, unaware of the meeting that is happening there. When they show up, everyone stares at Han because he's Chinese - however, this doesn't daunt Trisha, who decides to dance with Han. Scaaaaandal. Silk (DMX), the owner of the bar, sees them and smells trouble, so he scoops them off of the dance floor and takes them up to his office. There's some exposition about Isaak's gang buying up all of the waterfront properties... blah blah blah... until Mac bursts in and shoots Silk and takes the property deed! Han is beaten up and Trisha is taken away. Han gets taken away to a weird warehouse that looks like the set of the final chase scene in The Fugitive. There's another badass fight sequence and Han escapes to find Trisha! Later, Isaak refuses to sell the newly acquired waterfront properties to Roth, claiming that he wants to be a partner. This makes Mac upset, who then reveals that he's been working with Chu to kill off the other property owners and that he was the one who killed Colin. This makes Isaak very angry, and he launches himself at Mac but gets shot. Then Roth's guys start shooting everywhere and most of Isaak's men get killed. Roth steals all of the deeds and tries to make it to a waiting helicopter but drops all of the deeds. Han shows up and interrogates Mac about the death of his brother, who says that it happened "in house," and then is about to shoot Han when - SURPRISE! Trisha shoots Mac! Han and Trisha go back to Isaak to make sure that he gets to a hospital, and Isaak gives his blessing for Han and Trisha - awww. Then Han departs to avenge his brother. He shows up at his father's house and confronts Kai, who confesses that he was the one who killed Han's brother. Then Kai and Han have a ginormous fight and ends with Kai being killed. Han then goes and confronts his dad, who asks that Han kill him. Han decides to step away and leave it to the police, but his dad shoots himself. The film ends with Trisha and Han hugging (not kissing like they are obviously supposed to) and walking away holding hands (what are they, fourth graders?!). 
They're cuuuute. But they aren't fourth graders. So they should do more than just hold hands.
Phew. Long-winded plot, eh? Kinda puts those Jackie Chan films to shame.
Now, about the kiss that got cut and replaced with a hug. A bit of context: The original cut of the film featured Jet Li and Aaliyah kissing and then the movie ending. However, when showed at test screenings, viewers did not like the fact that Jet Li and Aaliyah were kissing. So they replaced the kiss with a hug. Stupid, right? I know. And it was a hug. The hug implies that they're only good friends, which is just utterly false and an understatement - Trisha and Han obviously have chemistry together - so... they just hug? It's an anti-climactic ending, especially with all the bad stuff going down in the rest of the movie. Just a hug? Come on, they had been holding in all their sexual tension the whole movie and they just hug? Liberate yourselves, kiddos! Kiss her!
No kissing!!
But I digress. This film came out in 2000. Anti-miscegenation laws had been nonexistent for 33 years. It was 16 years after the release of Sixteen Candles. Hard to believe that in the year 2000, people still had issues with interracial kissing. But here's my question. Was it the fact that it was a black girl and an Asian guy kissing? Or was it the fact that it was Aaliyah kissing a relatively unknown Asian actor? Aaliyah was a very famous, very talented singer who was just starting her film career - she already had a fan base because of her musical career. Did her fans think she was too - dare I say it? - good for Jet Li? Was it because Jet Li did not have the status as a sex symbol that Aaliyah did? Would it have made a difference if it was a different black female actress? Who knows? I just wonder why it was such a huge issue. I mean, there was some serious in-your-face interracial kissing back in Crimson Kimono - that film was released in 1959. In 2000, audiences couldn't have a badass Asian dude kiss a pretty black girl. What's up with that?!

Despite the lack-of-kiss controversy, Romeo Must Die was a groundbreaking film. Well, sort of. Well, not really. More of a groundbreaking premise than an actually important and impressive film. There's the fact that it stars Jet Li as a calm, cool, funny dude who just happens to be from Hong Kong and he just happens to be a badass. If you cut all of the martial arts scenes from the film, you would get a film about a normal Asian dude who falls in love with a black girl. Normality! His character is almost boring - and you have no idea how refreshing it is. 
The only similarities between the Bruce Lee caricature and the character of Han is that they both excel at martial arts and are quite noble. There are almost no similarities between Han and Jackie Chan - Han is not loud and clumsy, nor is he silly or bumbling. It's great!
But of course, Han remains a badass. And here's proof!

Something also has to be said about who this film is appealing to. Essentially, this is a movie of martial arts and love for the hip-hop generation. It's definitely marketed as an action movie for the 13-25 age range (I'm guessing here). So if a bunch of 13-25 year olds were watching this movie and they see a positive representation of... well, one Asian guy, the impact would have been notable. The normality of Han's characteristics shows that some Asian guys are pretty darn normal. They play football and try to impress girls. They're funny and goofy and they're just like any other kid you'd meet on the street. On the other hand, Han's supercool martial arts skillz make him into a hero. His ability to take out a group of bad guys makes him somebody to look up to. When was the last time people looked up to an Asian guy? 

Han even beasts at American football! Look at that! 
Another merit of this film is that it doesn't rely solely on the fight scenes - there is a (long-winded and slightly convoluted) plot, and it works (ish). 
Remember how Jackie Chan's debut film in America was that awful pile of poop called Rumble in the Bronx? Well, this was Jet Li's American debut film. (I'm ignoring Lethal Weapon 4) No comparison needed, no contest - Jet Li is the winner. He wins on a positive portrayal, a semi-tolerable movie, better fight scenes, and he has a happy smile. And he never gets too subservient or too anything, really. However, Li isn't a winner just because of Romeo Must Die. He has not caricature-ized himself while acting in America at all and has retained a very good public image. Jet Li has consistently chosen roles that are not completely stereotypical portrayals of Asian people - so not only is he a badass, he's also a conscious, smart human being! Is it any wonder that I'm on Team Jet Li and not on Team Jackie Chan?!

There is, of course, the issue of gangs, regardless of racial background. I'm going to focus specifically on the Chinese gangs, however. Eerily reminiscent of the Sherlock episode I wrote about, this idea of warring families and all the Chinese families banding together just rubs me the wrong way. The entire plot of the film definitely rests on the race-based gang premise, so that kinda makes this whole film... uncomfortable. Chu Sing isn't a nice guy - he puts his enemies in refrigerators and his right-hand man killed his own son for the good of the business. He's a kind of frail Fu Manchu, with Kai acting as his mercenary. Not the best portrayal, and it isn't really redeemed with Han's character at all... 
I wish this film had used this topic (so much potential!) to make some sort of social commentary about race relations or organized crime or something - but it never does. Never ever. And there's never any Shakespeare references either! Hmph.

So overall... I think this was a movie that had a lot of creative potential, and had the potential to be really groundbreaking. The concept was interesting and showed a lot of promise, but none of it was actually achieved, which is hugely disappointing. Then of course there's the no kissing thing. And the gangs. I'm taking solace in the fact that I can watch the Russell Wong vs. Jet Li fight scene over and over again... 
Oh well. You can't win them all. 

Saturday, January 22, 2011

A Jackie Chan Atrocity: The Spy Next Door

Who likes Jackie Chan movies? Not me!

This guy started his career as a Bruce Lee imitation - oddly enough, he was an extra in Enter the Dragon. Jackie Chan's movie characters end up being a strange smorgasbord of Charlie Chan's subservience and humbleness, Long Duk Dong's embarrassing eagerness, Bruce Lee's superhuman and "inherently Asian" martial arts skills and the slapstick-y, ugly comedic timing of Hnup Wan and Fan Choy a la One of Our Dinosaurs is Missing with a hyped-up Perpetual Foreigner thing going on. In other words, it combines all of the really obnoxious traits of the above stereotypes into one atrocious character who appears almost every year in a new C-list movie with weak plots and weaker dialogue. Jackie Chan movies tend to consist of slapstick, martial arts, an atrocious accent, some connection "back in China" and (usually) an attractive white woman as Jackie's (son of Charlie?) love interest. It's a formula that has been well overworked and seems to be the only thing that Jackie Chan is capable of, and The Spy Next Door is no exception.

The trailer speaks for itself. Jackie Chan plays Bob Ho, a CIA (Chinese Intelligence Agency, good lord) operative who disguises his true identity under Clark Kent-esque glasses and sweater vests. He's in love with his neighbor Gillian (Amber Valletta) and wants to marry her but her three kids hate him. When Gillian's dad ends up in the hospital for unimportant reasons, Bob ends up watching the kids. But some evil Russians (what?) want to capture Bob so they try to do that, but that doesn't work. In the end, there's a big fight and Bob and Gillian get married.

Look, Ma, no plot!
The plot itself is not important, because this movie was absolute crap. The acting is atrocious. There is no plot. There is only one decent punchline, and it's completely forgettable. You don't even need to watch the movie - the trailer will suffice. It's a Jackie Chan movie, for goodness' sake! It doesn't need a plot, because it has Jackie Chan and fight scenes and nameless, brooding baddies get their asses handed on a platter to them. 

In fact, the only moderately enjoyable scenes in any of Jackie Chan's movies (including this one) are the fight scenes, mostly because they don't usually require Mr. Chan to talk. He just fights and is done. This seemed to work for Bruce Lee too. They fought, and that was about the only tolerable thing onscreen that they could do. However, Bruce Lee's characters were  morally upright and super guys, whereas Jackie Chan's characters are all foolish and bumbling but ass-kicking as well. 

Dear God, it's called "Chop Suey?" Really? REALLY? "Chop SUEEEEYYY! Chop SUEEEEEEYY! Living here is very much like CHOP SUEY!" 
While it's great that Asians/-Americans have someone like Jackie Chan as a familiar/extremely famous face in the media, it's awful that he portrays the same characters over and over again, and that he really doesn't do anything other than beat up bad guys. It's all that he is really "good" for, and it's shameful. Has Jackie Chan been typecast as a slapstick-y foreign ass-kicker? Unabashedly, yes. He's made some attempts to get out of that stereotype, but unfortunately, he can't. It's too hard to imagine this "yellow Uncle Tom" as anything other than a slightly dumb, slightly FOB-y martial artist. That's it. All brawn, no brain. Maybe a tiny hint of a brain. But no emotional depth. A perpetual foreigner whose only purpose is to bust out some karate chop hands and take down a group of evildoers. Disappointment abounds.
In no way is this a slight on Jackie Chan himself. However, it's a slight on his characters and the roles he has played in movies past, and the persona that has been built up around him. 

Prepare for more Jackie Chan posts in the future.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

Charlie Chan in London

Charlie Chan isn't dead yet. Unfortunately. 

Charlie Chan in London takes Charlie to a large country house in London where he solves another fantastic, mind-boggling crime. In short: Condemned man was framed but his sister doesn't want him to die because she's convinced of his innocence. Condemned man's sister hires Charlie Chan to find that condemned man is innocent, which he is. Charlie Chan sets a trap and finds the real killer. But the plot isn't important. Charlie Chan is who's important here. 

Remember how I thought that watching Charlie Chan in an All-White Setting would be much more interesting? It really wasn't. If anything, Charlie Chan was even more humble,  subservient, annoying and extremely foreign. He was "Much honored to be of humble service to British lion" by inspecting the case of Condemned Man. His "humble eyes have had much practice" at making large deductions from tiny details (Sherlock Holmes ripoff, anyone?). When complimented on his deducting skills, he responds with "World is large. Me lowly Chinaman" with a simpering smile. He reminds the audience and his suspects that he's (most importantly) a foreigner - "Regret do not understand English, only American." and "Lowly Chinaman here!" and "[I am] Oriental, not British." and "Not very good detective. Just lucky old Chinaman." It's sickening. 

Because the character of Charlie Chan is played by a white man, shown belittling himself to everyone, and (essentially) a parody of all subservient Asian men, it is one of the more damaging stereotypes out there. I've said this before, haven't I? Along with Charlie Chan being a non-threatening (to other-than-Asian people) stereotype, it's also a very self-incriminating one. It shows that Asian men are ready and willing to demean themselves, but the fact that the character is portrayed by a white man (Warner Oland, no less) makes the entire thing a parody of the Asian man and someone (or something) not to be taken seriously. 

There is a character of a newspaper reporter in Charlie Chan in London that cannot seem to call Charlie Chan by his correct last name. He continues to call Charlie "Mr. Chang." It's always, "I see what you're driving at, Mr. Chang!" or "Mr. Chang enjoys his joke." And not once does anybody bother to correct him. Charlie Chan never bothers to correct him, the other unimportant people at the country house don't bother to tell Mr. Ignorant Reporter off either. What is this? Is this racism? Is this being anti-Asian, by refusing to say Charlie's last name right? Mr. Ignorant Reporter is a bit of a caricature himself, with his bushy handlebar mustache and his pseudo-British accent. Was messing up the Honorable Detective's name part of the caricature? Was it intended for comic relief or just... something random? I cannot decipher what purpose the messing up of the name was, or whether I'm just overanalyzing. I really cannot tell. 

Then there's the xenophobic, neurotic housemaid with an absurdly fake cockney accent. she's convinced that the Honorable Detective is a hypnotist (Fu Manchu anyone?) because he climbs through a window to talk to the Sister of Condemned Man. She's suspicious of the Honorable Detective because he's a foreigner ("There'll be death in this house until we get rid of that creeping, murdering foreign man!"). Homegirl is off her rocker. She represents all the people who remained suspicious of Asian people in general during this time period; however, I can't tell if her character is supposed to be there for comic relief or if she's just reminding the audience that no matter what, we can't trust the foreigner, even if it is our good ol' buddy Charlie Chan. 

Something that gets me every time I see a clip of Charlie Chan talking, I am struck by how little of an accent Warner Oland puts on. His speech is just slowed down with the funky syntax and grammar thrown in. There's no mixing of the r's and l's, no obvious, exaggeration or appropriation of an "Oriental" accent. I wonder if this was because Warner Oland never met an Asian person, so he didn't actually know how to do the inflections and whatnot? What it just lack of knowledge that kept the character of Charlie Chan from adopting a "real" Asian/Chinese accent throughout the productions.

Would Charlie Chan having a thick "Oriental" accent increase or decrease the amount of offensiveness in the stereotype? I honestly don't know. While I'm bothered that Warner Oland didn't do any research for the role in terms of the vocal performance, I'm also relieved that he didn't because it could have hurt the character's connotations so much more. The lack of research implies a slightly arrogant dismissal of the fact that some Asians do have accents, and it's a bit insulting. But I wonder if it would be twice as insulting if he did do research and try very hard to adopt a really thick, heavy "Oriental" accent. The fact that it would be a drunk Warner Oland (need I remind you that he's Swedish?) with a false and exaggerated accent, combined with the aphorisms and humbleness and subservience - the Charlie Chan stereotype would push a lot more buttons than it does already. An exaggerated accent would definitely add some weight to the whole "Perpetual Foreigner" thing - and not in a very good way (Captain Obvious reporting for duty). 

Some aphorisms before you leave:
-Front seldom tell truth. To know occupants of house, always look in backyard.
-Case like inside of radio - many connections, not all related. 
-When death enters window, no time for life to go by door.  

Wednesday, January 12, 2011

Amy Chua: The Tiger Monster

 Amy Chua's recent article in the Wall Street Journal has sparked much controversy and angry outbursts from the blogosphere, Asian-American and non-AAPA. Her snarky essay, entitled "Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior," was an explanation of "how Chinese parents raise such stereotypically successful kids." And here is how she did it. It's a shocker...
"Here are some things my daughters, Sophia and Louisa, were never allowed to do:
• attend a sleepover
• have a playdate
• be in a school play
• complain about not being in a school play
• watch TV or play computer games
• choose their own extracurricular activities
• get any grade less than an A
• not be the No. 1 student in every subject except gym and drama
• play any instrument other than the piano or violin
• not play the piano or violin."
I'm not sure what's worse, her treatment of her daughters, the fact that her daughters accept this sort of dictatorship, her snooty, higher-than-thou attitude, or the fact that she states that this method is exclusively for Chinese parents. This, in her twisted mind, is the right way, the "real Chinese way" to raise robots (whoops, I mean children). The "real" Chinese way? Amy Chua states that she "[knows] some mothers of Chinese heritage, almost always born in the West, who are not Chinese mothers, by choice or otherwise." Meaning that because my mom (and probably lots of other Chinese mommies) didn't raise me the same way Chua raised her offspring, my mom is not Chinese? Um...
Amy Chua is totally buying into the model minority stereotype by saying that "A lot of people... wonder what these [Chinese] parents do to produce so many math whizzes and music prodigies, what it's like inside the family, and whether they could do it too. Well, I can tell them, because I've done it." She embodies this stereotype and, most horrifyingly, is proud of it, stating that "the Chinese strategy (of parenting) produces a virtuous circle" whereas the "Western parents tend to give up" and that they "can only ask their kids to try their best." She praises the (in her mind) distinctly and only Chinese work ethic, saying that is where the "math whizzes and music prodigies" come from. At the same time, she belittles the Western parenting style as being not strict enough and too "concerned about their children's psyches." (Because everyone knows that the emotional stability of your child isn't worth crap next to academic excellency...) Chua turns the model minority on its head by essentially saying that Chinese kids aren't inherently gifted - it's the parents that push their children into being gifted and brilliant. It's the "Chinese way" of having high expectations that gets them so far in academics. Chua, making another grand, arrogant statement, proclaims, "If a Chinese child gets a B - which would never happen - there would first be a screaming, hair-tearing explosion. The devastated Chinese mother would then get dozens, maybe hundreds of practice tests and work through them with her child for as long as it takes to get the grade up to an A." So really, she, as the all-powerful "mother," should be praised for the successes of her children. Chua called her daughter, Luisa, self-indulgent when she was having trouble learning a musical piece - if anything, the way Chua screams for attention and praise for her parenting style is more self-indulgent than her daughter ever was. 
 

The title that Chua slapped on her parenting method (The Chinese Way) is also concerning. The damages from this newly named parenting style will be enormous and hard to get rid of. Chua's "Confucian filial piety" method on steroids is, so far, the only example of an ethnicity-based method that is at the forefront of everyone's consciousness. The fact that it is so tied to being Chua's interpretation of "Chinese" makes the horrific treatment of the children even worse. This is not an issue of raising children a newfangled way - it's the issue of raising them the (specifically) Chinese way. For people who have never met an Asian person (let alone someone of Chinese descent) or cannot even begin to fathom the existence of this type of dictatorship (sorry, parenting), this title becomes synonymous with Chinese people and therefore, Chinese parents. It may prompt people to think that "those Chinese parents are horrible people who have no love for their children" or something along those lines. It prompts me to think that Any Chua ought to be excommunicated from the Asian-American community. 
Those poor girls...
The dangers of an article like this one is that there are no other Asian American women with that level of fame who are mothers who could contradict her. Sure, there are other Asian American women out there in the media and whatnot, but they aren't mothers or they aren't recognized for being mothers. We're now left with only one representative of an Asian mother, and it's this Mom-zilla who is "happy to be the one hated (by her children)" and resorts to "[using] every weapon and tactic [she] could think of" in order to make her daughter learn one measly piano piece. Even more depressingly, this article was published in the Wall Street Journal, which, last time I checked, was a pretty widespread newspaper. Any rebuttals to her frankly horrifying methods of "raising" children are only showing up in blogs that may or may not have as big an audience as the Wall Street Journal. Therefore the damage that this article has done will be even harder to rectify, and all the work we've done to diminish the model minority stereotype is going down the drain and into the unfathomable bowels of hopelessness. 
This woman is a monstrosity. A smarmy, self-serving, arrogant "mother" with Machiavellian "ends-justify-the-means" and "extreme tough love bordering on abuse" parenting techniques. Ironically, she mentions "all these new books out there portraying Asian mothers as scheming, callous, overdriven people indifferent to their kids' true interests." Was that a shameless, self-indulgent plug for her own book, Battle Hymn for the Tiger Monster? Oops, I mean "Mother." 


Check the comments section below for further discussion!
An elegant rebuttal to Chua's techniques and the psychological damages to children that her methods will have.
More links all over the web - Especially this one.

Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Sherlock: The Blind Banker

Sherlock, a modern day adaptation of the awesome books by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, is a fast-paced, funny series (with three episodes), produced and written by Mark Gatiss and Steven Moffat (writers for Doctor Who). It's a BBC program that debuted on PBS' Masterpiece Mystery in October and many wonderful blurbs have been written about it. I really really enjoy this show (understatement - I'm ever so slightly addicted to it) except for this episode, entitled The Blind Banker

Adapted from the original stories of The Valley of Fear and The Adventure of the Dancing Men, this story involves a Chinese smuggling gang, a China Doll/Lotus Blossom, a Dragon Lady, an ancient form of Chinese writing, Chinese acrobatics and a tea ceremony. Oh yeah, and two white people get murdered. 
Is it any wonder that I was more than slightly offended while watching this?
My Complaints:
1. Soo Lin Yao (played by Gemma Chan) - The China Doll. She's pretty and innocent-looking, all wide-eyed and silky black hair and a non-whore-y, British Suzie Wong. She works at some museum in London where she performs a tea ceremony for tourists, spewing silly aphorisms about tea and shiny teapots. She escaped from China after being orphaned and joining a gang (called The Black Lotus - cringe) and smuggling drugs. Off she goes to London to a new life where she can do cute little tea ceremonies and have dorky little English boys try to ask her out. But alas! She is not safe! The Black Lotus catches up to her and BANG! She's shot dead by her own brother. Soo Lin Yao is pathetic and lacking in a backbone. 
2. The Black Lotus Gang - Also referred to as a tong*. The gang, posing as a Chinese circus troupe, threatens their victims by spray painting yellow characters as part of a mysterious cipher onto a surface close to their victims. Then they track down their targets, kill them, and then plant a black origami (which is Japanese, people...) lotus somewhere on their body. The yellow paint is a clear indicator of the sickening racism embedded in the fetishized "Oriental" aspects of the story. Yellow? Can you get any more obvious? The origami lotuses are another indicator of ignorance and dismissiveness. Origami is Japanese. While there were forms of paper folding arts in other places in the world (even China), the art of origami remains a specifically Japanese art form. It is this sort of mixing of the two cultures without research that is increasingly annoying and offensive. The fetishization of the lotus flower doesn't help either. 
3. "The One They Call 'Shan!'" (not even listed in the Casting Credits - the indignity!) - The Dragon Lady. She controls The Black Lotus. She tortures John Watson. She wields a gun. She speaks with an awful, exaggerated accent, with her l's and her r's getting mixed up all over the place. She is ruthless. She dons a traditional-looking Chinese opera outfit and facilitates "death-defying acts from the Yangtze River!" She doesn't seduce anybody (Thank goodness) but she does watch Sherlock and John Watson do their mystery-solving from behind shady (pun intended) black glasses with an evil warlord-esque smirk on her face. She's the female Fu Manchu, with Sherlock playing the role of the great good white knight out to save the day and prevent "The One They Call 'Shan!'" 
4. The Villain of Indeterminate Race But is Obviously Not White - This character makes a brief appearance in the very beginning of the show as a samurai-sword-brandishing, turbaned, long-robed assassin enters 221B and attacks Sherlock! But, with Sherlock being the great white knight, this Assassin of Indeterminate Race is no match for our white-as-white-can-be hero (no slights on Benedict Cumberbatch intended), who easily defeats him with no weapons at all. For starters, the samurai sword being wielded by the man dressed in Berber-esque clothing? Mishmash of cultures, even a culture that deserves its very own independent study. Uncool, making that mishmash of cultures into the villain. And even worse, the bits of Sherlock versus Villain of Color and interspersed with John trying and failing to do the self-checkout line at the grocery store, so that the entire opening sequence really comes off as slapstick. All in all, it's a slapstick Unnamed Villain of Color versus White Knight Sherlock. Come on, we can do better than that, BBC!
5. The Dangerous Mystique of London's Chinatown - I don't think there was a single shot that was located in this setting that didn't scream, "This is a creepy, shadowy, mysterious place full of shady people who may or may not be assassins, and who knows? Maybe you'll find an opium den if you look hard enough!" Not only that, but Sherlock and John decide to go into the "Lucky Cat Emporium" to look for clues, where an old lady tells them, "You buy Rucky Cat? Onry ten pound! Your wife, she will rike!" In the "Lucky Cat Emporium," an old Chinese lady tries to sell a "Rucky Cat" to John, which he politely refuses. I am not joking. Do I even need to explain the incredibly blatant racism in that one little bit of a scene?
6. The Code! - There's a cipher code thing used to communicate with other members of the Black Lotus, and the code starts with a series of numbers that refer to page numbers in a certain book and then the first word on that page. The numbers are written in Suzhou (mistakenly called "Hangzhou" by Sherlock - tsk, tsk, writer of the script, do some research!), which then refer to the book "London A to Z." Again, more mysteriousness for shading dealings of drugs and other goods... Sneaky sneaky. 
7. The Music - The Sherlock theme and the usual background suspenseful music is stellar. But whenever Soo Lin Yao or The One They Call Shan showed up on screen, there was a sudden bout of Zen-like flute and some atmospheric zithers to accompany it (Thankfully, no obscenely loud gongs a la Long Duk Dong). I'm getting sick of zithers. And when Unnamed Indeterminate Race Villain of Color made his dastardly appearance there was - you guessed it - some funky funky sitar sounds. It was painful. 


It's really frightening that this slipped under the noses, maybe even was applauded, by the producers of the show. But is it because it was made in Britain? Is being Asian different over there? Would all the things I found offensive be considered offensive in the UK, or all over the world? Should I just start lowering my expectations for media that features either a token Asian or some sort of Asian-themed thing? Who knows?


Predictable and degrading stereotypes aside, the most frustrating this is that the original plot of The Dancing Men does not involve a Chinese gang at all, nor does The Valley of Fear. The Dancing Men has an American criminal chasing down an old flame and the Valley of Fear has no foreign criminal involvement at all. So why incorporate a Chinese crime ring involved in smuggling drugs and other goods around the world? That decision seemed to come completely out of left field with no real reason for it other than the fact that it would provide cheap entertainment and mystique to a story that would have been just as exciting as if it didn't have that "Oriental" vibe going on. 


I can only hope that next season doesn't feature stuff like this again. 
*The word "tong" has come to have unfortunate connotations because of its association with the term "tong war," referring to armed conflicts between rival Chinese groups seeking to control illegal activities such as gambling, opium smoking, and prostitution. "Tong" actually means "hall" or "parlor," in the sense of a society or association, and most Chinese tongs were men's fraternal or social organizations that existed to provide benevolent services to their members. (From http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/LS/AACC/SENSITIV.HTM)
A super great review of the Blind Banker, please read for more insight on the topics above!