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 rants. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rants. 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

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Amy Chua Reconsidered

After all that venting about Amy Chua's crazy article "Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior," I read her book, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother. Yes, I read it. I read it and I enjoyed it, laughing at the tongue-in-cheek-ness of some of the book and frowning at the bits that still struck me as... questionable. 

The article that preceded the release of the book wasn't written by her - it was compiled by some unknown editor at the Wall Street Journal. The article was deliberately cut-and-pasted into the article that we're all familiar with and, honestly, detest. Chua didn't even choose the snarky, arrogant title of the article (Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior). However, it's very interesting to see that in the above interview, Chua states that "[She doesn't] think Chinese mothers are superior" when the caption on the cover of her memoir states "This was supposed to be a story of how Chinese parents are better at raising kids than Western ones." Just that sentence alone is enough to make one wonder - but wait, there's more! The cover caption continues with "But instead, it's about a bitter clash of cultures, a fleeting taste of glory, and how I was humbled by a thirteen-year-old." Doesn't Chua now sound... less arrogant? It's much better! Chua accepts her defeat! 
This book isn't a parenting manual - it's a memoir that just so happens to be written by a mother who is Chinese. She's definitely not as crazy dictator as the article made her sound (thank goodness) and she comes across as a strict, but not unloving mother. Chua definitely still sounds like an uppity, holier-than-thou person, but she still retains enough humility that perhaps she was a bit too extreme with her parenting, and she does express some regret in her past decisions. It's a journey.

There are still things, however, that I disagree with. Like when she says that playing drums will lead to drugs. Uh, no. There's a part in the book where Chua talks about her parents and their stories, and she describes her grandmother as a (you'll get a kick out of this) a Dragon Lady. When I first read that, I was a wee bit shocked. I'd always been under the impression that the term "Dragon Lady" was kinda derogatory, belonging in the same category as the "Lotus Flower" or "Fu Manchu" stereotype. But here's Chua, using it to describe her own grandmother! I may be reading a little too much into it, and Chua's grandma may have been born in the year of the Dragon, but who knows? All I know is that she's applying cultural stereotypes to her own grandmother, and showing that it's okay to embrace and essentially perpetuate these stereotypes! Then there's this idea of training and pushing her daughters to just get the A. Get the A and everything will be fine. Get a B and you'll work your butt off until you get that A. GET THE A! I'm a little biased, having gone to schools that value learning for the sake of learning as opposed to learning to get the grade. Maybe that's why the emphasis on "getting the A" was so infuriating and confusing to me. Either way, it's still bothersome - how on earth are her children going to learn from their mistakes if they never make mistakes? 

She does, however, keep on categorizing herself as the "Chinese Mother" and makes it seem like there is only one kind of "Chinese Mother," which only furthers the stereotype surrounding an ethnicity-based parenting style. And, as we all know, stereotypes can be unfairly applied to anyone who seems to fit the bill - in this case, be Chinese. Only once in the book does she acknowledge that there are many different types of parenting, Chinese or otherwise. Unfortunately, she states it only once, in one smarmy paragraph in the very first chapter of the book. Chua highlights the diversity of Western parents and leaves them under the umbrella label of "Western parents" but categorizes the über-strict parenting style as Chinese, even going as far as to categorize an anecdotal white mother as a Chinese mother. So... basically... you are a Chinese mother (regardless of ethnic background) if you are as strict as Chua is. Not an Asian mother. A Chinese mother. To be a "Western" mother is to be somewhat free in your label, while it seems like there is one way and no other way to be a Chinese mother... Right? What's up with that? 

Chua still says that in order to be Chinese (or a Chinese mother, for that matter), one must raise one's children exactly as she did. I still have a problem with this. It's like saying that I'm not Chinese or my mom isn't Chinese because I wasn't forced to play violin or piano or get A's in every single class except gym and drama. It's just a wee bit, you know, wrong. 

In the end though, Chua has every right to raise her children as she wishes, and it's not really our place to make a pariah out of her for doing so. What's really annoying is the fact that she labels this the "Chinese" way. Of course, she hides behind this idea of "the immigrant thing." Well... Chua's not an immigrant. Her parents were. So... was adopting their strict parenting style necessary? Was it because she just didn't know any other way of raising children, and she couldn't be bothered to read up on some child psychology? It seems she did it because she was worried about future generations of children and she wanted filial piety. It's odd. 
Fun Fact: Chua's book (Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother) is currently being sold in China under the title "US Mom." 
Long story short: Amy Chua isn't as bad as the article made her out to be. 

http://news.yahoo.com/video/us-15749625/husband-of-tiger-mom-speaks-out-24025828
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9hTvzbo8AE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nx8iXyKe4-Q

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.