Yesterday, we had a podcast with Micah Moore and Blake Faucette from All Aces Media, along with Eva, Vu Nguyen (BcB), and myself. Hear it here, or download it here:
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
It’s 24.2 mb, and runs around 53 minutes. In the first part of the podcast, we discuss Dogs of Chinatown and the controversy that surrounded it–for those unfamiliar with the controversy, see here and here. In the second part (around 14:05), we discuss how we can change the filmmaking industry for minorities.
First, thanks so much to Vu Nguyen, aka aznheartthrob from BcB, who was an awesome host. I think you’ll all like his style. Thanks to Blake and Micah, who agreed to come on to our program. We really appreciate how they reached out to us. Thanks to Eva, who brought an Asian female perspective to this debate. I loved the fact that she brought a perspective that we don’t hear enough in the male dominated blogosphere. I’d like to give a shoutout to Zach Katagiri, who writes the music for my podcasts. I’d also like to thank the company responsible for recording my conference: Instant Conference. I’ve noticed that the recording quality of my podcasts has been going up, and I really appreciate that Instant Conference lets us record while still respecting our intellectual property. If you’re a business owner looking for a conference calling company, check them out.
So my thoughts on the first part of the podcast–I enjoyed talking to Blake and Micah and sharing our perspective with them. It was good to hear Eva’s views, and I thought she brought up some really good points about daily living and how stereotypes affect us. I still think there are some serious Orientalist stereotypes that Dogs of Chinatown perpetuates, but I highly respect Blake and Micah for coming out and hearing our views, and I’m glad to have heard their own views. I’ll let our listeners form their own opinions.
As for the second part of the podcast, Blake and Micah are the first filmmakers that we have had on our program, and they shared some good insights on the industry. With youtube and the internet, we are entering a new realm of electronic media. Electronic media is ubiquitous, and it’s highly important for activists to learn about how this industry operates, how it’s changing, and how decisions are made. You all know that I’m mostly a “print” guy–I like reading and writing–but I hope one of you out there is a filmmaker intent on changing up the industry.
As for the activist perspective, keep building the community. That’s where our strength and power comes from.
Check out the podcast and if you feel inspired, sound off below like a bigWOWO.
Related posts:
Thanks for having us man. Much respect to Eva and Vu and Blake. I really dug Eva’s insight into her own life and people’s expectations of her (I’d love to hear or read some more). The portrayal of women in media and advertising is such a big and different issue it deserves a lot of time on it’s own.
Everyone here has good observations of media. People have varying levels of sensitivity. Our crew is sympathetic and supports diversifying media, but we’ll never be as sensitive to racial issues as activists, so you’ll probably find some of our choices and topics controversial.
I agree with you guys about what roles are most available for Asian actors. I think Byron’s seen that we usually have different roles filled by Asian talent – but this time we made a crime saga and had roles in the Triad. I feel like one message I’m hearing is ‘because of racism in America it’s just not cool to have Asian talent playing martial artists, gangsters, and villains for now – till things are better film makers should limit the roles to positive characters that don’t coincide with media stereotypes.’ I appreciate that point of view and I see the value in it. On the other hand our actors enjoy opportunities to play good guys and bad guys, and I wouldn’t feel right starting a story with the agenda to limit protagonists or antagonists or lifestyles based on skin tone (even if it was to compensate for past and current media ills). And the martial arts guys just care about personal excellence like athletes. They’re impressed by Tony Jaa, but they’re more impressed by some of his stuntmen that get beat down and take the huge falls. Most of our audience views Jack fighting the Triad and Mafia and saving a Triad mistress the same as Jet Li fighting the French police academy and getting the white prostitute girl in ‘Kiss of the Dragon’ or Jet fighting gangs and getting Aaliyah in ‘Romeo Must Die.’ I hear what you’re saying that it’s not the same because of our society. I don’t deny that but it’s intangible – in other words, it depends entirely on the viewer and their interpretation. All I can say is I hope that one day the world is a better place, so everyone can enjoy films with all kinds of villains, protagonists, and love interests with less controversy.
The industry is so big and tricky, we could only mention a couple points, but if anyone ever needs some specific insight to apply to your agenda, feel free to contact us.
Thanks again everyone. I appreciate your moderate approach Vu and Byron and Eva. I can respect anyone who prefers a militant attitude, but that’s more effective for rallying one’s own troops, and can polarize outsiders. You guys/gal are admirable and did real good.
Much love,
Micah
Our crew is sympathetic and supports diversifying media, but we’ll never be as sensitive to racial issues as activists, so you’ll probably find some of our choices and topics controversial.
Haha…okay, not trying to reignite anything, but this photo illustrates what Eva and I were talking about.
Jet Li fighting the French police academy and getting the white prostitute girl in ‘Kiss of the Dragon’ or Jet fighting gangs and getting Aaliyah in ‘Romeo Must Die.’
Did Jet get the girl in Kiss of the Dragon? I don’t remember. He definitely didn’t get the girl in Romeo. I think they settled by shaking hands or something.
Anyway, thanks again! If your actor peeps are interested in talking (or the SP actor peeps), we can also set that up.
Great podcast, but saying filmmakers and film investors shouldn’t be “swayed” by audience dollars is like saying Pepsi shouldn’t be “swayed” by its customers’ dollars. If they could only stop listening to the pesky money-holding customers they’d finally bring back Crystal Pepsi.
Just wanted to stop by and say thanks to Eva, Vu and Byron for joining us on the podcast. I think everybody had some great comments (even Micah when he was rambling had good stuff to say, haha). I very much appreciate you giving us the time to talk about the film a little and really appreciate the conversation on ethnic diversity in film. I wish we could have discussed it even more.
Eva – I do understand your criticism of the female characters in the film and I do want to make films with stronger female leads and roles. I do however think “Jin” fits perfectly in the story we told. That’s probably something that we’ll just have different opinions on but I am especially aware (now that I have a daughter) of the need for stronger, more positive roles for women in film. In Dogs I don’t think it fit the situation that Jin was in but in future films it will definitely be one of my top concerns.
Vu – Again, I thank you for taking the time to see the film and I really appreciate the constructive criticism. It was great to get a chance to talk to you. Should the need arise, I would love to do another podcast.
Byron – It was great talking to you as well. I really enjoyed the podcast and hopefully it will be helpful in any small way to start making some changes. At the very least, I think it makes more people aware of the need for ethnic diversity and non-stereotypical roles for Asian Americans. As above, should the need arise, I’d be very interested in doing more podcasts. I had a great experience.
Now – as far as the picture above that you linked to, that’s just Brian. I’m not even sure what that was for, probably Halloween. Count your blessings it wasn’t a picture of him half-naked and drunk wandering the streets which tends to happen from time to time (not so much now that he has a strong, positive female influence in his life). Oh, and I have no idea what the hell Eric is talking about with Crystal Pepsi.
Byron, I’m not going around forcing people to dress up in Halloween costumes of my choosing, hehe. Brian and I have men’s cheongsams for some public demonstrations – for the actual combat parts his school wears heavy-duty gi’s – but cheongsams and other outfits are fun to wear when educating the public about the history of modern martial arts starting with Bodhidharma. When I started at our school, I had no fighting spirit so I focused on learning history and and associated philosophy of the various Chinese boxing systems. Our kung fu brothers often wear those robes at costume parties (except at that party I was Peewee Herman and you probably saw The Green Arrow and a Werewolf and a Rastafarian Blake.)
If you watched NVP, you’ll know why those hats are in our wardrobe department. If Brian or other people want to play with them and make fun of stereotypical images that’s fine with me. Do you see how comparing the man that is Brian Lee to the stereotype he’s poking fun at makes it totally apparent how ridiculous the stereotype is? He wasn’t leaving my house to go build a railroad based on my expansionist policies, nor was he wearing a costume from a serious film.
I’m not qualified to comment on whether it’s fair for a minority individual to poke fun at their own stereotypes. I have no problem admitting it can be funny when it points out how ridiculous the stereotype is. I don’t know if you find it offensive if a Japanese man dresses as a samurai for Halloween, or a white guy as a Viking or a Spanish guy as a Matador. All that really affects me is the quality of the costumes, lol.
Our friend Yaya Han (the ninja boss in NVP) is a world-famous cosplay model and costume maker.
http://www.angelicstar.net/
She loves anime and often dresses as characters including scantily-clad fighters from Japanese video games, cat-women, uniformed students from anime series, etc. In your opinion, is she an impressive artist at the top of her field, or an affront to Asian people? Or both? All I know is she’s a cool person who’s awesome to hang out with. I think you’re a cool person too, we’d dig hanging out with.
Also if you dig Yaya’s work and check out her galleries, I shot one of her costume modeling sets, but unfortunately she works with some top photogs, so my work kinda pales in comparison.
Micah,
I was referring to the caption under Brian’s photo.
Blake,
Thanks again! It was great talking. And I also have no idea what Eric is saying about Crystal Pepsi.
Eric,
Thanks!
As a corporation, Pepsi’s fiduciary responsibilities are to the shareholders. As a filmmaker, do you have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders? I think there’s a difference between artists and corporations. Or at least there should be.
Pepsi has a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders but it’s only because they have to turn a profit. In order to turn a profit that they have to, like all businesses including filmmaking, make a product that consumers will buy. If I make films nobody likes, the films don’t sell, and I don’t eat. We work on quality and that’s what’s been selling. It’s actually the studio system’s failure to make good martial arts films that has given us our competitive edge.
Oh yeah, good point. Glad you brought that to my attention. I forget that not everyone is knowledgeable of our diverse social circle, or even used to diversity. So it’s probably best to leave some of the satire and poking fun of stereotypes between me and the cast and my closest friends like Brian in our private interaction, since out of context it can send the wrong message. The photo lacks context so it doesn’t really differentiate poking fun at stereotypes versus poking fun at people. Without the context and example of our crews interaction and real thoughts on stereotypes and our brotherly love, the picture just comes off as offensive. Now that I look at the site with some distance from the crazy orgy of film making, I’ll pay better attention to what photos and captions that, lacking proper context, seem to have a negative message. Good on you for point it out. I haven’t really looked at the site since launch.
To further credit your POV, I tend to create media for audiences who are used to diversity and multiculturalism, and don’t believe the hype of stereotypes – I don’t always ponder how a viewer from a homogeneous background with no real diverse social interaction would take it. Something to think about in future films that reach beyond an educated niche audience of Shakespeare-loving MA fans, lol.
Thanks B!
All I’m saying is Micah’s appealing to viewers and investors is sound business. Not being “swayed” by them is a recipe for disaster in film. Ultimately when you make a bad film, whether it’s racist or not, if it fares poorly, you get less money. So you have to be swayed by your audience. It’s just picking a good audience to be swayed by.
Eric,
Isn’t that what the Fountainhead was all about? Be an architect, do what you want, don’t worry about what’s popular, and then get paid for it (and then write about it and call it “literature”)? Not that I’m an Ayn Rand fan–I think she would’ve been forgotten had she not had the support of the rich folk–but isn’t that how an artist is supposed to relate to his “audience?”
So Eric, which is it? To Ayn or not to Ayn? That is the question.
I didn’t read The Fountainhead. But if you’re an artist making art for yourself, and nobody likes it, how do you keep making art if you’re starving?
You make the art you want to make, and the people who like it will come to you. They’ll respect the originality. At the same time, however, I’m not an actor, and I do realize that actors are at the mercy of writers and others further up the chain.
“You make the art you want to make, and the people who like it will come to you. They’ll respect the originality.”
Very naive. Trust me on this one. Artists have to appeal to a market, be they writers, directors, producers, actors, or film investors. Especially today, when everyone’s an artist.
It’s true. Film is not like any art. It’s an extremely expensive one driven by technological advances. You can’t make movies that are seen if you don’t respect the fact that it costs money and lots of it. I make films, but I do so for a small semi-loyal following on the internet and for myself. Micah wants to make features, totally different deal. He has to play ball to a certain degree with the business types.
I love what Justin Lin’s doing, even though it seemed like he sold his soul when he made 3 Fast 3 Furious, but it probably also gave him what he needed to make Finishing the Game. I think when I heard him speak at my university, I recall that he was still pretty much paying off Better Luck Tomorrow. How much should one have to be a starving artist? Even though Tokyo Drift from its synopsis sounds not unlike Dogs, Justin Lin still tried to make the best of it. He fought to get Sung Kang in the film in a role that was not originally in the script, and he even got him into the 4th film along with a bunch of other Asian American actors.
Yeah, Eric and Derek are right on that one. You can tell because their names rhyme. If you have no money like us and want to make a decent film, you have to choose stories that investors will approve (which is why I’m not making my post-apocalyptic Romeo and Juliet, aka ‘Verona Flux’). Otherwise you won’t even have capital to get started. Once finished, you have to make deals to screen the film with theaters and venues that think it’s a good investment based on content. You have to appeal to film festivals with pricey entrance fees that have film markets attached. You have to get it out on DVD which means you have to make deals with distributors who will only take the risk if they think the content and package is sellable. You have to take expensive international trips to market the film to distributors, or if you can’t afford that like us, have a rep do that who takes a hefty cut. There’s some ways to make the film available direct to the public, but nothing that begins to make a scratch in recouping production costs and the time and energy spent on the grassroots campaign needed to spread awareness of the product and availability. Plus without traditional distribution and viable proof of profit, no one will want to invest and escalate the budgets of future films.
It’s like Derek said, playing by the rules in the industry earns you future credit to doing your own thing. Look at James Cameron or Ridley Scott or Justin Lin. Dogs didn’t play by the rules, but once we discovered more about our opportunities, we tried to change the packaging to accord with the rules – because even though it breaks my artistic heart – it’s the best benefit for the actors and my crew and future investments. Right now I do what I can to take the pain for those people, but in the future I hope to take care of them.
That’s why I say the best strategy isn’t just doing whatever you want – unless your very rich, or don’t mind dying of starvation at the end of the film. The best strategy is finding out what stories appeal to both the investors and distributors and you. In your case Byron, how can you package a cultural film with keywords and promotional material that ring sweetly to the investors/distributors ears? That’s the rub. I think it’s possible if you have enough stories to choose from, and get clever with the pitch, and know what elements can be changed/sacrificed while maintaining the message and moral and agenda of the film.
http://www.leastlikely.com/
Haha, talking about post apocalyptic films. It would be so awesome if this PSA was turned into a feature. But could you ever get Hollywood to finance a film with an all Asian American cast, even with all those names even?
I think the significant part of Derek’s post is the statement that film is not like any art. As I mentioned in my post, I’m not an actor, so I’m not subject to their rules. Eric, as much as I hate Ayn Rand, her writing was nothing that had be seen before. So she did practice what she preached (and also had the foresight to seek the support of businessmen who had no artistic taste whatsoever.)
So maybe it makes sense to spend most time trying to change writing rather than film. Writing, of course, has the same kind of financial thing going with the publishers and agents, but in the internet age, it’s possible that such a thing could go viral and change things up.
Who knows? Even on the internet, there was never a need for
Ayn Rand’s protagonists in The Fountainhead and Atlus Shrugged are heroic types, so they don’t well resemble artists. Rand’s got this romantic vision of the markets, and that romanticism doesn’t play well in film art.
Jaehwan, you should definitely post those very interesting photos that you found about these people.
Have Moore and his boys answer for them, and let everyone see what their pious rhetoric about diversity and multiculturalism is really about.
“I forget that not everyone is knowledgeable of our diverse social circle, or even used to diversity. So it’s probably best to leave some of the satire and poking fun of stereotypes between me and the cast and my closest friends like Brian in our private interaction, since out of context it can send the wrong message. The photo lacks context so it doesn’t really differentiate poking fun at stereotypes versus poking fun at people. Without the context and example of our crews interaction and real thoughts on stereotypes and our brotherly love, the picture just comes off as offensive.”
Um. I grew up in a VERY diverse “circle” – 40+ nationalities and all races, all combinations of races in an international boarding school. And even in private interactions, any one of our friend pulled that crap about “Blian”, he’d have gotten his ass kicked. Just because you have a few token minority friends to flaunt around does not give you license to be a racist and say, “It’s okay, I have Asian friends so I can make fun of them.”
(And no offense – if this point is contested in 10 paragraph essay comment, I probably won’t bother reading. I may not be in film industry but I do have a life.)
“Isn’t that what the Fountainhead was all about? Be an architect, do what you want, don’t worry about what’s popular, and then get paid for it (and then write about it and call it “literature”)?”
- And how could Objectivism possibly fail?
Rand’s book was hardly ‘daring’ or taking a risk (unless you consider it risky to constantly plagiarize Yevgeny Zamyatin). She was playing up to the popular myopic yuppie attitude of spoiled individual entitlement at the time. The so-called ‘anti-socialist’ leanings of her era that was simply a smoke-screen for Plutocratic wet dreams. A convenient ideology that allowed politicians and businesses to maintain their attacks on underprivileged minorities and continue to gut the programs and systems that could help revitalize and empower ethnic communities.
“You don’t need anybody’s help, you can do anything if you try! And if you can’t, you’re just not trying hard enough!” actually *is* White Privilege bullshit (the same identical logic was used to justify share-cropping, post-slavery-slavery).
Thanks, Larry and Mama Nabi! As you may have guessed from my non-response to Micah’s comment about not being used to diversity, I was going to let that one die. No need to reignite, right? Especially since reigniting seems unlikely to change anyone’s mind about anything.
But since Larry is asking for the other two pics (I already linked the one on “Blian”), here’s the gallery, and here are pics 2 and 3.
Let me just say this. Even though they all hang out with the same group, I think both Blake and Derek know the score. I still wonder about Micah, Eric, and the rest. I agree with Mama Nabi 150%. I STILL question why the minorities in this “diverse” circle allow themselves to be clowned they way they do. I understand that Tyler Wang said that it’s like family, but family should look out for each other, not use each other to make certain minorities the butt of racial jokes. Maybe Ed Kahana or Tyler can come back to enlighten us.
A member of my board just coined a new term for this: Chuck Willis Syndrome.
Seriously, we joke about this, but how can people make change when they live with the same behaviors that reinforce the status quo?
I respect the point of view of Eva, and I do agree with her perspective on how Whites view Asian women. It can be very annoying, but it’s often born from lack of understanding and (frankly) social awkwardness. The problem is that ALL men view ALL women in objective tones. No woman has got it worse, than any other woman, they just got it differently. Any exotic minority female is immediately seen as being a ‘tiger’ in bed (Latinos are hot-blooded, Italian women are horn-dogs, Asians are doms, etc). But so are redheads, and so are punks and goths and the quiet nerdy girls who play D&D and have you heard that overweight girls are great at giving head? Or that lesbians just haven’t met the right guy yet? Or that empowered business type women are wildcats in the sack?
Geez, you’d almost think that men just spend all their time fetishizing all women everywhere to be sexually exciting for the sake of their retarded masturbational fantasies.
Oh wait, that’s right, THEY DO.
The fact that it would show up in movies made by men isn’t shocking, because well, it’s everywhere in the culture. It certainly existed in Better Luck Tomorrow (which was hardly a progressive vision of an Asian female lead). When literally everything is objectifying every single type of woman on the planet, it’s kinda hard to not show up in your art or your essays or blogs if you’re a man. Regardless of how progressive you think you are. And being aware of it doesn’t make it go away, sometimes it makes it worse. Joss Whedon considers himself a feminist, but a lot of his female empowerment, is simply male empowerment with female’s acting it out. And men getting beaten up by women is…yes…another sexual fantasy. You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink; just because you draw attention to stereotypes doesn’t mean you do anything to negate them. Often you just get pretentious, self-aware and phony ‘politically correct’ stereotypes instead. Like for example the ‘magical negro’ who helps the white guy learn the true meaning of Christmas, or the ‘magical Native American’ who teaches us all to respect the environment and get in touch with our spirituality, or the magical Asian old man who can teach us Kung Fu and that we can….”do anything if we just try!” BLARGH. I’d rather have Fumanchu.
I have a written response for the podcast that I’ll post in a bit, but just to respond to the initial comments about whether or not being racist in private interactions is okay or not, does this “hipster racism” now extend even to jokes among friends? This is getting ridiculous. So I can’t fun of my Chamorro cousins for being “chaad”? I can’t sling jokes about my own culture? I can’t tease my Korean girlfriend when I see her acting “white” like in “Stuff What People Like”? Does this require white people to now carefully consider and acknowledge the history of racism towards before cracking jokes with their closest friends?
Let me put it this way? How many times have you called something “gay”, or “ghetto”, or cracked jokes about needing rice for dinner, or being Asian in general towards your Asian friends, towards your white friends, towards anyone? If you are one of the world’s saints, then, congratulations, but seriously, again, I would imagine that if it were an Asian guy that wrote that comment on that photo, you wouldn’t get all upset. Or at the very worst you’d say, “hey Asian brother, you need to recognize your history of being oppressed by stereotypes like what you’re promoting in this photo?” But since it’s Micah, you have to reference your circle and how you’d kick their ass.
If you expect Micah, or any white person, or any person in general to consider and acknowledge a history of racism and oppression before making comments and jokes in a private interaction where it is ALREADY assumed that there is mutual understanding of where each person is coming from, than you are WAY over the line. Micah already mentioned that he grew up “color blind” which AA activists apparently don’t appreciate because it shows a lack of acknowledgment of AA’s history of racism, etc. but that doesn’t mean he’s trying to shove it in your face. He’s a human being for Christs’ sake. Call it racial naivete at its worst, but for that you want to crucify him? How many things from your life could someone extract out of context and crucify you with?
And I still maintain (and have not heard a single decent argument to the contrary) that Asian women do have a problem with being portrayed as beautiful by the mainstream culture and that effects a lot of Asian girls. For some Asian girls that’s not a problem, because they grow up having lots of Asian friends and so they can see themselves as ‘belonging’. But a lot of Asian girls, like me, grew up alone in white communities or white schools and felt isolated and ugly and like outsiders. Back when I was a girl, there was NO Asian women in leading roles. We don’t appear in the ‘hot 100′ beautiful people list. Nobody was listening to Asian rock stars, no white girl was EVER talking about hot Asian musicians from Japan (like they do nowadays). And while things have changed a little, they still haven’t changed a lot. Asian women are rarely presented as being beautiful and that effects Asian girls, like it effected me. Dogs of Chinatown, at least, presents an Asian woman as beautiful and desirable and that’s better and more progressive than the status quo.
I don’t know Ed, I think it’s a personal thing. I have a zero tolerance for people making fun of my ethnicity (and racial jokes in general) because I grew up basically isolated in redneck country and never fought back despite being terrorized by bullies for a long time. I have ‘issues’ in those regards. So I have a knee-jerk reaction to that sort of thing. One time when I was younger a big football player guy who was white said some racially snide sexual comment at me and I punched him so hard across the face that I broke his nose (and my watch) and it made him cry (I cried too though, because I was so mad). But my racial friends have never treated me that way. I’ve never once had to complain to any of my white friends about an ethnic slur, so maybe they know to just not go there with me. But that doesn’t mean I’m right and everybody who acts different is wrong and that everybody should have to walk on egg-shells everytime they’re around any Asian. Different people have different boundaries and different rules. As long as you respect each person as an individual and understand their boundaries, there’s no problem.
I think Jaehwan did publish the link to the photo. I didn’t write the caption but similar jests have been made by all of friends of every race to all of our friends of every race. I do however see that “out of context” it can be taken the wrong way for those that aren’t our friends so I’ll be glad to take it down.
I will also say that it is frustrating to have every detail of your life scrutinized but I guess you sign up for that when you make a film and put yourself out in the public light. I CAN HANDLE IT. As I mentioned earlier, I didn’t enter either blog with an “online handle” or fake name. I stand behind any statements I make and am prepared to face any consequences of those statements. I’ve been honest with my feelings on things and as I said in the podcast, if you read every statement I’ve made in the blogs then I feel it’s a fair representation of who I am. I do have my flaws. I’ve had cross words with people, not every thing I say is PC and I’m sure I do plenty of stupid shit when I drink but I think almost all of us do or have done similar things at some point in our lives. I definitely don’t make a habit of it but no one is perfect all the time.
I’m not here to make friends with everyone so if there’s people here who don’t like me or have already made up their minds about me then that’s cool.
I will say that I’m very appreciative of the great conversations I’ve had with Vu, Byron and Eva. I really think we were on to something good. I would hope that the three of you would continue that conversation with other filmmakers and if there is ever a time that you’d like to have me back to talk more about ethnic diversity in media then I will jump at the chance to do so.
So Gail, it seems that by “status quo” you mean the invisibility of Asian women in mainstream media. And by “progressive”, you mean that Asian American women should have the privilege of being objectified and sexualized by white men on an equal level with white women. Suhweeeet – let a sista get in on that! Thanks for clarifying the kind of opportunity and empowerment all us Asian women should be envisioning for ourselves. Si se puede!
My main point here is that EVERYONE is racist in as far as they fail to acknowledge the history of racial suppression that a racial or ethnic group has experienced at some point when interacting with one of these groups. Be it Black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, gays and lesbians, Muslim, Jewish, etc.
And like Micah, you might have been “racist” and not even realized it until someone from that group grabbed your Myspace photo and said, “hey, you’re failing to acknowledge a history of racism, etc.”
And to Byron’s point that he initially brought up with Birds of a Feather, why would an Asian person let his friends clown on him? Well, truly, if Brian ever felt like Micah went beyond the line of “mutual understanding” he’d take him to the ground because I believe Brian is Micah’s martial arts instructor. IF Brian was as racially sensitive as AA activists, well, he probably would’ve already done something or left that circle. But he’s not. That might tell you something about Brian. It tells you that Brian might share a similar “color blind” view of the world in as far as they don’t stop to acknowledge racial suppression 24/7 even in their private interactions.
In fact the only thing that Brian may have in common with someone like Byron, or Larry, is that they supposedly belong to a group called “Asian Americans”. But what if Brian doesn’t identify with this group? How will you convince people like Brian or myself that we belong to this group? One of the most difficult things about being Asian American is that it is so difficult to even pin down membership of the group. Are Pacific Islanders “Asian”? We did not experience the same history of racial oppression, immigration, citizenship etc. as Chinese Americans which experienced different forms of oppression than Japanese Americans who were not scattered throughout the United States in the 70s and 80s like Vietnamese Americans and Laotians, who did not try to legally claim “white status” like Indian Americans, the list goes on and on.
What is the common thread here? You said yourself that until some sort of mutual understanding is reached so that each group or person feels on equal terms with the other person or group, there can be no progress. But even among people who could be considered “Asians”, a label I feel given to that community conditioned by whites, is this mutual understanding reached? Does someone like myself, or Tyler Wang, or Brian identify ourselves as being “Asian” the same way that AA activists define “Asian”? We do not identify ourselves with the same community of people that defines being in the Stunt People or poking fun at Asian stereotypes in private interaction “racist”. In way, we’re saying, “I’m not that kind of Asian”. We identify with a group of people who enjoy martial arts and martial arts films. Let’s label this group, “martial arts screen fighters”. What are the influences of the group, what forces brought it together, shaped it? Were the forces from a system of white racism, the media stereotype that kungfu violence is cool, the lack of inclusion to other groups like the “Asian” crowd at school or the cool jock club or the after-work bar crowd, etc? Living in a white-run, dominated, or historically initiated society EVERYTHING is inherently biased towards that system that lives within that system or it is rejected and destroyed. That IS the nature of living cells, it is the nature of human civilization. Unless you leave the system or start your own institutions you will always be as much a part of the system as everyone else because the common thing you all have is that you ARE IN the system. Even if you start your own institutions are they really independent of the system? Or is it just another manifestation of control by the overarching system giving your “independent institutions” the illusion of independence?
If I sound adversarial, it is because I do not appreciate the “holy than thou” attitude coming from ANYONE. My sense from reading these blogs is that many of the blog supporters put out this vibe. That maybe a mistake in judgment on my part because I’m reading people’s written words, but nevertheless, these are questions being raised to which I respond with some answers and some more questions.
Hey Gail, it is indeed a person thing based on mutual understanding. Obviously, that football player crossed the line of mutual understanding when he said that to you and you reacted. He had no idea who you were and how you’d take it otherwise I’m sure he wouldn’t have said it to you or, if he did, he was being a real asshole and deserved getting punched.
As for “cbruhs” comment: “Suhweeeet – let a sista get in on that! Thanks for clarifying the kind of opportunity and empowerment all us Asian women should be envisioning for ourselves. Si se puede!”
I’m assuming that’s yet ANOTHER sarcastic remark. I figured that by now people on these blogs trying to seriously discuss things would think to avoid being sarcastic because it appears rude, displays a lack of respect for mutual understanding, and masks what you are trying to say in addition to damaging your credibility. So “cbruhs”, you do understand that for someone like Gail that grew up thinking that because she wasn’t white she wasn’t beautiful having an Asian role model recognized as beautiful by society is empowering to her and everyone other female that feels like that? By posting a sarcastic remark like that, you intentionally dismiss her feelings, opinions, views, etc. and destroy any chance at mutual understanding. Just say you don’t agree and hopefully give a few reasons why from YOUR point of view.
Stick it to her, Cbruhs!
“by “status quo” you mean the invisibility of Asian women in mainstream media.”
- Exactly. I feel Asian women belong in the mainstream culture.
“you mean that Asian American women should have the privilege of being objectified and sexualized by white men on an equal level with white women.”
- You’re kidding right? For the record Asian women already ARE objectified and sexualized by men. They always have been. Nothing you do or say is going to change that in the near future. Because all women on the planet are objectified by ALL men in EVERY culture and it’s been that way since the birth of civilization. From the Venus fertility statue to the engravings on the walls of Mayan temples, women have been objectified for their sexuality and sexual desirability to men since men could articulate thought. It’s a universal thing. That doesn’t mean that being left out of the culture helps Asian women with their self-esteem or their sense of personal or ethnic identity, anymore than it helps overweight women or black women.
“Yay, I’m invisible and so therefore not a stereotype.”
No, it doesn’t work that way. It means you’re invisible and therefore an OUTSIDER. Yes, I do think Asian women should be allowed to play the damsel in distress, just as I think they should be allowed to play every god damn kind of role that white women are allowed to play. Because not getting those kinds of roles, not getting those opprotunities, and not seeing Asian women in every kind of role means we don’t belong. It means we don’t contribute, that we’re different and weird and ugly. And a lot of Asian girls have to deal with bad self-esteem issues because of the ramifications of our ‘invisibility’.
Maybe you didn’t have to deal with that problem because you had people who made you feel like you do belong? Well, lucky you! That doesn’t mean it’s not a real problem for other Asian girls. Sorry.
Okay, Minority Militant, go ahead.
You’re basically advocating both sides to shoot their AK-47s brought in from the weapons manufacturers in the good ol’ U.S.A.
It seems to me that me that AA activists don’t care about the means as much as the ends. But do your means accomplish your end. You will never win over people “Asian” people like Gail, myself, Brian, Derek, Pete, Tyler, and anyone like ourselves.
If you don’t care about us, is this a reflection of how you will treat other people who could be included in your AA community that do not immediately agree with your views? It seems like a “if you’re not with us you’re against us” mentality.
And for the record, I do not believe any of us in the Stunt People have ever met Gail. All I know about Gail is that she knows of our work and has started recently posting on our forums, and that she used to do stunts (which is awesome) and probably has more professional stunt gigs under her belt than I do.
“Stick it to her, Cbruhs!”
- Hahahahaha! Oooo, I’m in trouble now.
Ed,
I don’t even wanna get in the middle of this. However, Cbruhs has made a great point that Gail seems to have a skewed view, I presume total ignorance, on Asian American female portrayals.
Whatever I wanted to say — Byron, Larry, Vu, Cbruhs, Mama Nabi — have said already. Just stating the obvious. Really, it’s not “me vs. them.” Based on what I’ve read on the lengthy threads here, you guys are lost. Totally fucking lost.
gail, you’re my hero
What do you mean you don’t want to get in the middle of this? By posting here, you are getting in the middle of this.
To you and your buddies it may be ignorance, but to us you just haven’t proven your case and you certainly haven’t advanced your cause.
Ed,
See….all the serious talk has been done. There’s no more room for that. There’s well over two hundred comments and a podcast over this issue alone. Nothing left to spew but sarcasm and rhetoric.
You can go first.. Then it’ll be my turn.
Gail, I agree that the (relative) invisibility of women and men of color in media can be a huge problem. And yes, it can damage groups and individuals by making them feel weird and ugly and different. i also feel that being completely invisible is not really true either – in fact women and men of color often “stick out” because of the very specific and recurring stereotypes assigned to us. nevertheless, yes – i am an advocate for inclusiveness, as long as that inclusiveness is in something positive rather than demeaning.
Where I disagree with you is when you say that all women experience and receive sexism equally, to a point where it negates the factor of race. gender and race intersect for brown women – meaning that a white woman will hear “hey baby i wanna fuck you” but will never hear “hey mama-san i wanna fuck your slanted pussy”. peep this article about asian women being targeted and sexually assaulted SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE of their race: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jaemin-kim/lets-call-it-what-it-is_b_163698.html
also, you’re leaving out the power imbalance that exists when you’re talking about the sexual objectification that occurs between two different races – and let’s be honest- the majority of the time it is both written and portayed from the POV of white men. so asian women don’t only have to deal with sexualization, but sexualization coupled with a loaded euro-centric history (and contemporary reality)of war, colonialism, and sex trafficking.
the sarcasm in my earlier comment was meant to convey that we as asian american women need to look beyond being desirable to white men for sources of empowerment, validation, and self-esteem.
There is PLENTY room for discussion. Just because Jaehwan, Blake, Micah, Gail, Eric, and now myself are posting questions and answers to participate doesn’t mean that it’s done and that it’s time for sarcasm and rhetoric.
And I’m not going to use sarcasm because it clearly shows no beneficial gain as I’ve mentioned above. In fact, sarcasm started with the Bicoastal blog “clowning” Eric, Micah and Blake, to which they initially responded with sarcasm. To which people were offended, and ignited this entire issue. Practically every new person that came to the blog discussion started with some sense of sarcasm.
If we divulge in sarcasm it just brings us back to where it all started which goes nowhere.
Cbruhs, I sincerely appreciate your much more elaborate response. It takes time and effort to generate a response that both sides should appreciate, and it gives people alot more insight as to what your opinions and thoughts are.
It is most certainly the case that there is a loaded history of sexualization of AA women based on what I’ve seen and read. The “dragon lady”, the “submissive Asian” stereotype, etc. All sexually charged, interestingly enough in different directions, based primarily on race. I read the article you posted, and there are alot of great points. Unfortunately, not being a woman or for that matter, an Asian woman I would find it difficult to readily comment on it as I feel that I don’t know where to start. I would acknowledge that it seems to branch away from the podcast that this blog entry is discussing, but to address some points that maybe particularly relevant to the podcast, I will comment on the following:
How should Asian females be portrayed in media to satisfy the AA community’s concerns about Asian female stereotypes? In an effort to not over blow this topic beyond the scope of the podcast, could we list at most three stereotypes that are of deep concern to the AA community, and some examples of how this could be better portrayed in the media, and if possible, the reasoning behind how these portrayals would be superior. Truly I might be oversimplifying the issue, but to me, this would at least seem like a start into gaining some insight that can be guided along the way as the discussion continues.
Ed,
Are you going to post your response to the podcast? Check out TMM’s site. Brother tells it like it is.
C-Bruhs,
Awesome post and awesome link. That’s really all I have to say. Other than that I hope Gail and others listen.
Jaehwan, posting that response will eventually happen if I can keep up with the responses already posted. I’m tryyiiing to get there.
As for Minority Militant’s site, again, this brings up the question of what should then be the models for what should be considered “Asian”? He has obviously dug up a variety of examples of “Asian” figures in situations that can be interpreted as self-race hate, etc. That’s easy enough, but how do you make it stop? Attention is drawn, but now what? What do you do as an AA activist to actually make progress? Again, I think underlying issue goes back to what I earlier mentioned about membership in the AA community. What defines membership, what are expectations of the members, etc?
The caption for “Chuck Willis” is a good example of the issue of membership
“Exhibit A: “The Chuck Willis Syndrome” – The man himself
Side Effects: Pays for everything, token Asian, hates “cliquish” Asians, doormat, tells lots of Asian jokes, enjoys Jackie Chan and Jet Li movies. ”
Why would this “Asian” guy hate ‘cliquish” Asians? Perhaps in this person’s history, he found he didn’t have much in common with the Asian groups he grew up around, he identified more with whatever group he found himself in. To lay blame on their actions because “what it’s doing to the rest of us” is foolhardy because he obviously doesn’t view himself as a representative of the same AA community that you are a part of, and most certainly not at the time the photo was taken.
And the rest of the examples remind me of horoscopes, everyone can see something about themselves described in each one described. Who has never been a “door mat”, who doesn’t enjoy kungfu movies, who doesn’t tell Asian jokes, etc?
Who develops the construct of what IS Asian American or not? White people? Media? AA activists? Latinos? Blacks? What is the definition so that we can all know what to go by?
If Gail and Ed actually fought White racism/sexism as much they peddle contrived rationalizations for this shit, they might actually have some credibility.
As is, however, the best you can is that they are very good at contorted White alibis.
Both Gail and Ed’s “arguments” effectively try to deflect blame from Whites by saying that: everybody is racist or sexist; or that there has always been sexism. So we should just get over it.
These disingenuous arguments sweep under the rug the issue of White institutional power and dominance (like in the media), and the reality that White racism and sexism are *qualitatively* more destructive as a result of this influence and power.
These arguments also say a lot about who they are and what they really stand for.
Let’s be brutally blunt.
For these types of Oriental house negroes, power, status, and money are what they truly value.
Since White people are the master, … sorry majority race, Orientals like these people will toady after them–desperate for a pat on the head.
That is what Gail’s pathetic plea for more media “recognition” from mainstream America is really about.
These people desperately seize on any scrap of “acceptance” from White America–no matter how demeaning, or racist, or sexist.
Marcus Garvey once defined the proverbial House Negro as someone who would even lick the spittle off a White person’s mouth if he were asked to do so.
21st-Century Orientals are not much better: They prefer to live on their knees than fight on their feet. All their tired rationalization can’t hide that.
And if you want to see what “multicultural inclusion” and “celebrating diversity” really mean for these people, just look at those “Ching Chong” Facebook photos from the movie that Byron linked to above.
A picture is worth a thousands words.
Listened through the podcast, and jotted some notes on the prominent points brought up and here is my commentary based on my involvement in the indie film
area:
Part 1 of the Podcast
Byron reiterates what is viewed as a common point of discussion and contention in the AA community: people need to acknowledge that today’s society is one
with a history of domination and rules that are influenced by European-American (white) values and that ALL races need to acknowledge this and work towards
change.
Certainly, history has proven the first part of this point. There is no real argument there. The debate is how we should proceed beyond that, but before we
can even proceed to “working together” a sense of “acknowledgment” must be made, more presumably, the burden of acknowledgment is on the people representing
European-American values. My concern here is this: what defines “acknowledgment” and how can this be accomplished? What form of “acknowledgment” is required
in order to satisfy the AA community?
My second concern with this issue, is the method of “how” this acknowledgment is accomplished. Micah’s point towards the end of the podcast is that he is
suggesting to AA activists that when communicating concerns to him as a media producer the route in which “red-blooded” activists like to take in the form of
anger/aggression towards media producers and their projects isn’t an effective means of doing so because it may very generate a defensive, “leave it
altogether” response on the part of media producers, etc.. While I’ll go into this more depth towards the end, I would say for now that IF acknowledgment is
the goal of AA activists, then special attention has to be paid to how that goal is achieved and what methods to use. In short, what I’m getting at is that
“anger/aggression” may be an activists’ natural response but activists should realize that such a behavior might not be effective in attaining a certain
goal. Now, you could certainly take this as “playing into the White-man’s game” and stick to your methods, but that is just my insight from someone on the
other side.
Eva makes a point about the further objectification of women with marketing hooks like “Beautiful Asian girl”. Blake already gave a response to this agreeing
that there should certainly be stronger women roles, etc. But what is interesting about this point is Eva’s background on why she is adamant about such an
issue. She comments that when growing up as an outsider in places like Chicago what she saw in media initially conceptualized what her Asian female identity
should be in her mind. At some point, she grew to disfavor this form of identity that was being fed to her and left to somewhere more diverse. Her concern is
that she would hate for other AA women to ever experience being fed an identity the way she was and that she has obviously grown “tired” of seeing media
stereotypes (especially for women) perpeutated. She is essentially arguing that media has the power to influence . Media effects is a HUGE debate outside of
the scope of this blog. So instead, what I would point out is, clearly, Eva subjectively decides that it was media stereotypes that had a large effect on the
conceptualization of her own identity but could it be that Eva is attributing her life experiences with racism, her lack of AA role-models, and other
societal factors (that might have had the ultimate impacts on conceptualizing her identity) to media stereotypes? It’s like the debate about violence in
media. Does the media have harmful effects by showcasing violence on children or is the greater issue children learning non-violence from parents,
role-models, society, etc.? My own experience is that like most people, I grew up watching the Asian guy lose, being made fun of, not getting the girl, etc.
but perhaps it was because I grew up in a multiculturally-diverse place like Hawaii where white people were viewed as the powerless minority that I was not
affected by media in a similar way that Eva purports. In my eyes, no matter how many times media said that the white guy gets the girl, every day on the
playground or at the mall growing up I saw Asian guys getting girls, picking on and beating up white, “Haole” kids; it seemed to me growin up in that kind of
environment that white cultural superority was actually anything but.
Perhaps what Eva was alluding to was the problem Cbruhs referenced in an article she posted. Again, as I said in my earlier post, the objectification of
Asian women as a huge issue on its own and I am neither prepared to discuss it nor desiring to at this point because it would branch away from the podcast.
However, my commentary above is not so much directed at the Asian female media stereotype, but media stereotypes that concern the AA community in general.
Micah admits that due to the cicurmstances of his upbringing he is “color blind”, instead opting for a worldview that “merit” is the deciding factor in his
interactions, work, etc. This is certainly a point of contention among the AA community based on what Jaehwan, Larry, et. al have espoused throught these
blog discussions. To AA activists, no one can afford to be “color-blind”. Eva even mentions within the broadcast that actions performed under the guise of
“color-blindness” are suspect to disingenuity among AA activists. This falls in line with the idea of requiring mutual “acknowledgement” of differences
related to racial oppression before beginning to truly be on an “equal” field. Further, as I imagine the activists are trying to communicate, the more
“color-blind” people are the more “racism” has the opportunity to spread and operate. But color-blindess seems like a double-edged sword. One one-hand color
blindness can lead to more opportunities, reprsentation of Asian Americans in media, etc. but it can also be used as a tool do the exact opposite. Take Micah
and Blake’s work for example, operating under “color-blindness” they have produced films where the Asian lead, refreshingly, saves the white girl, and also
works where the white guys saves the Asian girl.
Byron makes a comment that the media stereotypes is a contensious issue, because, along the same lines as Eva, media stereotypes influences how both Asian people and other people conceptualize Asian identity. Again, this is another debate about media effects. My view is that media stereotypes is just one factor among a variety of other factors that help a person . Obviously a person that grows up on TV knows nothing beyond TV but does that mean that TV has a responsibilty to make sure that it’s doing all it can to get the right message across? Already I’ve mentioned earlier that because of the fragemntation of AA identity etc., if you can’t define membership, expecation of its members, etc. than how can you communicate this information in the first place? I’m all for the promotion of good images of Asians in media because it increases the positive factors that allow a person either white or Asian with which to construct a view of Asians. You can try to slam negative stereotypes all day, but due to the “system” they are going to crop up for a long time, and so a more viable solution would be to pump up representation and positive imagery. Blake backs this view and offers some insight into the basic idea of how this would work in the industry. Micah adds with the example of Bruce Lee. Bruce Lee might have been able to star in his own dramas after Enter the Dragon, who knows?
Eva argues that America often takes aspects of other cultures and makes it their own. There’s a line in Mr. Baseball when he’s having Kobe beef along the lines of the same thing but from the perspective of Japan. This is true in every culture. Take India’s butchered version of the film “Oldboy”. Took the scenes and story straight from the Korean classic and replaced it–horribly (well at least from my persepctive). U.S. does it probably the most, but that’s what happens when you’re the most powerful, well-known country in the entire world. Cultures make things their own in order to digest it. There’s a fine line obviously between respecting the differences and bastardizing them.
The decision to choose Eric. Well, the simple issue would’ve been to say that the story required a white lead. To be perfectly honest, I imagine that Micah would’ve made a totally different movie if the Asian female lead had better kung fu moves than Eric. What I would like to further emphasize is Micah’s point that Eric from the Stunt People does take the biggest risk. He codes the website, manages the forum, sets up the blog, the bios page, uploads the videos, sets up the booth at comic conventions, etc. If it all fails, Eric is screwed. Things are oriented to his perspective, etc., which is again along the same lines of “color-blindness” that I’m sure the AA community is decidedly against.
A great point that Byron brought up is how to get the “Asian American experience out”; questions, “how do you create stories that reflect the AA experience”. Certainly, having color-blind people isn’t the way. But is it easier to make people less color-blind or influence people who are already not color blind to go out and tell those stories. Despite all the industry hoopla, etc. truth is, the means of production make it possible to create films that can reflect the AA experience, but truly, it’s up to the people with those experiences to make it happen. It’s rather difficult to expect that a screenwriter that grew up in Idaho that left home to LA to become a screenwriter will have the knowledge to even begin to touch the Asian American experience. Of course, it’s not always that easy as picking up a camera and going out there and shooting, thus, the alternative route in the current system is to learn to play the rules of the game in order to get what you want.
I have to admit that I am a bit skeptical about the point that Eva brings up that if mainstream saw stories about Asian Americans that it will cause the audience to want more. I’m sure there are plenty of studio execs that will shut anyone down with that argument and have actual data to prove so (because I’m sure they’ve tried every which way to make money). I’m not saying it’s hopeless, but it’s not a simple matter of media exposure, because again we’re going into media effects. If you truly want to promote more Asian American stories in the current system, you have to learn how to operate in the current system in order to do so. Yes, Byron and Eva make an argument then that it’s up to the people with the means to do so, but again, you have to accomplish that elusive “acknowledgement”, you have to bring those people into your community so that they can see you views, you concerns and most importantly IDENTIFY with those views and concerns.
And this leads to the final comment about the podcast. The issue of bringing people with the means such as media producers like Micah and Blake into the community. Micah makes an excellent note that creative media producers are more inspired to produce as opposed to being forced to produce. He makes a plain case that he and many others like him are more likely to be swayed to produce something that could be beneficial for the AA community if approached in a certain way. This is one way you can make a color-blind see it your way. You can choose to use it to your advantage or go your “own” route and only God knows which will be more successful in the long run. Obviously, it’s a really tough pill to swallow because activists might feel that using that approach is too repuslively subserviant and not in line with their activist “red blood”. Byron sums it up in the last words, “we have to be angry”. But if anger proves to not accomplish anything, is that in the best interest of the AA community?
Larry that’s my whole point, speaking for myself, I am not part of your community.
In fact, seriously, we’ve all put ourselves out on the line with our names so that you can google and find our Facebook accounts, personal websites, youtube accounts, etc. Who are you, Larry? Give me a picture of who I’m looking at. What’s your name, where are you from, how did you get involved in the AA community, what epiphanies did you experience that put you where you are today? I’m seriously curious to know who has the gall to call people “house negroes” etc.
I wrote some things and then I realize that Larry is merely trying criticize the character of those debating as opposed to actually answering the questions I’ve posed. If that’s how you want to do business, then I’ll just ask stuff about you and leave it at that. I won’t leave it to my inferences about you based on your words, I’ll let you define yourself. Bring up something about the podcast and we’ll talk.
Larry-
Just because the guy dressed up in his traditional Kung Fu outfit and was a little drunk then all of a sudden in your words he’s someone’s “Ching Chong” “House Negro.”
I have nothing but respect for my friend Brain for all the things he’s done for me and mine and I would do anything for him. So, during a night of fun he’s does some silly shit, who cares? Obviously you do because you’ve always done everything perfect. Never a moment of weakness in your life. So there’s no photos of you out there that are embarrassing, nothing you ever did to someone that you wish you could take back. If someone went over the details of your life there’d be nothing objectionable. Good to know.
I’ve talked to Byron briefly offline about how I was hopeful that this podcast would lead to something positive but some here obviously aren’t interested in that.
I’m still very interested in talking with Vu, Byron, Eva and anyone else with an open mind about how things can be changed.
I’m not at all interested in talking to anyone who already hates me because of the color of my skin. I find that your hate and negativity is putting me in a foul mood so I’m going to head off and spend time with my family and enjoy life.
I’m pretty sure I’m done with the comments. Life’s too short. Vu, Eva and Byron please feel free to email me anytime. I really do value your opinions and have really enjoyed getting to know you.
lol……its all just useless talk, these NICE people who make these GREAT films are NEVER GOING TO CHANGE! Theyre just gonna keep pumping out these WONDERFUL movies with AWESOME themes and subtexts!
If you dont like them, dont support them, dont bother to keep trying to engage them in dialogue, because they will just deny that there is a problem, or that they were part of the problem.In fact in their world, THERE IS NO PROBLEM.So if you keep raising it they are just getting free publicity. Seriously, dont give them the satisfaction. If it wasnt for BicoastalBitchin and Bigwowo, i wouldve never even heard of the GROUNDBREAKING and FANTASTIC film called Dogs of Chinatown. And to this day, i keep thinking to myself
“wtf is that movie about anyway?”
lol. Dont hate, just spend your money on Justin Lin/Wongfu production/Justkiddingfilms/ etc films and videos. Support the roses and ignore the weeds.Eventually, there will be enough roses to crowd out and totally destroy all the places where the weeds grow.
WEEDKILLAH!!!
@ Blake Faucette
You are the poster child for White self-delusion. Props. Too bad they don’t give out Oscars in this category. You prolly would have a more successful career by now.
On the one hand, you and your esteemed colleagues are trying to front yourselves as champions of multiculturalism and diversity no less.
Yet, on the other hand, ya’ll sport racist “Ching Chong” outfits and hats for your little party.
Somehow, I don’t think those two things go together.
If this is your idea of “celebrating diversity,” I’d rather deal with the KKK.
At least, they are more *open and honest* about what they stand for.
And what’s next?
How about a slavery party after your next movie?
You can put on some Blackface and don some slave chains, and maybe get a bevy of African American women to play your “slave girls.”
And then you can glibly dismiss it as “silly shit.” At least you got the “shit” part correct.
In fact, this type new age Minstrelsy is all the rage for White America, ain’t it?
You even offer rationalizations similar to the ones that people in “Blackface” parties use:
Blackface party reveals ignorance, racism, UA students say
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/education/169445
Another Racially Themed Party: Plantation Graduation
http://www.rachelstavern.com/uncategorized/another-racially-themed-party-plantation-graduation.html
Funniest of all, you try to play the White Victim card again whining that you are being “hated because the color of your skin.”
This coming from a self-styled advocate of diversity … who thinks nothing of a little Yellowface party.
You just don’t it–or you don’t want to get it.
BTW, I wouldn’t waste my time or energy “hating” someone like you.
Pity yes.
@ Larry
I think I’ve had enough of your “these people,” “white boys” and other racial references to get where you stand on things. I’m sure you would rather deal with the KKK. They are open about their hate which is exactly what I get from you. They are however not open about anything else. Not open to dialog for positive change, not open to revealing who they are because while they hate, they still have to get on in the real world. I’ve been open with my feelings on things. I’ve reached out to VU, Byron and Eva and had some very constructive dialog which I do take to heart. I’ve already said here that I’m not perfect (far from it) but I’m also NOT willing to write an entire race off because we have differences. Like I said, it’s easy to come on here at rattle off all the things you do and not reveal who you are. I instead chose to use my name because I not trying to hide. I accept responsibility for the things I say and have done. I could have easily written off VU and Byron’s statements off but instead I chose to engage them and it lead to me valuing their opinions because they were willing to take the time to get to know me and judge me based on that. They were also willing to take their time to educate me on some topics that I was unaware of which is very cool. That’s how friendships and understanding are built. I look forward to talking with them in the future.
I never said I was a victim (excuse me “white victim”) and I never whined. There’s people out there that have real problems, I’m not going to whine because “Larry” doesn’t like me. That would be your words. I’m a very strong person and I don’t let random people’s thoughts about me hurt my feelings. I just said you obviously have a problem or pre-determined judgements about me because of the color of my skin.
I did however notice that when Ed and myself brought up you revealing who you were or letting people into your life to scrutinize it that you avoided that. That’s cool. When I make statements online, I not trying to hide them from the place I work, my friends, my family or anyone else.
Like I said, I’ve done plenty of stupid things. I never purposely tried to offend anyone. We do what we do with all of our friend’s feelings in consideration but we do pick and jest one another as well. I get that maybe someone found this or that offensive. I can’t please everyone, that’s impossible but after getting to know Vu, Byron and Eva, their feelings will be part of my considerations in the future.
Byron – I’d love to talk about kids and family with you anytime and more about how the film industry can change. I have an open mind and it’s great that others here do as well.
Sorry one last thing. Larry said:
“On the one hand, you and your esteemed colleagues are trying to front yourselves as champions of multiculturalism and diversity no less.”
I never said I was. I’m not qualified or educated enough on the topic. I can just give insight on the film industry and distribution and how they choose to put together projects with casting in mind.
Byron – I can also give insight on raising kids too, haha. And thanks again for sending me the link to the Wong Fu Productions stuff. Those guys are amazing. Really good cinematography. Their “A message from Wong Fu Productions” video is awesome. I look forward to you doing a piece on them. Much respect for their skills.
lol “divide and conquer” typical response…………..
i just listened to this podcast in its entirely…….and i have to say, the more micah and blake talk (especially micah) the more they dig their own hole deeper.
I notice that both micah and blake seem to have a paternalistic attitude towards eva and bryon. But whatsmost threatening is that the style of talking and the outlook micah and blake have is quite dismissive and seems to reinforce a “normalising” of the current situation.I think that people who have subconcious racist views are much more dangerous than people who are overtly racist, because they can cover up with P.C bs about “oh colourblind” “meritocracy” “coincidence not stereotypes” and it actually bogs down the whole issue about definingwhat is racist or not.
And its really not helpful, because it detracts away from the issue, and attacks (covertly) the position of the activists. I hope that listeners will be intelligent to realise what is “shuck” and what is truth. Frank Chin was right 30 years ago, even today the issues are the same. Chickencoop chinamen are everywhere with their overlords and micah and blake are prime examples of so called P.C liberals who are actually showing racist love aka Charlie Chan the good son.
Whats REALLY sad is that some yellow people seem to believe all this B.S and support “empowerment” which is actually oppression by a different name.
And artistic expression ? pleeeeeeeeeeease, THESE FOOLS COPIED THEIR STORYLINE AND FILM IDEA FROM “CHINAGIRL” (1987) just see it for yourself
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092751/
yeah ands its also a “romeo and juliet” film too.lol, sarcasm, its are B.S racist orientalism…….
Basically micah and blake say “well your point of view is valid, and our point of view is valid, blah blah blah….”
So its just liking saying “well your saying racist stereotypes are wrong-thats valid” but we say that “racist stereotypes are true and thats valid too”
In other words they are just saying that racism is okay, even if you disagree thats also okay because all points are valid. They arent changing ANYTHING.In fact i think they’ll just keep doing their thing regardless, and take this whole incident as free publicity.
like i saidbefore, support the roses! weedkillah!
Hey Anna,
Thanks for listening to the podcast. I’m definitely not here to convince people to like us or the film. I just wanted to give other filmmakers some insight on why things are the way they are in the film industry and how they can possibly start to incorporate the elements that they want to see in film whether that’s more Asian American roles or whatever their passion is. I’m certainly not saying you have to accept what’s there but if you’re going to go through a studio or you want to get international distribution then you have to give them something they can sell. Filmmakers just have to figure out what they need and then find ways to incorporate you’re ideals, you’re influences or your whatever on top of that. Or you can do what the Wong Fu Productions guys are doing and taking their films straight to their audience. I have a lot of respect for that. If they are achieving their goals as filmmakers by doing that then more power to them.
Haven’t seen Chinagirl but there’s similarities to plenty of films in Dogs. Definitely support what you like. If enough people support Asian American filmmakers or actors, the film industry will take notice because ultimately they will want to get that money.
hey blake
thanks for the reply. I think its great that you guys have finally reached out and asked for the advice you needed. Bigwowo , bicoastal bitchin and other such websites are really fantastic sources of information in regards to how not to propagate racism. Sometimes its so easy to get caught up in the moment that you dont even realise that youre doing something immoral or wrong,even when other people tell you. But its good that you have taken a step back and are trying to work out what you did that was offensive and are attempting to find solutions.
Chinagirl and Dogs of Chinatown share many many similiarties maybe it provided the creative “inspiration?” lol, well i’m sure if you work at it, you’re next work will be more original.
You know, ive always known that racism is more about education and ignorance than about hate, so i commend you on taking the first step in educating yourself about the issues and becoming a better human being. I’m sure in time you can improve yourself,and hopefully, we’ll see more positive things from you from now on.
oh , and one more thing, blake, for your own sake i suggest you google
“white privilige”
so that you can at least try to understand why adopting a paternalistic attitude really isnt helpful if youre serious about making a change and standing up for whats right…..just take it as constructive criticism on one more thing you can improve on.
take care and good luck!
For anyone interested, this is a great film about white privilige, what it is and how it affects society……
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6154391225543898610
Anna,
Thanks. I’m always trying to improve myself. My wife is always trying to improve myself as well, haha. I definitely have things to work on personally and professionally. We try to make entertaining films for as broad an audience as possible and in the future all of this dialog here and on BCB will come into play when we are developing characters. So some progress on our part. Ultimately though, I think Asian American filmmakers and actors have to tell their stories. My only intention on the podcast was to try and give some insight as to how they can make their films appeal to a broader audience, if they choose to do so. I think the Wong Fu guys have that potential. While it looks like they make their films with an Asian audience in mind, they do have qualities in their stories that are universal for everyone. Their is obviously a lot of passion here and that’s always a good start for someone to make a film.
Off to watch the film you suggested now, thanks.
Well, my journey’s pulling me forward guys. The following is not directed at anyone individually (except for Larry, even though I love ya brother), but to whoever I’ve had the privilege of hearing from. Thanks for your time and thoughts.
I’m happy to offer insight on the industry and communication theory to anyone here who thinks it would be helpful to their goals. You can decide if that’s out of support for something that aligns with my own goals, or some dastardly attack. I thought you were curious on how to change minds and perspectives in the industry so I laid out some exact passwords and keys that can be applied immediately and directly – things I’ve learned from hard experience. It takes willingness to try a different approach. It time and research. It takes sucking up ego in exchange for measurable results. If you use these suggested approaches you will not get public acclaim as an activist or hero, only the knowledge that your influence has begun to change minds. Maybe there’s no need for such insight. Maybe there’s no need for an alternative approach. Maybe you’re successful and effective and changing the media industry already – at least to your level of satisfaction. Maybe I don’t know how to effectively influence someone in my position, and my opinion on that topic should be scoffed at.
Strategy is not limited for use by only one philosophical viewpoint. You can still learn from people you dream to be villains. I think decently enough of the posters here, but I feel that my advice here will be brushed off and dismissed because my approach was not effective, and that is my fault. I was not able to find a language and angle that would make my ideas adoptable. Learn from this if you want.
Is it important for the public to hear your anger? It’s important for the public to know it’s a serious topic, and one that shouldn’t be ignored – beyond that it’s up to you to choose angry venting at your targets, or crafty persuasion. Emotional gratification or utilitarian change.
Larry made his choice. Larry has chosen language and attitude to ensure that the general public will not take him seriously nor be influenced positively by him. Larry has been working hard to achieve a self-fulfilling prophecy. “People X will never take my message seriously because they suck. I must be abrasive and combative to ensure People X won’t listen to me thoughtfully, then I can brag that I was right all along.” He will try to fulfill that prophecy for every group he is part of.
No matter how we feel about someone personally, recognizing relativity between people and events is what allows us to learn from other people’s successes and failures. You can choose to believe that a different set of rules applies to you in this world You can choose to believe gravity effects you differently. But the general public is still going to evaluate your message by factors that they evaluate any group with. Will you choose moderate language and shoulder the burden of patiently educating society – or will you choose an attitude that the public writes off and dismisses as radical?
Whether he’s right or wrong, before the public can even evaluate Larry’s message, they will relate Larry’s attitude and approach to groups like the far Christian Right, The Nation of Islam, and White Supremacists. I’m not commenting on the content of his message, just the similarity in tone and attitude. The general public writes those groups off as radical and dismisses their messages. If that’s the example you want to follow in an effort to change mainstream America, good luck. Larry’s approach reminds me a lot of Sarah Palin’s campaign that focused so much on branding people as enemies and threats, instead of reaching out based on common interests as Barack did, and trying to pleasantly quash misunderstandings and inspire change.
Even in a more moderate movement, individuals like Larry and ‘Toucan Sam’ interjecting with their chosen language is all that’s needed to distract or repel the public audience from your message. If you and Larry claim to be part of the same movement, the general public will assume he’s a representative and assume your movement is represented by his language and attitude . It’s up to you to establish your brand identity and level of message control. The problem is that I’m right on at least this one topic – everyone that is part of your cause is just as unique and individual as everyone else in this world, and therefore they all have different perspectives. Like all schools of thought, your cause is variable and subject to unique interpretation by every individual member and viewer in the audience. Due to this you are lacking a clear precise message to the public. If other individuals are willing to band together with you as a movement and agree upon a strict set of well-defined opinions and a friendly approach, you’ll have a movement with a streamlined message that can be packaged for public consumption. If you do the same but replace the approach with militantism, you already have plenty of examples of how the mainstream will view your movement (and it’s level of influence).
Disregarding any particular content, the attitude of a few of the posters here compared to the majority of Asian Americans is relative to the Nation of Islam compared to the majority of Muslim Americans. I mean that with no negative or positive connotation. It’s true that both groups, Asian Americans and Muslim Americans, have both had to deal with prejudice and injustice. It’s true that those posters here and members of the Nation have some significant points and concerns. But it’s also true that groups with ‘angry’ attitudes and militant approaches do little to shift public opinion, and in fact tend to polarize the public, including other Muslims and Asian Americans. Those groups become caricatures in American media and society. And those groups do not make up the majority of Muslim Americans or Asian Americans.
The public likes to feel good. They like entertainment. And sometimes they like to feel good by watching drama and discord, but not when it’s aimed at them. The public registers a difference between ‘drama’ and a ‘downer’ If you can’t learn this, if you can’t find a way to package your message in a way that associates it with enjoyment or reward to the public, they will not crave more of your message, they will simply turn the dial. The approach of this blog and BCB are great for attracting people who already agree with the moderators, without concern for polarizing everyone else.
You can hate me all you want. You can hate me when I make a gangster movie that includes the Triad. You can hate when I make films with positive protagonists of all ethnicities. You can hate me for all the ills of world history including slavery, the Crusades, Tienanmen square, and every Asian girl that turned you down in high school. You can hate all you want. Fill your life with it. Let it consume you. Don’t waste time spreading love and nurturing influence that could be spent basking in anger and blame and name-calling on the internet! Let it be your chief experience and passion so that one day far in the future you can lay in your deathbed and reflect on your one chance to experience living on Earth, how you took the opportunity to focus your time on anger and pride and hate.
I can take your hate. I have the ability to dissipate it in breathing, instead of passing it on in this world. Hell, I’ve been turning it into love. It’s made me even closer to many of my friends and colleagues. And the treatment of those individuals is my only real area of resentment toward this blog – you’re willing to to slander a whole host of decent people just to try to tear me down. That’s the only thing that really bothers me here, and so I won’t indulge in it – I have more positive things to do, and scripts to write. I won’t stick around to encourage you calling my friends and respected colleagues sellouts and traitors and ignorant simpletons who don’t have the intelligence and integrity to make ethical decisions about who they hang out with nor take principled stances on art and society. I think it’s nonsense when you speak as if you have the only valid Asian American perspective and devalue or ridicule other Asian Americans for seeing the world differently. If you want to call us all racists, for the sake of visual comedy I wish you were here and could just come out to the bar so we could take in the image of your chosen homogenous gang calling a vastly diverse group of friends and lovers and colleagues racists and prejudiced. We might not be perfect, we might be offensive, but even we can see the humor in that.
You’ve accused me of paying Asian people to come to my rescue and stick up for me on this blog. You’ve proposed that my lifelong friends and social circles and personal interests are all a cleverly-crafted ruse to disguise some racist agenda and mindset.
Luckily for the cause of diversifying media, there are moderate individuals out there actually getting off their asses and infiltrating the system, because for all the good points you make and concerns you have, ridiculous claims like those above make everyone else wonder where your tin foil hat is.
Good day. Good luck. I tried. I failed. You’re smart and all-knowing and I’m dumb and cursed with a genetically-inferior devil brain, so it was obviously your master plan this whole time to make me stop giving a damn. Congratulations and kudos. While we don’t agree on Dogs, outside of that discussion you started pointing out some good problems and hurtful satirical language that’s become accepted in American society, some of which I’d been too comfortable with in my own social circle and hadn’t thought too deeply about – but as you said, you couldn’t let it die with just making a positive thought-provoking point or inspiring change – no, there had to be an attack; you had to assassinate characters. I was really digging some of your insight. But instead of sitting through your demonizations, I’ll just spend greater time probing my friends and mentors more deeply for their own unique insights and anecdotes – and go to them for more influence. I guess I’ll have to live lacking the approval of about 6 anonymous usernames and a few cool individuals.
Despite your opinions of me, I feel for all of you as brothers and sisters who share the human condition and hope you find some happiness and contentment in this life. So long as it doesn’t come at anyone else’s harm. (Larry, you know it’s that molitov cocktail I’m talking about).
Since your hopes for media do coincide with my interests in media, if you ever meet film people who do need tangible advice on breaking into the industry and grabbing a hold, Byron has my email addy. I’ll give them whatever insight I can. And if they have strong production skills and glossy product, I’ll pass along their sample to whatever networks I can access.
@ Blake Faucette
You and Micah sadly seem to be more interested in disingenuously presenting yourselves as “The Victims of Hate” than you are in actually making real arguments.
This is highly hypocritical and deceptive, given that one could say that your actions–and perhaps film–are exactly an example of the thinly disguised White racist “hate” towards Asians that is as American as apple pie.
Indeed, this is one of the cynical tactics that White *Liberal* racists often use to discredit minority political dissent: They posture as open-minded, racially tolerant individuals who are unfairly being assailed by angry, hate-filled minority militants, etc.
Whereas, the KKK is more open about defending White power and privilege in America, White Liberals often will disguise their own tacit support for this same White power and privilege behind vapid catchphrases about promoting tolerance, dialogue, et al.
Micah’s long, rambling, and frankly comical rant about Sarah Palin, Christian Fundamentalists, and The Nation of Islam is almost an unintended parody of this White liberal tactic.
It’s political posturing and rhetoric.
At the end of the day, all your feel-good talk about “promoting change” or “dialogue” or “celebrating diversity” or “multiculturalism” must be judged by ACTIONS.
And to be blunt, holding Yellowface Minstrel parties with “Chinaman” outfits as you and Micah have done contradict your racially benevolent claims.
@ micah, Blake Faucette
Since you two guys continually insist that you are interested in dialogue, here are some arguments or issues that you can actually address:
One of the points that you two–particularly Micah–appear to push is that you believe in “celebrating diversity or multiculturalism” in your movies and in general.
But this begs some critical questions:
Whose definition of multiculturalism and diversity are you espousing?
What is the actual political nature of your definition of diversity?
And more importantly, whose interests does this definition really benefit?
After all, even the Republican Party now openly talks about “welcoming diversity” or promoting a “diverse group of friends and colleagues”– even as they enact policies that are fundamentally hostile to minorities.
And the same could be said of the Democrats, who have also implemented policies hostile to minorities–even as they spout endless rhetoric about diversity.
In other words, the White Mainstream definition of “celebrating diversity” is not quite as “progressive” as it superficially appears, or that you would have people believe.
In the bigger picture, what’s happening in America is a PARADIGM SHIFT from an older from of White dominance/supremacy based upon Jim Crow Apartheid to a newer form of White dominance/supremacy hidden behind the mask of “diversity” or “colorblindness.”
Put in a simple schematic form:
-Old White Supremacy: White people control institutions, implement policies, or promote culture that benefits Whites as a class and upholds White dominance.
-New White Supremacy: People of diverse backgrounds control institutions, implement policies, or promote culture that primarily–though not exclusively–benefits Whites as a class and upholds White dominance.
In terms of the media, just because one hires or uses racial minorities in a film does not make it some kind of “progressive” work.
In fact, it could be the very opposite.
You can hire many diverse Asian American actors or crew members … but only to make a film that promotes the same old tired White racist crap about Asians that America loves so much.
As I have said before, White Supremacy is not just the KKK.
White Supremacy is ultimately about Mainstream America (including Liberals), who are more disguised behind the figleaf of “diversity.”
Dealing with the KKK is kinda like dealing with a snake out in the open, while dealing with a Liberal is like dealing with a snake in the grass.
This is a *fundamental point* that you two seem hostile towards even considering.
And it is a point that Malcolm X made a long time ago:
“The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way: the liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative…. Politically the American Negro is nothing but a football and the white liberals control this mentally dead ball through tricks of tokenism: false promises of integration and civil rights.”
God’s Judgment of White America (The Chickens Come Home to Roost)
http://www.blackcommentator.com/42/42_malcolm.html
This speech was given in 1963, but in many ways, it is even more politically revelant today.
In 2009, the mainstream White definition of diversity is NOT about racial justice or equality for minorities.
It’s about maintaining White institutional power and dominance–but with a more multicultural mask.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
“Indeed, this is one of the cynical tactics that White *Liberal* racists often use to discredit minority political dissent: They posture as open-minded, racially tolerant individuals who are unfairly being assailed by angry, hate-filled minority militants, etc.”
Ahh, but Larry, you ARE an angry, hate filled minority militant!
Re. my post in another thread (sorry, I can’t find the thread atm, so you get it here. feel free to delete this comment
) :
@ Larry: My error on the Harvard Degree comment, I thought I remembered Byron mentioning elsewhere that you held that honor. Sorry for the error. The rest of my comment I stand by, and as pointed out above by Micah, you’re ability to communicate your perspective is horrible, but I understand now that you really don’t want to communicate and inspire, you’d rather just be angry.
@ the rest of you, I apologize for my initial entry into this blog where I posted the concept of colorblindedness as a possible solution for racial issues and then wanted to talk about it. For those who were constructive, I appreciate it – believe it or not, and very contrary to what Larry believes about me (I’m sure), I had no idea that colorblindedness was such a negative concept. I’d never floated it by anyone before, and clearly this was a hostile topic and after this podcast and it’s feedback, I understand why – so thanks! This thread has been a very informative one for me, and I’ve enjoyed reading through it. Consider me a “naive white guy” because that’s precisely what I was/am – there are lots of us out there.
Also, There seems to be a lot of negativity and controversy about the podcast and its contributors, but bear in mind, it raises awareness, and anyone listening to this who is simply naive will learn a great deal from it, so hats off to all involved in it, and hats off to Byron for having a place to post it.
@ Larry
Not sure exactly how to answer those questions. Maybe you could start off? I tend to stay out of politics because I feel both major parties have their own agendas and will fuck the people over every time for those agendas. I really just live my life by what my parents taught me. Treat other people the way you want to be treated. With dignity and respect if they deserve it. Some people through their words or actions prove they deserve neither.
You’ve had a lot of assumptions of me even without knowing me. You keep throwing white privilege in my face like I deny that it exists. I know it exists but you seem to think that every white person has benefited from it. I don’t assume that every Asian American is the same. It’s pretty obvious from the diverse amount of opinion here that it’s not the truth. Just because my Korean friend’s families had and still have more money than my parents or me should I assume they were privileged. All people are individuals first and that’s what I see. And like my friends, they also happen to be Korean, Chinese, Black, White and on and on. All I can do is give them the same amount of respect that I would want from them.
When we made the film we chose to incorporate as many of our friends as possible and also considered what type of film they’d most enjoy. I have not and never will ask someone to do something that they are uncomfortable with. After all, it’s just a movie. If Brian felt uncomfortable about his character, he would tell me and we’d make changes because I value his opinion. Huyen was not comfortable with herself being nude in the film. Losing her over some small detail was not an option for us. She’s too good an actress. We changed. Point is we don’t ask people to do things they are uncomfortable with and we value people’s opinions. If one of our actors said this person wouldn’t do this then we’d ask what would he or she do especially if it was specific to an ethnic background. That individual’s experiences are different from yours so you may not agree. In the film, the different gangs are sort of lacking stereotypical cultural identity. It’s not like the Italian guy is sitting their eating meatballs and listening to Sinatra. Other than their skin color they are almost exactly the same. Dressed very similar, do exactly the same things. They are stereotypical criminals. We just wanted to show that all men, regardless of race are capable of evil and without the ability to change then they were doomed. You may see an Asian character in the film and think it’s a stereotype but you also have to accept that most people that see the film (some of them Asian) don’t see that. They see bad characters doing bad things. We obviously are gonna have a difference of opinion on that.
The only problems I had was that people assumed to know us or our intentions. And also I had a problem with some of the racist comments thrown at our friends that supported an opinion that you did not share. I also think the stories you want to see, we cannot tell. The Asian Americans I know here have very different experiences than what you have where you’re from. They also don’t share the same opinions. Any films or characters that we’d come up with may not reflect your views. We try to have universal story elements that appeal to a broad audience but obviously, you can’t please everyone.
I think you and I are just going to have differences of opinions on things and I’m okay with that. Doesn’t make me right or you wrong or vice versa. I have no ill will against anyone here but it’s hard to stay and listen with an open mind to someone who calls your good friend a “Ching Chong House Negro.” I think Micah’s decided to move on which is a shame because I know he’s a good person but he’s had it.
I’ve been more than willing to listen to people’s opinions and check out links to videos and articles that people have sent me. Does it mean I’m going to do everything perfect in the future? Probably not. I’m still going to have flaws. I will however treat people with the same respect given to me.
@ Larry
This is a little misrepresented:
And to be blunt, holding Yellowface Minstrel parties with “Chinaman” outfits as you and Micah have done contradict your racially benevolent claims.
One Chinese American in a traditional kung fu outfit at a Halloween party does not make a “Yellowface Minstrel party.” The guy wears what he wants. He’s a grown man. You just assumed a couple of white guys put him up to it.
Also:
“This is highly hypocritical and deceptive, given that one could say that your actions–and perhaps film–are exactly an example of the thinly disguised White racist “hate” towards Asians that is as American as apple pie.”
You assume the film is that way without having seen it. It probably wouldn’t change your mind and I’m sure you’d just assume we had hate towards Asian Americans on our minds anyways. Pretty harsh to make that statement about someone you don’t know.
Maybe your mistrust is from previous experiences. I assure you I have no plan, no secret agenda, no tactic and no whatever. I’m not trying to make an argument about anything. I just said what our intentions were when we made the film and you chose to think you really knew what our intentions were when we made the film and really knew our intent behind everything we’ve done. I don’t even know what to say to that.
Lots of assumptions. Ultimately I don’t care if you believe me or not.
Blake and Micah,
The difference with Blake and Micah, is that at least Blake is willing to TRY to change, and everyone deserves a chance to improve. So we will see from his next piece of work if he really has changed. Micah seems to be in “oh i’m the victim” mode where he cant even see that he did something wrong, instead writing off criticism as unwarranted. It aint really about you, Micah, its about the work you produce, about your behaviour, and the effects it has on others. If someone says that Dogs of Chinatown is racist, it doesnt mean that YOU as a human being are racist, it just means that piece of work is.
Micah, YOU can change, because racism isnt inherent in the DNA or anything,….people learn to be racist, so they can also UNLEARN it. Micah, I think you should try to unlearn the racism, instead of giving up and saying “people insulted me, its too hard”. Because you will be in a better place if you can unlearn the racism, just like martial arts, if you give up after a FEW MONTHS YOULL NEVER IMPROVE, people only become masters after many years of training. For racism, its hard to undo the years of racist conditioning so of course it takes time, but sometimes you just have to man up and step up and do the right thing, even if it is hard…….
And what Micah/Blake said about Larry, it is incorrect. Micah, you just cant see that hes speaking the truth. Larry is actually just stating the the facts about white privilege, institutionalised racism, white supremacy and social justice, and how the film “Dogs of Chinatown” fits in with all that.
Micah, if you somehow feel uncomfortable because of the truth that Larry is stating, its because deep down, you know he’s right. The choice is up to you if you want to run away like a coward or face up to your own racism and try to unlearn it to become a better man.
Personally, i think Larry is succinctly stating the truth, and what he is saying only serves to demonstrate how well informed and educated about the issues he really is. Larry is quite centerist in his approach in that he only uses concepts and theories that are already established and have already been proven to be valid.
Actually, i think it is LARRY that should be washing his hands of this situation, i can only imagine that for him, its like hitting his head against a brick wall trying to educate people who it sometimes seems, dont really care at all. For all the Micahs and Blakes out there that try to write off Larry’s views and opinions as some kind marginalised aberration, you are clearly ignorant and mistaken in that regard. Many people listen and agree with what he says, not only in America, but around the world,-he is verbalising the concerns of millions in the community!! Instead of complaining, you should just be GRATEFUL that Larry’s even willing to engage in dialogue with you, especially when he keeps having to repeat and explain numerous basic concepts in his replies…..!!
Anna, I don’t think anyone is stating that Larry doesn’t have a viewpoint, or even that his viewpoint isn’t shared by a great number of people, but to play devils advocate, that doesn’t make it any more correct. Remember there were a great many who believed that the US Stock market could go nowhere but up. Many of those people would point to facts to support their viewpoints, had past events and facts to back them up and many were so called “experts” on the subject. That didn’t make them any more correct when they were disproven. granted that’s comparing apples to chainsaws as larry is certainly not dispensing economic tips, but rather his viewpoints.
Your comments about being grateful to him are ludicrous. The only thing I’ve witnessed from Larry is a stream of insults leveled at anyone who has a different viewpoint from his own, generally backed by the same links to Tim Wise materials.
To think for a minute that “These people” don’t care – myself included is flawed thinking. Contrary to that line of thinking is the evidence of NUMEROUS posts on these forums. Ask yourself why on earth they or I would continue to expose ourselves to criticisms based on the upbringings we’ve had, or to be called racist by someone who’s exposure to us is based on a handful of posts? The simple answer for us is to simpy read these blog posts, roll our eyes and mutter something akin to “whatever” and just go elsewhere, living our lives, resigned to not give a crap about minority issues. Instead, we’re here, posting, and in some instances learning, trying to share thoughts (I’m sure I’ll get lambasted by good ole larry for even suggesting we give a shit, but screw it.) with a group that in most cases responds with nothing short of contempt.
Put yourself in our shoes (I’ll hear about that too – I guess I’m trying to mind control you now? – white devil that I am). Imagine going to “school” or wherever, raising your hand to answer a question, and having the teacher and the rest of the class mock your answer and call you a dumbass for even posting the thought. I would posit that based on larrys responses, he’s more the racist on this blog than anyone else I’ve seen post. But whatever, there I go twisting things around again ehh?
To call micah a coward because he’s tired of hearing someone repeatedly bash his friends in spite of his efforts to explain situations is unfair. it seems to me that Larry had a lot to say until his own experiences and personal situations were called into question by Micah and Blake, then suddenly, his keen desire to speak faded. Sure. it’s easier to attack someone for things and situations that you know nothing about, than it is to open yourself up, especially when directly confronted.
OK, I’ll let it go now and check back in a few weeks to see all the trash that’s going to be thrown around about my reply.
Robert, well i dont know who you are, since i was posting in reply to micah and blake, but i guess from your post that you support micah and blakes view, correct?
well “Put yourself in our shoes ” because youre “white devil that I am”
so that “I go twisting things around again ehh?”
sheesh brother……your post just reeks of insecurity. I never said anything about “white devils” or anything like that. I’ve never said that to anyone in my life!!
But yeah, i have put myself in the shoes of micah and blake, thats why i said they deserve a chance to change. Thats why i gave them a link on white privilege. Thats why i posted and told micah to keep trying to unlearn the racsim he has been taught. If those actions dont demonstrate the empathy and goodwill i’ve shown towards them, then what does!.
Dont be acting so insecure, robert, just cause someone said that theres racism around and tries to help you doesnt mean there out to get you. Just take criticism on board as positive ways to improve….Thats what i say.
And no, i wont “throw trash around your reply” lol, lose the insecurity buddy, it makes you look unattractive.Try to be optimistic, who knows, you might learn something!!!
Anna,
I will apologize if my post came off as hostile toward you in any way. My comments are not based in insecurity, far from it. I’m the guy who posted a few posts up thanking everyone here and admitting that I learned a lot from the discourse. My comments were more directed toward Larry. I completely agree with you that if someone states that there is racism around (agreed) or even better that they are trying to help that they’re not “out to get me” Believe me, I understand and wholeheartedly agree with your point. My comments were said preemptively toward Larry because he has demonstrated repeatedly that he does not want to discuss things like this in the fashion that you describe. He has repeatedly said things like:
“You are the poster child for White self-delusion. Props. Too bad they don’t give out Oscars in this category. You prolly would have a more successful career by now.”
or
“BTW, I wouldn’t waste my time or energy “hating” someone like you.”
or
“As is, however, the best you can is that they are very good at contorted White alibis.”
or
“For these types of Oriental house negroes, power, status, and money are what they truly value.”
or
“Since White people are the master, … sorry majority race, Orientals like these people will toady after them–desperate for a pat on the head.”
I could go on, but you get the point. Comments like these are not meant to teach or inform anyone, they are inflamatory and incite negative reactions. They put the reader on the defensive and attempt to make the reader feel like they are less important/informed than the speaker. They are written not constructively, but rather destructively. Knowing that Larry is an educated man, I sincerely doubt that the results are accidental.
When I referenced and objected to this communication style elsewhere on this blog, I was told basically to “shut up” I believe it was worded more like “If you expected a tea party, you came to the wrong place.”
Again, my apologies to you if my comments offended you Anna, and I don’t want to turn this into a “Larry Bashing party” (that seemed like a better idea at 3:00 am last night) I was just amazed that anyone could think that Larry had a communication style that others should be thankful for. Successful communication includes and educates the listener, it doesn’t attack and alienate them.
@ Robert.
Are you still grinding that personal axe of yours?
It’s kinda sad that you spend all your time wallowing in spam/rants about my communication style (even from thread posts months ago!)–instead of actually addressing, you know, the broader issues of White media racism and politics brought up here and elsewhere.
But I guess your interested in hijacking this thread to vent about own personal grievances–and avoid discussing the bigger political issues at hand.
That’s what people often do when they don’t have an argument.
@ Blake Faucette
Regarding diversity in the American media or society, the point is that this idea is largely cosmetic window dressing and does not fundamentally promote racial equality, justice, or empowerment for minorities.
Micah, for example, has repeatedly stated that he believes in promoting “diversity and multiculturalism” in his work and elsewhere.
But just because you have some Asian American (or minority) actors and crewmembers does not mean that your work is “progressive.”
If you look at Hollywood, they also spout this rhetoric about “celebrating diversity”–even as they continue to produce the tired Orientalist crap about Asian people. (See Lost in Translation, Joy Luck Club, or your fill-in-the-blank martial arts flick for examples.)
Instead of having a mostly-White cast making some Eurocentric movie about Asian people like in the past, today you have a diverse, multicultural cast … making some Eurocentric movie about Asian people.
This is true in American society in general whether that be politics, business, education, or media institutions.
“Celebrating diversity” is a political scam.
It’s just a new multicultural mask for the same old White power establishment and value system.
It is old wine in new bottles.
So, the important thing for Asian Americans and other minorities is to start building our OWN institutions, media, and films–instead of relying upon the “benevolent” intentions of European Americans, who unfortunately dominate and control US institutions today.
lol Thanks for proving my point by “talking down” toward me Larry, you never let me down.
Haha…and here I thought Asians were supposed to be the sensitive ones.
…overly sensitive that is.
…overly sensitive that is. ………………..
i’m late in coming to the discussion here, lots to digest, lots to think about. i won’t re-hash the debates posted here but i just wanted to add that i appreciate the comments from blake and micah about the industry itself since they HAVE made films and have dealt with the process and the business.
still, i think Asian Americans need to keep taking control over the images, the stories that THEY want to tell. I think it’s cool that there are Asian film festivals and all. Remember, Bruce Lee had to leave Hollywood and go to Hong Kong to make the kind of films he wanted and to control how Asians were portrayed. It appears that the system was not going to acquiesce to his desires, so Bruce took it upon himself to control the circumstances.
I myself have been tinkering around with screenwriting and trust me, there’s tons of shit I see at work (federal law enforcement) and experience for myself that I know would make for a good action flick. But I don’t think the major studios would ever allow for the kind of cast that is required to be truthful and faithful to the real life stuff I see. As a writer, you have to know going in your screenplay will be re-written constantly. from the actors to the director, everyone wants a re-write. AND I wouldn’t have any control over the casting. My screenplay involves Asian Americans, African Americans, Caucasians, Hispanics. But the main characters, based upon myself and my co-worker, would be re-cast. Again, part of that is the star power and the economics of casting.
And the easy way out of it for the studios is to say, “Well, it’s based on your real life experiences, a true story.” You’d have to get a really sympathetic studio to allow for the one of the lead characters to be Asian for my screenplay. So the alternative is to do what it takes to get the screenplay made into a movie OR you go the indie route. You find producers and other film makers who believe in your vision, of your story.
At the same time, though, I do see where Asian American actors just can’t get a break because of the bullshit scripts and all that perpetuate these gross stereotypical images and storylines by lazy writers who go for the easiest thing to write: the stereotypes, or the caricature, rather than a fully dimensional Asian character. It’s a struggle that they will have to constantly fight against, much in the way that blacks have had to change the media images of themselves as always being that helpful magical Negro to the white main character, or always playing pimps and criminals. I think of Sidney Poitier who was helped by some serious screenplays about race, that featured a strong black male character that wasn’t a pimp or criminal. And then years later , along comes a Spike Lee who was able to gain enough economic clout to gain a foothold in Hollywood and help re-shape the images that society had of black people.
In short, we have to take control ourselves. It can be done. I think of George Huang who was an assistant to Joel Silver who wrote and directed “Swimming with Sharks”. Granted, the storyline had nothing to do with Asian Americans (although he could have cast an Asian male lead character that was based upon himself). And then there’s David Ren’s “Shanghai Kiss” starring Ken Leung, who’s part of the cast along with Daniel Dae Kim in “Lost” on ABC, and Hayden Panettierre and Kelly Hu. It won’t be easy, but we have to fight the system by going outside it. And I think once you get a foothold inside, you have to fight and chip away to change the system from within. I think that holds true for any minority group in Hollywood, be they Hispanics, African Americans, gay, or what have you.
You should get in touch with Alpha, Mojo. He knows some people who do films on the side too.
thanks for the reference, jaehwan! i have an acquaintance who was a contract writer out in Hollwyood (TV) for a short period. he’s given me some advice as to what it would take to get something accomplished. And like Micah and Blake had posted, it all has to do with MONEY.
I am a little torn between wanting to get the screenplay turned into a film that would reach the biggest audience versus wanting to have it done with the exact vision I have in mind. So there’s the conflict: mainstream versus independent.
Also, the screenplay I have in mind (and I haven’t finished the damn thing yet, still working on it when I can) isn’t necessarily about Asian Americans; it just has Asian American characters in it that tells a crime story. In other words, it just shows the real life Asian American characters as simply characters in my screenplay, with no emphasis on their ethnicity. And I can see a major studio saying, “Well, then why don’t we just change these characters to white actors instead since there is no emphasis on ethnicity.” And that too would ruin the entire point of the screenplay. That action would take away what made this crime story (and it is a real investigation that is still on-going) unique: that a highly sophisticated African American headed crime organization in Washington, DC was actually being controlled by a lone, Asian American crime figure out on the west coast who had no ties to Asian organized crime whatsoever. So the story isn’t the typical Chinatown mobster crap. It has nothing to do with that kind of tired, cliche, crime story.
An independent film would help me do this screenplay the way I would want it done. The best part of it would be showing the hard work that Asian American federal law enforcement men and women do, showcasing them as the GOOD guys and gals not in any heavy overt way. Just that it’s good guys versus bad guys. And the Asian characters are the good, smart, savvy ones to catch the crooks.
And to address the portrayals of Asian female characters that are in the true life case, not one of them were part of any stereotypes. They were all vulnerable humans like anyone else. If I can actually write this damn thing and get someone interested in it, I think it would make for a very interesting portrayal of Asian Americans that the mainstream doesn’t ever see: fully dimensional, human characters.
still, i think Asian Americans need to keep taking control over the images, the stories that THEY want to tell. I think it’s cool that there are Asian film festivals and all. Remember, Bruce Lee had to leave Hollywood and go to Hong Kong to make the kind of films he wanted and to control how Asians were portrayed. It appears that the system was not going to acquiesce to his desires, so Bruce took it upon himself to control the circumstances.
Asian Americans controlling our own image is critical. But that will probably not happen within a White-dominated media system like Hollywood. It has to start with building institutions IN OPPOSITION to the Mainstream.
Because, ultimately, it’s not in White America’s political interest to allow minorities in general to fundamentally challenge this system.
Even African Americans–who have waged a long fight against White cultural racism dating back to the days of Amos and Andy and before–still face an uphill battle. This is even more true for Asian Americans.
Fade In Online had an interesting article on the experiences of minorities in “Liberal” Hollywood from industry insiders. It’s a somewhat damning though not that surprising peek behind the gilded curtain of Tinseltown.
http://fadeinonline.com/articles/minority-report/
“lol Thanks for proving my point by “talking down” toward me Larry, you never let me down.”
You insecure much, Robert?
LOL! No Larry, I’m just finding you very predictable, that’s all. And I find it hilarious that the guy with the most “The white’s are out to get us” conspiracy theories thinks that I’M insecure! lol! But that’s ok, you go ahead and paint me with whatever brush you’d like.
“LOL! No Larry, I’m just finding you very predictable, that’s all. And I find it hilarious that the guy with the most “The white’s are out to get us” conspiracy theories thinks that I’M insecure! lol! But that’s ok, you go ahead and paint me with whatever brush you’d like.’
Conspiracy theories? Surely, you can do better than that as an argument. Even you must have heard of things like American chattel slavery, Jim Crow Apartheid, and now White neo-racism. (See the US Prison Industrial Complex and the War on Drugs for examples). It’s called White Supremacy. And it’s American as apple pie.
But keep on living in that world of White Denial, Robert–if it makes you feel better.
The War on Drugs Is Really a War on Minorities
http://www.alternet.org/rights/49782/
“Even you must have heard of things like American chattel slavery,
Jim Crow Apartheid, and now White neo-racism.”
Of course I’ve heard of them Larry, But even you must realize that Jim Crow was repealed in 1965 (44 years ago) and American Chattel Slavery was ended by Lincoln (formally) in 1865. I’m not naive enough to deny that there is a history of racism/racist policies in the US, nor that outlawing behaviors solves the problem, but Larry, mixing a theory like Neo Racism (Let’s drop the white part since neo racism occurs across all races) into historic facts, the youngest of which was abolished nearly a half century ago – hardly proves that your prevailing comments bear anything less than a resemblance to conspiracy theory.
But that’s ok Larry, you keep on wrapping yourself in that warm blanket of hatered and spite – if that makes you feel better.
STFU Robert, the more you type, the more you just come off as an littleboy wanker. What are you even still comming back to this site for anyway? geez, what a troll…..
hmnnn… where did I put my troll club? I come to this site because believe it or not, I do enjoy reading the majority of what the posters here have to say. I find it interesting and I learn a lot about minority views/issues that I wouldn’t be exposed to by the mainstream. That doesn’t mean that I have to agree with all of them though Anna. If you want to view me as a ‘littleboy wanker’ so be it,I didn’t ask you to view me in any light.
@Robert
As always, your attempts to minimize the issues of White supremacy and oppression are contrived as they are unconvincing. You seem to believe that if you continue to cry about “hate” or now “conspiracy theory” this will make all those uncomfortable issues go away.
American chattel slavery and Jim Crow apartheid may have been *formally* outlawed, but they are the moral and political foundation upon which the USA is based as a nation, and they powerfully shape White neo-racism today.
For example, the War on Drugs–as even mainstream pundits like Arianna Huffington have suggested in my link above–is largely a War against Minorities. Do you disagree with this?
Another example, the Southern Poverty Law Center recently issued a report stating that America’s guestworker program (which predominantly involves Latino immigrants) is a system that is “close to slavery.”
CLOSE TO SLAVERY
Guestworker Programs in the United States
http://www.splcenter.org/pdf/static/SPLCguestworker.pdf
I could cite similar reports involving the US criminal injustice system and its massive impact on racial minorities in terms of incarceration figures, arrests, etc.
But apparently in your world, the Southern Poverty Law Center and Arianna Huffington are conspiracy theorists for admitting the inconvenient truth of White racism and oppression in America.
Again, I think you miss my point Larry. I have never said that racism does not exist. I have never even said that some white’s do not practice racism. I’m pretty sure I’ve not disputed many of the links and opinions you’ve provided. My problem with your arguements is that you seem to live in a world where it is wrong for a white to deny you a job, but it’s ok if another minority does. A world where it’s wrong for a white to stereotype you, but if a black presumes that you’re sub-sexual, or good at Math that it’s somehow ok. Your double standards and inflamatory nature are offensive. You seem to view hate and racism as a tool to promote your own visions and agendas against whites. Maybe I’m inaccurately profiling you, but you’re arguments are consistently inflamatory and solely leveled against whites. Would you deny that blacks, latinos, asians and any other minority group that you can think of are capable of the racism you enjoy linking? Based on your inflamatory wording, you seem to think this is an issue that is only propogated by whites.
Maybe Anna is right and I should consider why I even bother? Clearly you have your statistics and opinions firmly in place and any sort of constructive discussion is either beyond your ability or grasp – unless the other party already agrees with you. That’s a shame, but at the same time, I suppose the realization that it is futile to speak with you will save me some post time.
I’m late in catching up here, but some quick thoughts:
“Asian Americans controlling our own image is critical. But that will probably not happen within a White-dominated media system like Hollywood. It has to start with building institutions IN OPPOSITION to the Mainstream.”
@Larry – agreed. I just watched The Slanted Screen on PBS the other week and it’s pretty depressing, this fight over true representation of Asian American males in Hollywood. Independent film making is the only way. But I fear that even if an indie film DOES attract the attention of Hollywood, that one can easily be co-opted by the lure of big bank rolls of the major studios. And you still won’t have any control over your own image. I’m dating myself here, but Paul Westerberg is one of my favorite indie artists and he did the soundtrack for some animated kids film. He said of the experience, as a songwriter working with these entertainment types, “You take Hollywood’s money, you eat Hollywood’s shit.” They went out and got Peter Yorn to do the vocals to one of Paul’s songs for some stupid reason—perhaps they thought that Yorn would make the song more marketable?
So much can be changed at a whim, and as an artist, your vision is forever tampered with in Hollywood. There’s no way my true life or based on a true story crime/action screenplay would get made the way I would want it. It would be a casting nightmare because the main players are white, black, Asian, and hispanic. I’m pretty sure they would change the Asian characters to some other ethnicity.
Comic Bobby Lee remarked that the only thing Hollywood cares about is money, the bottom line. I mean, I get it, they’re not interested in art or equal opportunity so they’re risk adverse. But Lee commented that there has to be some break thru movie with Asians that makes a lot of money. Only then will Hollywood come calling looking to duplicate that success, looking for the next big Asian thing to hook their wagon to. And that creates exposure and opportunities for other Asian American actors. He might be right, but who the hell can wait around, begging Hollywood for an opportunity?
But the documentary reiterated that Asian Americans in the industry will have to fight those battles….same fights that black Americans have gone thru. The only way to get an opportunity, if one is willing to stay in the system and fight for it, is to show that Asian Americans ARE marketable and have cross over appeal, that they CAN be counted on to fill the seats in a movie theater, by showcasing our talents in our OWN movies and screenplays. Indie films have to be the way, it seems.
Why can’t Asian American actors create a union much like what the UAW did when their rights were getting stomped on?
Indie films are becomming the means to break away from unions. I think Asian American actors would be shooting themselves in the feet if they did that, much like the UAW did. Plus, if the demand for AA actors is low, then forming a union could make their demand lower. You may end up not seeing any AA actors at all in that case.
@ Robert
Your argument is very similar to those people who are attacking Judge Sotomayor’s “wise latina” comment as being racist.
In effect, this type of argument is about deflecting blame from Whites by accusing minorities of being racist.
Playing the reverse racism card is gaining popularity among Whites today (as seen in the Affirmative Action backlash). But it glosses over the critical issue of White institutional power and dominance.
You may have heard the popular definition of Racism = Power + Prejudice. This issue of power is why the impact of White Supremacy and racism far supercedes any of the alleged acts of minority prejudice that you invoke.
Thus, it is not a concidence that the millions of people affected by the USA’s War on Drugs, Prison Industrial Complex, or the Migrant Guestworker program are predominantly Black, Brown, and other racial minorities.
@ mojorider
Your right about the dangers of Hollywood cooptation. That’s why it’s important that any independent Asian American filmmaking be connected to a broader politcal/activist movement that can support and defend oppositional institutions.
Larry, I think this is where you and I fundamentally differ. While I certainly can see and agree that power is what can give racism it’s teeth, I don’t think that racism or racist behaviors are left solely to those with power. I define racism as any behavior that seeks to opress or harm based on skin color or place of origin. But to follow your train of thought about racism, bear in mind that power is relative, and there are many forms of power as well. For example, you have power of numbers over me on this blog. Here I am the minority – in spite of what the census may tell you about my private life. By that logic, that would characterize your comments about how you perceive me as being racist in nature (power + prejudice).
I’m not sure I see much merit in continuing our discussion however, as It’s pretty obvious that we disagree on a basic level. I can certainly respect the level of research and effort you’ve put into your views, I just disagree with the logic behind it.
Robert, you are really beginning to unravel. You are really the one who is missing the point. To you racism is a singular, individualized phenomenon. You can’t see past your own nose to understand the far reaching effects of institutionalized ‘racism’. Case and point… Your whole counter point and example you gave about how “power is relative” is so dumb and therefore completely laughable. No one asked you to participate on this site. You could easily stop reading this site, stop commenting, and go about your nice little life. This site has no real consequential power over you. So if you don’t understand that, you’re an idiot.
Larry is not prejudice against your whiteness. He just has a different way of putting things to make a point. And all you have done is made his points for him. However, Larry like most of the ‘majority’ on here are prejudice against your ignorance and arrogance you have shown through your posts. You have side stepped all the major points that Larry has brought up with useless self-pretentious drivel like the “colorblindness” and “relative power” bullshit you came up with. Maybe you don’t understand the issues much less debate them given your “minority” status on this site…and that would make you grossly ignorant instead of stupid I guess. Anyway, please don’t take everyone else’s silence as any type of acceptance.
You say you are here to read and learn about minority views and issues. Is that really why you are here? If this is the only site you rely on for your minority news and education, then that’s really sad and is probably why you come off sounding so dumb sometimes. Please educate yourself, do a little more reading elsewhere, and stepping outside of your own shoes to live life before bringing your drivel here. I personally want to be “inspired” by what you have to say.
Sorry if my comments seem terse or mean in any way Robert. But I guess it’s due to this board’s “majority” power & prejudice against idiots. Boo hoo!!
Damn it, haha, guess the 44s finally rubbed off on me. I miss those guys.
So let me just venture an opinion here since I too was a 44. As always, feel free to disagree with me.
I agree with Larry/mT/Anna in terms of the philosophical/social issues. Being a “majority” on this board doesn’t change the fact that I still have to go outside and work and experience systems that are still broken. It doesn’t change the fact that the Hollywood media will teach White kids self-love while teaching minorities self-hate. It doesn’t change the fact that bigWOWO and the Fighting44s, despite the logic and truth behind our views and observations, still have views that are not understood or supported by the mainstream. It doesn’t change the fact that I spent most of my education reading about people who don’t look like me. It doesn’t change the fact that my favorite TV show is about a White woman, in large part because the American media refuses to make TV shows about people like me.
That being said, on a personal level, I think Robert is being genuine, and I think he has learned a lot about different perspectives from this board. If you compare his statements now with his earliest statements, I do think he’s beginning to place himself in other people’s shoes.
Anyway, carry on!
To address Urb4n and Eric Jacobus:
I was daydreaming about what it would be like if Asian American actors DID unionize and went against the grain of SAG and that kind of conventional pathways for actors. And assuming that it DID lower demand for Asian actors, like Eric pointed out. I thought, “wouldn’t it be cool if somehow you could legally screw with Hollywood and the major studios by filing a class action discrimination law suit?”
Asian actors, along with others of color, are being denied employment, aren’t they? They aren’t given an equal opportunity to compete for roles because the roles were designed to be race specific. Therefore, it’s inherently discriminatory, the entire auditioning process.
It’s just a half assed idea I came up with, and its got tons of holes in it, but wouldn’t that be a pisser if you could really screw with the Hollywood power structure?
@byron
“If you compare his statements now with his earliest statements, I do think he’s beginning to place himself in other people’s shoes.”
Tyring to, but finding it increasingly difficult to justify the effort. Thanks for the vote of confidence.
Not even going to bother with further response… what’s the point?
@mojorider
It would be cool, but as much crap as Hollywood produces, it’s the most effective profit-making mechanism in the world, and it’s entirely fueled by consumer demand. Going after the bosses won’t change consumer demand.
Hi Eric,
I appreciate your insights into the biz, but yeah, i know that my idea is full of holes. it wouldn’t change anything but it is designed to send a message and to basically be a thorn in someone’s ass.
But as for what is fueled by consumer demand, don’t you think that it’s also unknown as to what the public wants to see? In other words, there isn’t much choice in the major studio system. They dictate what and who the public will see. I mean, is it always fair to assume that white audiences always want to see caucasian actors all the time?
It’s been touched upon before, that the bottom line is MONEY. Had Bruce Lee lived and led a life now in the Hollywood system, my feeling is he would have been the biggest action star of the 70′s. AND it would have enabled him to venture outside the action, kung fu genre and into more dramatic roles like John Lone’s role in “The Last Emperor”. Moreover, I’d have to think that since Lee would have been a cash cow, the studios would’ve ventured to find the next Asian action star because that was what was hot.
So which comes first? The demand or the talent? Because Lee was an unknown to most people, but as soon “Enter the Dragon” came out and they (Caucasian audiences, that is) saw him, they wanted more.
I mean, how do we know for sure that, had an actor like Russell Wong, for example, been given an opportunity to be a lead or co-lead in a major studio release that he wouldn’t have been a star? Someone that the American audience would like to see some more? We won’t ever know because the major studios will rarely give that chance to a person of color. A goofy looking Steve Buscemi and Paul Giamatti aren’t conventionally handsome lead actors, but they can still work in Hollywood. Why can’t a Ken Leung, a short, semi balding, guy, get some top roles? The major studios won’t give him that opportunity. He’ll get to play the Asian villain or a grocery store cashier instead.
Still, I agree that indie movies are the way to go. No matter that your vision won’t get seen by a large audience, the important thing is to create and make movies true to our sensibilities and keep putting it out there. We need to tell our stories and have it captured on film, print, or whatever media, as a document of our human experiences.
I don’t disagree that studios make bad decisions. They also think that audiences enjoy action films with a lot of fast editing and bad wirework. Large businesses take much longer to allocate resources to meet consumer demand. Microsoft is this way. But their response to consumer demand has been what’s made them so profitable. As soon as a studio makes a film or series with an Asian lead that brings in lots of money, it’s guaranteed the rest will jump on it too. It’s the same thing with banks. They’ve got Mandarin options on all their ATMs around here.
That slow allocation of resources is something independent filmmakers should take advantage of. If there’s an Asian American market for films, then why aren’t more Asians producing and directing their own films?
I think there is a market for Asian American films and we do see it with the Asian film festivals that seem to be growing. Granted , there are lots of competition from Asia, but I think the AA film makers, writers, etc, are growing.
Second, I’d like to think that any market for Asian American produced films isn’t just catering to the AA audience, but would be able to tell stories that are universal and the characters just so happen to be Asian American. But that’s an interesting observation you’ve made about the big studios taking longer to allocate resources to the next project. Good point, that’s where the indie Asian American film maker can try and help fill the void. George Huang, who wrote and directed the indie cult film, “Swimming with Sharks”, filmed it in about 15 or 18 days. And he had big names like Kevin Spacey and Frank Whaley and an unknown Benicio Del Toro in that movie!
Third, I just watched “The Namesake” on HBO again and wondered how that book was made into a movie. And I wonder what really helped Kal Penn’s career. The Harold and Kumar surprise hit? Or a movie like “The Namesake”, a dramatic role, that gave him exposure and led to other producers and casting agents to consider Penn for other roles, like his TV gig on “House”. Isn’t it about equal opportunity? That he and John Choi were able to be the leads in a comedy, use humor to poke fun at the stereotypes Asians suffer thru, and that maybe it made others in the industry take notice of their talent? Granted, it helped that the Harold and Kumar movie made lots of MONEY.
But is Hollywood really seeing their talent or is it just that they are marketable because people associate them with Harold and Kumar? But maybe if people of color, not just Asians, were allowed that kind of opportunity, they might wind up being seen as talented and therefore considered for non-race specific roles. I think of a Native American actor like Adam Beech who I thought was great in the indie film “Smoke Signals” and later had other film roles like “Wind Talkers” with Nic Cage, and then TV roles in NBC’s “Third Watch” and “Law and Order”.
Hollywood definitely sees talent but if it means forgoeing talent in order to cash in on a trend, they’ll look to the stereotype first, talent last. Much like how a brilliant videogame franchise will come about and spawn dozens of knockoffs, studios will do Harold and Kumar-”style” films until something better comes along. So it’s not really a matter of talent as much as profit, as is the case with any business. The two are related, but the bigger the company, the longer it takes to associate them.
My real gripe is with the MPAA, which arbitrarily rates films as “less appropriate” when they contain culturally-divergent views that aren’t even necessarily bad. Gay relationships in films, for example, are often considered “less appropriate” than the exact same film with heterosexual relationships. So the MPAA rates accordingly. Nearly all theatres refuse to carry NC17-rated films, so an NC17 rating by the MPAA means commercial death. Characters who smoke without negative consequences are also “less appropriate.” The MPAA is a major force behind what people see, especially young folks. However, you have more competitive ratings agencies coming about now, and those are often used by lower-budget films. MPAA’s losing steam, which should pave the way for much more open-minded ratings boards. Once distribution companies start applying for non-MPAA ratings and theatres are more open to those ratings systems, you’ll see a change.
My whole point is that the studio system isn’t some racist machine that keeps talented, non-white people down. It responds to market forces, racist or not. Studios giving both white and non-white people “opportunities” is really dependent on their market value. It doesn’t matter if that value comes from their pure talent or their last name (“Carradine” comes to mind). It’s the same with the Hong Kong film industry’s notorious history of stereotypical depiction of non-Asian characters. Black people in Hong Kong films (at least up until around 1997) are caracatures straight out of 1800s’ political cartoons. Whites fare better, though they’re always villains. If it sells, they use it. That’ll never change.
Eric,
“My whole point is that the studio system isn’t some racist machine that keeps talented, non-white people down. It responds to market forces, racist or not.”
What’s the difference?
“Studios giving both white and non-white people “opportunities” is really dependent on their market value. It doesn’t matter if that value comes from their pure talent or their last name (”Carradine” comes to mind).”
Carradine is a good example. Do you honestly believe that Kung Fu would’ve tanked with Bruce Lee as the lead instead of Carradine? Do you think Carradine had more market value than Bruce? The guy only made two or three movies that were released in this country, and even then, he still makes the cover of martial arts magazines, almost forty years after his death.
I think Hollywood has less of a handle on market value than they think.
Incidentally, this is one reason I support promoting diversity in high positions. People don’t know what will work until minorities are actually given a chance.
Hi Eric,
yeah, I gotta disagree with your view that it’s just economics and market forces and isn’t racist. The fact that they choose stereotypes over talent is indicative of laziness in writing and dismissive of people of color because the characters/roles aren’t three dimensional.
Think about it this way. Folks in major metro areas in the US have a lot more diversity around them and greater interaction with people from all walks of life than folks in great portions of this country. There are people in this country who’ve never interacted with minority groups. All they know is what they SEE in movies and TV. And if those portrayals of minority groups are stereotypes, well, guess what gets perpetuated? They’re going to see that all Latinos are domestic workers or day laborers, blacks are still criminals or gang members, Indians and Pakistanis are 7-11 workers and cab drivers, etc….
I understand what you mean by market forces. If I’ve got Tom Cruise and Daniel Dae Kim reading for the same part, of course Tom will get the part simply because he has bigger name recognition and draw. I get that part about the biz. But I don’t believe it’s ALL about market forces, because if the audience doesn’t get a chance to see other talent, then how would we ever know if a Daniel Dae Kim or a Kelly Hu is someone that the movie going audience would like to see more of or not? Especially when they don’t get a fair shot at roles. Ken Leung had to do his Asian villian crap in the Rush Hour movies, or X-Men, but someone gave him a chance on The Sopranos, with a really juicy role, and he really shined in it. That made the producers of Tv’s “Lost” take notice and want him for the 2008 season. If no one gave him that opportunity, and if he didn’t have the talent to make those roles something different, he’d still be playing the Asian grocery store cashier like he did in Nic Cage’s “The Family Man”.
The Slanted Screen, a doc shown on PBS recently, discussed the early days of American cinema transitioning from the silent era to talkies, and mentioned Sessue Hayakawa, a really interesting story. Because he appealed to a lot of FEMALES. They WANTED to see this Japanese guy. And then US laws crept in and the studios began marginalizing him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sessue_Hayakawa
Viewers are responsive to trends, lame or not, racist or not, because they make them by voting with their dollars. This is why films like Happy Feet make so much money, with all their stereotypes and bad humor. If studios want to make money, they make films for those viewers. The biggest business in the world isn’t slowing down to appeal to the minority of viewers. That’s for indies. Indies usually pave the way for those changes.
I’m sure Bruce Lee’s performance in the Kung Fu series would’ve been far better, and I’m less sure but still fairly confident it would’ve been a hit. But it’s a risky hit. Anything less than 100% confidence means that studio investors won’t put their money into it. Carradine was a sure winner for them, so they put all their money into the show. If they cast Bruce Lee, it’s possible the show would’ve had fewer investors, the non-Bruce Lee talent may have been been lackluster, and the overall quality could’ve declined, next thing it gets cancelled, etc. It’s impossible to say. But at the time it was possible to prove using graphs, ratings, and box office receipts that Carradine was, unfortunately, more bankable than Bruce Lee. I don’t agree with what they did, I think Carradine was the wrong choice, but they make these decisions all the time, and they make tons of money. If they don’t want to lose all their investors, they stay within their profit models. Nothing changes the profit incentive.
While they’re incredible at turning profits, as I’ve said they’re really bad at making quick changes. So you have independents taking the risks, and we get to see the successes. We DON’T see the hundreds of feminist, ethnic, or otherwise risky films that get made and fail because they didn’t have a big enough market. But the ones that succeed ultimately prove to studios that there’s money there, and you start to see changes.
Hollywood is what it is: a money glacier that responds to viewers slower than indies. It’s up to the indies to make the changes. Studios then steal the ideas that work and make billions.
As for Hayakama and the laws that kept him from reaching stardom, nothing unusual there. Politicians are amazingly apt at ruining minorities’ lives.
I keep stressing that independents need to be the ones making changes, because studios only change for the viewers.
I think we’re both in agreement that indie films are the way to go for those who don’t fit in the mold that Hollywood wants. That’s why you’ve had a Spike Lee, a Robert Townsend, etc, telling their stories that holds true to their visions. Of course, they later got co-opted by the major studios but that’s another story.
And yes, I agree up to a point about market forces and economies. But I still think that the perpetuation of negative stereotypes—whether subconsciously racist, intentionally or not– by Hollywood makes it a racist entity. The issue of equal opportunity is another matter and is subjected to star power and the like; I understand that in terms of the actors. But how about on the production end? Just how diverse are the major studios in their executive management, where the real power is? Who are the minority counterparts to a Joel Silverstein, a Jerry Bruckheimer? Harvey and Bob Weinstein? The Sherry Lansings? There are enough minorities who’ve gone to law school, received MBAs, or been to film school. Those who choose to get into the entertainment industry, are they given a fair shot, working up through the ranks in the major studios? I don’t know. It seems as if Hollywood movie executives are an exclusive club. It certainly never seemed to me that it was inclusive. I doubt Asian Americans or any other ethnic group will be able to make changes from within. Like you said, it’s a slow moving glacier, Hollywood.
Until Hollywood can stop perpetuating negative stereotypes of minorities, it will continue to be a mass media entity that will influence and control how some people are seen by middle America. I liked Ken Jeong in Seth Rogen’s “Knocked Up”, I thought he did a good job playing the doctor. He had no accent or any negative stereotype to his character. He just happened to be a doctor, the OB/GYN, who was Asian American. By contrast, and I haven’t seen the movie yet, “Hangover” has him playing some effeminate gangster? That to me, on its face value, looks like the further emasculation of the Asian male in film, once again. I know, it’s a comedy and they’re going for laughs. But why can’t that shit be balanced out by better roles, better screenplays, where Asian American characters are fully dimensional? Why does it always have to so heavily weighted as caricatures and stereotypes? That doesn’t appear like market forces to me, it appears to be racist and lazy screenwriting.
Definitely agree that indie films is definitely A way to go. It should certainly not be the ONLY way to go. All opportunities should be taken. After all, due to the inherent demographic make-up of the industry, you can’t expect to see a mainstream drama film that speaks to the experiences of Asian Americans. On the mainstream front, the first issue would be to turn the tide of the images of Asian Americans by securing more roles, gaining more exposure and preferabbly more positive roles instead of negative ones.
In the indie world, the larger focus would be to continue to put out stories that speak to the Asian American experience because that part of the industry is where you can have the greatest control. You certainly see this quite a bit at Asian/Pacific-Islander film festivals, etc. The challenge here is how do the films cross over from the indie film festival circuit to attracting Hollywood eyes and put some heat on the Hollywood glacier? “Better Luck Tomorrow” was probably one of the few films that accomplished this. However, even then, they took the director-talent but not the story which probably was the true key to the success of that film. Perhaps to Hollywood, they just saw a talented director and not an “Asian American” director. How else could you explain the logic behind putting him in charge of movies like Fast and the Furious 2 and 3, and Annapolis that have no connection to the Asian American experience? Same thing with Ang Lee. To Hollywood, they’re happily putting Asian Americans in charge of big productions because they have both proven to be “good” and profitably-successful directors. However, they don’t recognize that Justin Lin’s strength lies in channeling the Asian American experience (Ang Lee, not so much) and activiating an Asian American audience (without alienating mainstream America). This is where color-blindness can be a problem on Hollywood’s part because they are missing out on some money-making opportunities. In the end, it’s still great to have more minority representation in Hollywood. You gotta start somewhere.
Speaking of being a slow-moving glacier, I saw an article around the office about how Hollywood stars are not proving to be as reliably bankable as in the past. The article speculated (among other reasons) that it was the actual content of the film that was proving to be the bigger draw to audiences than the names of the talent involved. How else can a Superman Returns, practically all animated films, etc. dominate the box office? Audiences now have access to movie trailers, online reviews, peer-reviews, etc. all factors that help them decide whether or not a film is worth watching. Now, they can tell if the next Tom Cruise movie is going to be a stinker or not.
Certainly Hollywood is plauged by lazy/bad screenwriting (or whatever mechanism allows such crappy writing to be made into films). At best it comes off as just bad screenwriting, at worst, it can be viewed as racist or discriminatory. I just watched “Stardust” and while I enjoyed the film’s structure, dialogue, etc. as a whole, there was one part that really struck me as plain silly: Robert DeNiro as a gay pirate. We’re talking full-on gay pirate stereotype: limp wrist, does hair, knows how to give fashion makeovers, and the worst gay male stereotype: cross-dresser. Worst part was that it wasn’t even necessary to the film’s content. They could’ve at least stopped before the cross dressing scene. To those screenwriters and the director/producer, etc. (I guess even DeNiro) it was okay because it was supposed to be a funny or it was also supposed to support the film’s theme of being “comfortable with who you are”. But that stuff could certainly be viewed by people that are gay as discrimanatory. In my opinion it was dumb and unecessary. Who knows how it got through to the final film?
And that’s the big issue. No one really knows exactly how these ideas creep up into films. It could be intentional racism, sub-concious racism, color-blindness, laziness, poor judgement, etc. There’s no way to make every screenwriter perfectly sympathetic to every minority group out there (female, gay, black, latino, Asian, disability) because they wouldn’t be able to write anything from any point of view. The key to balance in the case of the representation of Asian Americans would be to have more people representative of that group in charge of writing, producting, directing, etc.
Hollywood’s excuse that they just cater to what sells; falls onto racist undertones.
My uncle is a large holder of housing properties in New Jersey and New York. He stated that it was proven that as soon as African Americans and Hispanics move into the area, the property values decrease by a large amount.
He can just say “look, I made an investment and I don’t want to lose on my investments. Therefore, it’s fine for me to discriminate based on race.” Too bad for him that it’s illegal.
What Hollywood is doing is simply job discrimination.
uRB4N, that is an excellent point, however, if African Americans or Hispanics have the money and desire to buy property there is nothing that your uncle can legally do to stop them. The same happens in Hollywood. Whoever has the money to fund the film has the say on what the content will be and no one can stop them. Unfortunately, you don’t see many pro-Asian American film representation groups out there to fund big mainstream films, much less even the larger “independent films” with budget levels still in the million-dollar range.
It’d be nice if it was as simple as job discrimination because then lawsuits can fly, but because of the way the industry is, and the fact that media is inextricably tied to the First Ammendment, it’s ridiculously complex. In fact, it’s a mess.
Ed,
appreciate your thoughts on the industry. I guess you’re right; there are those Asian American actors who will hang in there and fight the system and hopefully play against type. Maybe they can effect some change from within the system.
One point I also want to make is that I wouldn’t expect every indie film by an AA director or screenwriter to be SOLELY about the AA experiences. I’ve looked over my screenplay outline for my true life crime story and it has nothing to do with AA perspectives or experiences. INSTEAD, it has these characters who just so happen to be Asian American. And that is what made this investigation I worked on so unique.
It was a sophisticated crime organization headed up by an African American, who was married to an Asian and the Asian family got involved in the illegal activities, here in DC. We later found out they were really controlled by an Asian guy out in San Francisco. And that was unusual because I haven’t seen that at all in real life. I’ve been on the job for almost 20 years and haven’t seen that an Asian guy was the head of a multi state crime organization that wasn’t traditional Asian organized crime. The Asian guy out in SF was hooked into a big Mexican crime group in Los Angeles and in Mexico.
So really, my screenplay is chock full of diverse characters because that was real life. The case is still on going, so I can’t say much more than I already have.
But the story focuses on me and my partner at work who is Caucasian. It’s about man vs. the bureaucracy, man vs. society. And this story is a story about federal officers working an unusual case. What it does show, without shoving it down anyone’s throat, is that the protaganists are me and my partner: an Asian dude and a white dude and the struggles it took to take down this crime group. it’s subtle, but the co-lead is an Asian. AND one of the good guys.
A good story is a good story. Now, could Hollywood do something with that story of mine without changing any of the main characters? I doubt it.
But like you said, there’s no way to have every screenwriter sympathetic to every cultural group. But as a writer, how could you write a character for which you know nothing about their experiences? Is this why they resort to writing a stereotype for that particular group? Instead of that, why not just write a fully dimensional character who happens to be gay, or black, or Latino, etc…
in the end, AA’s in the biz have to take control themselves. i agree that there there need to be more AA’s in writing, production, directing, doing their own thing. And if it grabs the attention of a major studio, then great; let’s hope that these AA’s can work from within the system to effect some serious change. I just hope folks like Ang Lee and John Woo and Justin Lin don’t get co-opted by the lure of the big financing and budgets that a major studio can provide. I would hope that they would fight to have a more inclusive cast for their movies.
Mojorider,
I think your film matter would thrive both among mainstream audiences and especially in the indie circuit. If you were to go the mainstream route, your film sounds like it would fit in the league of films like “Zodiac”. A solid director and recognizably “drama” genre actors would help sell the film greatly. Whenever you market the film, a good “story” is really just one factor among others. Obviously, we all subconsiously WANT to see a good story, but we don’t always PAY to see a good story. The key to marketing and getting buzz is putting out a film product that people WANT to see. If you have enough “WANT” factors, people will check it out.
INTENSE DRAMA is not a WANT factor for most audiences. Not for little kids, not for teenagers, not for seniors. It is probably a WANT factor for people who pride themselves in seeing movies that are “sophisticated”. A movie with “INTENSE DRAMA” caters to that crowd, but it is, initially a limited one.
REVIEWS THAT SAY IT IS A GOOD MOVIE – that gets ALOT more people interested in watching your film. People WANT to know that they are making a good choice among films especially if they don’t know too much about what truly differntiates them. So if you get mainstream reviewers to recommend your film based on the “INTENSE DRAMA” factor, while you still won’t attract teenagers and little kids, you’ll probably get more of the seniors and mainstream crowd looking for a “good” movie to watch.
NAMED ACTORS – a 16-year old teenager that’s a fan of Edward Norton gives the same support as an adult 40-year-old female fan of Edward Norton in terms of watching a film. They WANT to support their favorite actors, directors, etc. and will go out to see it regardless of whether or not it caters to what their friends want to see, etc. Depending on the name it can also denote the quality of a “good” film mentioned above regardless of whether or not it is actually crap. How many times have you heard, “well, it has so and so big actor in it, must be pretty good…”
TRAILER – Getting people interested and excited about a film is a big WANT factor. Craft a kick-ass trailer that appeals to who you want it to appeal to and you give them a WANT factor.
Now, every film has different levels and amounts of WANT factors, and WANT factors can change depending on the season, audience tastes, political climate, economic climate, etc. Trick is, whatever film you make, make sure you put in enough WANT factors to make it stand out compared to other films in your compettitive space whether it’s in the Hollywood blockbuster season or Sundance.
To comment on your response below:
“But as a writer, how could you write a character for which you know nothing about their experiences? Is this why they resort to writing a stereotype for that particular group? Instead of that, why not just write a fully dimensional character who happens to be gay, or black, or Latino, etc…”
You pretty much hit the nail on the head. Imagine you were given a chance to write a screenplay that was going to be produced and boost your career and make you tons of money. You’re going to do your best work, but your best work isn’t always perfect. And, if you judge something like a particular character in the story to be a “minor” character you’ll probably devote less resources to make the character dynamic, exciting, interesting, etc. In effect, you’re pulling it out of your ass. As long as none of the powers that be busts you for it, it’ll fly. It’s not enough to say , “why not”, you have to give them reasons “WHY”. The vast majority of people do something to prevent or as a reaction to a defined PROBLEM. The consequences of a given problem determine how that person prioritizes the solution and actions to address the PROBLEM. Already, if in the mind of a screenwriter, it’s a “minor” thing than it’s not going to be a big enough PROBLEM that would cause them to change their behavior.
Asian Americans, in particular, those that truly recognize and internalize the problems of AA stereotypes in the media, lack of AA cultural representation, etc. are the ones that can best address those problems by their actions in the industry. Actions like producing a film, writing screenplays, directing, acting in roles, buying media for distribution, etc. Hopefully, those actions will produce a net positive effect rather than a negative one.
I think what would be interesting to see is some stats on the “film” industry. How many SAG or Writers’ Guild members identify themselves as Asian Americans? How many directors, how many producers, etc.? That’s a fantastic research topic.
Just as there’s nothing stopping a black or hispanic person from buying property (unless the owner is stupid enough to reject the offer, then it’s the owner’s loss), there’s nothing stopping black or hispanic or AA people from being studio executives. There’s no club. If he has capital, and he puts the word out that he’s starting a company and would like to invest in films, he’ll have dozens of screenplays on his lap by the end of the week. Nothing’s stopping him except his own pocket book.
That and being a studio exec is extremely risky if you don’t follow trends.
It’s unfortunate they’re still making films with flamboyant gay characters. Fact is most people probably thought it was funny, or at least not offensive. One of the most liberal states in the country (CA) still voted to ban gay marriage, and our supreme court upheld it. Most of the country doesn’t like gay people. Maybe DeNiro hates gay people and made it a part of his contract that he could play it that way, or he didn’t like being cast and that was his backlash, or maybe the director and producer thought it’d be funny. Who knows. But some day that stereotype is bound to be offensive to 51% of viewers, and at that point studios will crunch the numbers and realize they could increase profits if they portrayed gay people more correctly. DiNero will want a better rep and refuse those roles, the director/producer won’t allow it on the set, execs won’t even read scripts with those characters, and screenwriters will write more accurately so as to increase the odds that their scripts will be read.
Eric:
“Just as there’s nothing stopping a black or hispanic person from buying property (unless the owner is stupid enough to reject the offer, then it’s the owner’s loss), there’s nothing stopping black or hispanic or AA people from being studio executives. There’s no club. If he has capital, and he puts the word out that he’s starting a company and would like to invest in films, he’ll have dozens of screenplays on his lap by the end of the week. Nothing’s stopping him except his own pocket book.”
What’s ironic about your statement is that this hypothetical Asian person has to already have capital. A white person can work his way up within the existing institutions and promote the status quo of race portrayals. He can become an executive without starting rich. If that’s not a club, I don’t know what is.
Are you insinuating that Asians don’t have capital to invest in films, and that they can’t work their way to becomming execs without starting rich?
http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/26/news/economy/census_income/index.htm
(Census data 2007)
Median Household Income
Asians $66,100
Non-Hispanic White $54,900
White $52,100
Hispanic (any race) $38,700
Black $33,900
They’re also over-represented in the top 5% of the income bracket:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Race
There’s nothing stopping AA filmmakers or investors except, maybe, the film audience itself. An AA exec can start his own company and invest to his heart’s content.
But my point is that films are based on audiences’ tastes. If the institution is in fact racist, it will act like a racist human and continue to do so even AFTER audiences have changed their preferences. In a market that is unsustainable.
Can we really say an institution is racist or sexist when on a whim it will (and has to) change its sentiments depending on the audience’s taste? And are we willing to apply that same logic to every major studio system, be they in Hong Kong, China, Japan, or India?
Oops…looks like Ed’s comment got spammed. Not sure why. You can see it above.
Eric,
I know you hate it when I bring up this word, but I have to do it again: Practicality. You’re telling Asian Americans to bring capital and create their own firms, and then you quote a statistic that says that the Median Household Income is $66,100. How far is a $66,100 HOUSEHOLD income going to get a guy looking to start his own company? Also, this $66k stat doesn’t take into account the fact that our household incomes tend to be higher because there are often more of us under one roof. It’s not as rosy as you might think. (I didn’t see them being overrepresented in the wikipedia stat. In fact, it says, “87.93% of all households in the top 5% were headed by a person who identified as being White alone. “)
“Can we really say an institution is racist or sexist when on a whim it will (and has to) change its sentiments depending on the audience’s taste?”
I think you’re understating the influence that media has over people’s tastes. Media forms people’s opinions as much as it responds to them.
While it is most certainly true that there is nothing legally stopping Asian Americans from investing capital in films, it would be ridiculous to think that they don’t have significant barriers to entry related both to race and economic forces. From Eric’s view, power of the individual can never be underestimated, but in Jaehwan’s view, there’s safety in numbers (especially the majority white numbers).
I think Eric’s point is that with enough capital both those barriers in Hollywood can be overcome regardless of race, but to Jaehwan’s point, AA’s don’t have easy access to a signficant enough level of capital to overcome those barriers. Access to capital however is both a question of the Hollywood system and the financial system in America and might be going beyond the topic. If there is a “boy’s club” in Hollywood (and in my opinion there probably is) it is likely based on relationships of capital and the Jewish-banker stereotype. It’s still based on money and transactions of capital for the sake of the film and jokingly, the cocaine, business; capital that largely came from white-dominated financial institutions. However, as more of those financial institutions become represented by other minorities, or in this case, Asian Americans, the more studio executives will be finding themselves sitting at large mahagony tables sitting across a Robert Fang instead of a Robert Williams trying to explain why their portfolio of films like Dragon Ball, Chun Li, and now Air Bender failed to meet the predicted revenue levels for the fiscal quarter.
Again, you have to start somewhere. If not actual Asian Americans investing in film (studio, individual independent films, film distribution companies, etc.), it can be Asian Americans working in the financial system and eventually handling major studio’s loans, or it could be Asian Americans in production of the films, etc. To have a voice you have to be represented. Lack of representation of actors and performers in the latest Hollywood film blockbuster (unless it’s Pixar’s “Up”, apparently) is a big issue, but it’s not the root in that industry. You gotta go backstage, into the “war rooms” and see who’s at the table. And interestingly enough, there are alot more opportunities and alot more control there than on screen, and the more Asian Americans are represented there, the more you’ll start to see them on screen.
Ed-
nice post, thanks for sharing your insights and having a belief that my screenplay could appeal to a mainstream audience. I kind of felt that too, but since I want to stay close as possible to the true story, I also feel that it would be better suited to being an indie. Mainstream would be change so much of the story because, afterall, it’s “Based Upon a True Story”, and the major studio could really walk all over the screenplay. I also need to research the legalities of writing about these real life people who are now in jail. I am also wondering if I should write a book first and then see if it can be optioned as a movie. or hell, maybe make it into a mini-series for cable TV. There are some great people in my area to help out. David Simon, who did “The Wire” on HBO, lives around here, as does crime/mystery novelist George Pellicanos. I think HBO allowed Simon to have all kinds of creative freedom on “The Wire”. And that was a really diverse cast as well.
And I agree with you that AAs have to dig in, if they’re already in the industry. They have to network with others of like mindsets and try and push forth their efforts in producing, writing, directing,etc. I’d like to see Asian people in the biz form their own collective prod co; get people like Chow Yun Fat, John Woo, Ang Lee, Jet Li, George Takei, Lucy Liu, Kelly Hu, Kal Penn and John Choi, Margaret Cho, etc, to take a stab at reviewing screenplays and looking at projects that they can do or be a part of. Again, it doesn’t have to be just about the AA experience, it can be a story that has universal appeal.
And that’s a good point; I wonder how many AA’s there are in the WGA? Or have their SAG card? And if they are AA writers in the biz, what are their experiences like in fighting for the things they write?
Eric,
I know you’re still of the belief that it’s all about market forces. But if AA’s have to create their own prod co’s, invest entirely on their own, then implicit in that is they have been rejected by Hollwyood’s major studios’ system and machinery. And exclusion implies a discriminatory practice. We won’t know if a Ken Leung or a Russell Wong could ever have as great drawing power or cross over appeal as a Denzel or a Will Smith because they haven’t been given the access and opportunity. Markets and humans are not always rational. And I think we both agree that Hollywood makes a lot of bad decisions.
jaehwan,
I couldn’t agree more with what you said: “…. you’re understating the influence that media has over people’s tastes. Media forms people’s opinions as much as it responds to them.”
Well, here’s a start on some research on representation in the film industry from SAG:
http://www.sag.org/content/studies-and-reports
Despite everything that’s been said against my argument in favor of market-based approaches to the issue, I’ve really hard nothing of substance as to what AAs can do OUTSIDE of the market approach.
We’re basically arguing over:
- Whether large studios create racist trends or simply cater to them, be they in America, HK, China, Japan, India, or any country that has a successful film market.
(My argument is that studios simply cater to them, and while the process of changing to a less racist model is slow-going, it inevitably follows viewer trends.)
- Whether AAs are able to enter into the film market despite racial intimidation.
(My argument is that nothing is stopping them from making their own films. The fact that they have to make their own production companies to do their own films is no reason to accuse the system of rejecting them on a racial basis. It’s the same thing with indie filmmakers in general.)
- Whether they lack the capital to enter the film market and start making changes on the back end.
(I argue this isn’t the case with AAs, since they’re over-represented in the top 5% of the income bracket, as evidenced by the link I provided.)
- Whether the studio system makes good decisions.
(It makes profitable decisions. When they mess up, that’s an open invitation for AAs and anyone else to capitalise off their goof, and that’s why AAs should be making their own films.)
As a filmmaker who’s experienced plenty of barriers to entry in the film market, all I can say is this: you can work around it. If there’s an audience for your film, make your film, find your audience, and do whatever innovation necessary to get it seen. Everyone can innovate.
No, I understand you. I thought I did address it by stating that AAs in the industry, who want to remain in the system, will have to fight those battles day in and out for truer representation or for more roles. They will have to chip away, in whatever capacity they have, to earn thru hard work and talent, greater access and opportunity.
And then I agreed that the indie approach is probably the best way to control AA images and stories. As for particular institutions? Well, I just advocated in a previous post that some of these AA actors and directors, folks in the biz form their own prod co, as a collective. I think its goal could be to solicit screenplays by AA writers, with the goal of promoting balanced portrayals of Asians in film, while assisting AA film makers getting new projects off the ground. And sure, they could also seek investment or seed money from wealthy AAs in the private sector to get it off the ground.
But I’m not willing to agree entirely that Hollywood and its mechanics are not racist, and that it’s just about responding to market forces and trends. It’s not equivalent to Japanese cinema, or HK cinema, or Bollywood. Those places are far more homogenous than the US. And their movies are a reflection of THEIR society and we are far more pluralistic in ours. What Hollywood reflects are far too many gross stereotypes whenever they do decided to have a person of color in its movies. That Hollywood continues to perpetuate stereotypes makes it racist. At least in my viewpoint.
In regards to viewer trends, I don’t see it necessarily as a strict supply and demand issue. I think the cause and effect are tied into each other, like yin and yang. Because how do you account for a trend that STARTS by the viewer seeing something they hadn’t seen before? Nobody had ever seen the kind of sci-fi special effects like Star Wars. And as soon as it hit big, the consumer wanted to see that, they were excited by the visual effects. Or you could cynically say, others sought to duplicate that success with special effects of their own in their movies.
I agree with Mojo. And Eric, your link didn’t show us as over-represented in the top 5%. We’re collectively a tiny blip.
More from “the club:”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/media/10emanuel.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th
As it was before, it reaches all the way up to the highest levels of government and society.
I think Ari is right on one thing–I think I’d be pissed too about Medium. That show is worth its weight in gold. I still don’t know what NBC was thinking.
You’re saying basically that as homogeneity of a country goes down, its marketing ability to stereotype goes down too. I agree, and that’s why America has far better portrayals of blacks and hispanics than Hong Kong cinema. Comparing our Asian representation to that of Asian countries is impossible, we just don’t compare, but as a trend we’re better off than we were 30 years ago, and my guess is it’s because our Asian population is more influential. And it’ll keep improving.
Your question about demand is interesting, as many times it’s unknown if an audience will like a new “thing”. That’s the same dilemma Pepsi and Coke go through whenever they create a new product. But they go through the same processes: convince investors, screen the product, distribute accordingly, base future product off receipts. It’s somewhat cyclical, but because companies are competing for audiences, it’s in their interest to serve what people want, so the consumer is the ultimate power-holder.
One counterpoint to what I’m saying is the two Latin television channels: Telemundo and Univision. Both are… well, sexist. I was told by a friend that they’re Cuban-owned (out of Florida), and that since there are only two Latin TV stations in the US, the Cubans essentially can portray non-Cubans on television in any way they please. Whether or not it’s a positive portrayal is for ya’ll to decide. Why a better Latino TV channel doesn’t emerge from this is beyond me. That’s something I’m interested in, and I definitely see a problem there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Race
“Households headed by persons who identified as being Asian alone, on the other hand, were overrepresented among the top two quintiles. In the top five percent the percentage of Asians was nearly twice as high as the percentage of Asians among the general population.”
That “club” you’re talking about has government ties, and that sounds more like a problem with government. I’m with you there. Government’s been the biggest source of racist problems in our nation’s… no, world’s history.
My point was misunderstood and addressed incorrectly.
I provided an example of how using someone’s race to discriminate on the sole reasoning of losing money is illegal in certain situations such as housing. It’s the law. However, Hollywood is using the exact same reasoning as an out.
“I can lose money if I don’t consider the person’s race.”
Why is it legal to discriminate against someone for a job (acting role) but it’s illegal to discriminate against someone for a home?
Like the example I provided, properity values drop when large amounts of African Americans and Latinos move in. Why is it my uncle and his partners not allowed to refuse them rent? He “loses” money on his investment just like any Hollywood studio would.
The response I got was that African Americans and Latinos can create and rent their own apartments. That’s like saying “if you don’t like it, create your own.” I’m perfectly fine with that but it’s not the same comparison.
Also, that just reeks of “If you don’t like it here, you can leave the country.”
Lastly, just because there are more roles for Asian Americans doesn’t count for anything if they’re just more stereotypical roles.
I would vouch for *fewer* roles for Asian Americans if they were actually quality roles. It’s quality that counts, not quantity.
I forgot to mention that even refusing someone a job based on race is illegal. It’s a specific type of job that gets a free pass, acting.
I’m not sure where I read it but awhile back, there was an envoy to the UN that actually said minorities should be able to launch a class action lawsuit against Hollywood.
URB4N is spot on, Eric. It makes no sense to tell people just to go do their own thing. You yourself are an indie producer, but that doesn’t change the fact that Hollywood is more open to stories from people of the majority race than the others. And it’s hard to deny the fact that they’re already entrenched with the distribution networks already in place. As Blake even mentioned on this podcast or blog (I forget which), sometimes shitty movies make money just because shitty movies have the backing of large companies.
I read the description on the wiki page that you quoted:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States#Race
“Households headed by persons who identified as being Asian alone, on the other hand, were overrepresented among the top two quintiles. In the top five percent the percentage of Asians was nearly twice as high as the percentage of Asians among the general population.”
It doesn’t seem to be overrepresented. If you look at the chart, the top 5% is 6.46% Asian. 6.46%!!! That’s basically our percentage in this country, and if you look at the large cities where almost all of “us” live and where most top 5%’ers live (Asians are about 10% of NYC and 20% of SF), we’re wayyy behind. Plus 6.46% means 6 and a half people out of every 100. Doesn’t seem all that high to me…
Byron,
I don’t think Eric disagrees with the first segment of your response. I think that’s kinda his point about why indie is the way to go. The way I’m reading what he’s said is (in essense) “Hollywood is a business, as a business, they cater to what they think their investors will buy into to make them money. Investors like to buy into “proven” products – hence they either buy into what’s already been shown to work (hollywood crap that has a track record of selling) or the latest “hot” indie trend (which is where a large portion of new ideas come from.)”. Am I misunderstanding something? Please bear in mind, I am in no way defending Hollywood, just making sure I’m/we’re all on the same page.
I think Mojo’s point about Star Wars is a little off base. The story / genre of Star Wars was nothing new. The special effects were honestly probably what made Star Wars successful for it’s time – people had never seen anything like it, so it became a bit of a novelty, the fact that it’s story was entertaining certainly propelled it, but the thing people said about star wars when it came out wasn’t “wow! what an amazing story” it was about the amazing special effects. Not to dwell on that one movie though.
Byron my point is for every AA, there are more people in the top 5% of their income than there are for white people. Speaking strictly from statistics, if AA filmmakers comprise the same percentage of white filmmakers among their own race, they have more people to seek funding from. If there are fewer AA filmmakers then that’s even better for them.
I can think of many unintended consequences from a class action lawsuit brought against Hollywood for racial descrimination. I don’t believe our first amendment rights are very reliable thanks to our hugely overarching government, so I’ll just argue from a legal/economic standpoint.
What would the law entail? “Scripts may not be race specific in the studio system” spells disaster. Artists hate being controlled. If they can’t get the studios to make their now-”discriminatory” films, they shift their business to the independent level, a far less “efficient” form of filmmaking where division of labor is less prevelant, budgets are lower, cost of writing goes up, cost of filmmaking goes up, costs are reflected in ticket prices, and that’s no good, especially for poor people straining to buy $10 tickets. And we can also forget about any films made by minorities for minorities. Those will be illegal too.
If “Scripts may not be race specific in any film,” then you’ll end up with films being made overseas, and our film economy will crash. Maybe that’s what some of you would like, but that also means American minorities won’t be doing film work.
You’re also making writers feel like outlaws with the law above. Wanna see some right-wing racist scripts? Make that law happen.
One might bring a class action lawsuit against the Writers Guild of America for not having proper representation in the scripts they accept. Losing the lawsuit, the Writers’ Guild requires a certain quota be met by all their union members’ scripts based on racial percentages. Same thing as above, people would just send in fewer scripts to the Writer’s Guild because most writers are white, writing about mostly white issues. Any scripts written about Asian or Black or Hispanic issues will be sent in by the few minority screenwriters or by White screenwriters, who may not know what the hell they’re talking about, simply writing write scripts for minority actors. The rest of em (probably mostly white) send their scripts to the new Scriptman’s Guild, and Hollywood pulls their scripts from there since that’s where writers can send scripts with the fewest limitations. Now all we’ve done is spend a bunch of money to move business to a new building while leaving minorities in the old one. Sounds a lot like what happens in other sectors of the economy, and for similar reasons.
Say the law says, “Films may be race-specific, but for any roles that are racially ambiguous, studios must hire people so as to accurately represent the racial makeup of the US.” Basically affirmative action. Writers could take into consideration the rule and write entierly race-specific parts in their scripts.
Imagine the law says, “Scripts may be race-specific for X% of roles cast, the remaining Y% must be hired to represent racial makeup.” Casting coordinators, since most audiences are white and most actors are too, might cast minorities in the least prevalent parts of the film so they can make quota while not losing their target audience. If Y is high enough, eventually studios will have to make films that don’t appeal to their mainstream white audience throughout the midwest and the south. They lose money, and they either cut back on hiring or pass the prices off to the consumers, and ticket prices go up.
Ultimately, forcing art industries to conform to racial quotas raises the price of making art and increases unemployment in that field, hurting the people it’s supposed to help. If studios pass the costs off on consumers, ticket prices rise, hurting poor people.
Robert,
I’m actually not sure what Eric is saying as it relates to indie vs. mainstream Hollywood. Maybe Eric can clarify. I was only referencing what Eric was talking about here with regards to Urb4n’s comment on race, along with the idea that there is no club.
Perhaps Eric is saying that we should all go indie. If that’s the case, then my question would be whether or not an indie film could make the same kind of impact as a larger film on Asian American culture and self-perceptions.
Eric:
“Byron my point is for every AA, there are more people in the top 5% of their income than there are for white people. Speaking strictly from statistics, if AA filmmakers comprise the same percentage of white filmmakers among their own race, they have more people to seek funding from. If there are fewer AA filmmakers then that’s even better for them.”
From the stats, your first sentence is correct. However, sentence #2 is incorrect. Assuming we break it down so that investors only fund movies about their “own” (which is not really an accurate measure since many AA’s as well prefer to finance “White” movies over AA movies, but let’s just roll with it anyway), the majority still has the advantage. Think simple numbers. Put five Asians in a room and ninety five white people (roughly the current percentages). Let’s say one of the Asians are rich (20%…an exaggeration), and ten of the White people are rich (10%…also exaggerated, but not as much as the Asian example). If I’m one of those poor Asian guys, I still only have one person to ask while you have ten, even though my percentage is twice as high.
Combine this with the fact that “your people” are more likely to have experience and clout in the industry, and while it’s not impossible, my situation does pose some barriers.
“many AA’s as well prefer to finance “White” movies over AA movies”
Are those AA’s racist, then? My is that, just like the studios, AA investors who prefer to finance “White” movies are simply doing it for the financial gain, and that doesn’t mean they’re racist.
“Perhaps Eric is saying that we should all go indie. If that’s the case, then my question would be whether or not an indie film could make the same kind of impact as a larger film on Asian American culture and self-perceptions.”
Going indie is probably the best chance anyone has at making a change in the market. That’s been the only way for us to do the kind of fight choreography we want to do. Working within the “system”, it’s absolutely impossible to do our kind of choreography. And I’d argue that it’s also impossible to make non-discriminatory decisions regarding scripts and actors in that “system”. But as our ideas gain popularity on the indie front, they become more profitable (or less unprofitable) for studios. If they’re profitable enough, they’ll use em, or else a competing studio will take all their box office sales.
I think the wrong way is through new laws. That’s what that big ol’ essay above is about.
“Think simple numbers. Put five Asians in a room and ninety five white people (roughly the current percentages). Let’s say one of the Asians are rich (20%…an exaggeration), and ten of the White people are rich (10%…also exaggerated, but not as much as the Asian example). If I’m one of those poor Asian guys, I still only have one person to ask while you have ten, even though my percentage is twice as high.”
Because of our racial makeup, I’ve got 18 other white filmmakers in the room competing for those investor dollars. A close look at the chart reveals:
Percentage of white households in upper-income bracket: 6.14%
Percentage of asian households in upper-income bracket: 8.84%
Let’s say filmmakers comprise 0.1% of any racial population. This number doesn’t matter, could be anything, as long as the percentage is the same for the races.
0.1% of people are filmmakers.
Total white filmmakers: 92,702
Total asian filmmakers: 4,140
White filmmakers per white upper-income earning household: 5,695,000/92,702 = 61.4 investors per filmmaker
Asian filmmakers per asian upper-income earning household: 366,000/4,140 = 88.4 investors per filmmaker
If we were to put those numbers of people in a room, and given people only invest in their own race’s films, you would have a better chance of getting an investor than I would by a multiple of about 1.44
Not that these numbers really mean anything. As you said, AA investors might only invest in white films anyway. But you were off roughly by a multiple of 20.
Hi Robert,
I think you misinterpreted my comments about Star Wars. The issue was whether viewer trends dictate what the studio releases, ie, supply and demand. Eric’s viewpoint is that the major studios are driven by consumer demand and not necessarily racist. I, on the other hand, don’t necessarily see it as a strict supply and demand, but rather see it as a blended animal, not necessarily two separate forces, and that’s why I said it was yin and yang entity. And I used Star Wars as an example of a movie starting the trend and showing the audience something it had never seen before. And the audience wanted to see more. Lucas’ Light and Magic raised the bar for everyone and special effects and you saw that with some successful films and not so successful projects (Close Encounters, Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek, Tron). It’s really a chicken or egg viewpoint as to which is the cause and what is the effect? And there’s no point in Eric and myself re-hashing this issue, we just have differing views on it.
I don’t entirely disagree with Eric’s economic example; if the audience grows tired of seeing the same old schlock retread again and again (and there’s plenty of it), the audiences will stay away. And then the studios will have to find something new that put the asses in the seats. Nothing in Hollywood is all that original anymore. Look at how many re-makes there have been, the lateset being “The Taking of Pelham, 1,2, 3”. Talk about lazy! And when box office sales slump, the studios will have to find something to get the interest back. My viewpoint has been, why not tweak the supply anyway to create the demand and that you won’t know what the audiences will like until you give them a chance to see something new.
Eric,
I agree with your point: that’s where indie movies can fill the void. So I’m in agreement with you that AA actors need to control their own images by not playing the standard Hollywood game which is stacked against them. And as far as institutions that can work outside the major studio system, I actually found that there are some non-profit groups whose goals are to help AA film makers get their projects off the ground. This is just some of what I found:
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/cameras/revfeat/homecoming/
http://www.aafilmlab.com/
http://www.apafilm.org/
http://asianamericanmedia.org/who-we-are/mission/
I still think the major studio system is a discriminatory process, auditioning for non-race specific roles and AA actors, or other minority actors, getting turned down repeatedly. And they have the cloak of “artistic freedom” to hide behind. The point is, there’s a constant stream of images from Hollywood that is not realistic and it doesn’t reflect real life for lots of people. This is a pluralistic society; to not even acknowledge that in films is a gross distortion and shows the major studios aren’t willing to create roles for people of color. And if they do, it’s a negative stereotype. And that’s why I say it’s a racist system.
Mojo,
Thanks for those links. I’ll have to check them out later. There may be some good resources there.
Eric,
Question: What’s the difference between your indie fight choreography and “system” fight choreography? Just curious.
“Are those AA’s racist, then? My is that, just like the studios, AA investors who prefer to finance “White” movies are simply doing it for the financial gain, and that doesn’t mean they’re racist.”
They’re part of a system that is racist, and they support a system that is racist.
“I think the wrong way is through new laws. That’s what that big ol’ essay above is about.”
I don’t know about this one. I’m totally undecided. There are a limited number of transmission frequencies for TV and radio, and the government decides who gets what. Would it be too much to require them to diversify? Especially since I pay my tax dollars to have them manage this?
“Because of our racial makeup, I’ve got 18 other white filmmakers in the room competing for those investor dollars. “
That may be true (again assuming that Asian Americans will invest in Asian American film–which they often don’t
), but the point is that “your” stories still get told. Even if Dogs of Chinatown doesn’t get mainstream distribution, the Last Samurai or Rambo or Come See the Paradise will, and you’ll still be able to see a White guy saving the Asian woman (again nothing wrong with that…but we’ve seen it before). Guys like Wong Fu, on the other hand, become successful on the web, but their work still won’t be coming to a theater near you. Nor will their general style and minority storylines.
Sure, it may be hard for you as an individual to make it work, but we’re not just talking about you or me. We’re talking about multicultural representation and diversifying ideas and input (haha…to a rational point…I’m not talking about overdiversification…).
This may come across as a non-sequitur but I wrote the following piece regarding an article about the dearth of foreign film at the box office:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/Movies/story?id=7768842&page=1
First of all, “Hollywood” is no longer just a literal place in California but a figurative metaphor used to describe mainstream US film industry driven by two main imperatives: maximize revenue and seek to appeal to the broadest range of audiences.
In order to understand Hollywood in qualitative terms, we must revisit the Gaussian distribution curve (also known as the Error Curve or the Bell Curve). The fat middle portion of this curve represents “maximum revenue” and “broadest range of audiences”. This space is dominated by Joe Six-Pack and Joe the Plumber. Eclectic tastes in foreign film are confined to the tail ends of the spectrum. The Hollywood business model is fundamentally incompatible with the wide distribution of foreign film.
In many ways, Hollywood’s control over what America gets to watch in the cinema resembles the practices of Big Cable. Cable companies exert local monopolies in their respective regions. In my county, it is Time Warner Co.
Cable TV programming is not driven by consumer choice. The cable companies buy content from studios and TV syndicates so the programming is determined by the convenience and short-term profit motives of the cable company. The cable provider acts as a distribution middle-man.
This is not an insignificant reason why cable TV programming is mediocre. When was the last time anyone heard anyone raving about their cable provider? Me neither.
The article makes brief mention of TV-based VOD as a possible market for foreign film. But VOD is still subject to the whims and decisions of corporate suits.
Our Entertainment-Media complex is not a true democratic system. Programming is mostly determined by a faceless corporate oligarchy, not citizens. Nielson ratings and other modes of marketing research are not a true reflection of consumer preferences because this is a measure of the relative popularity of shows already predetermined by the corporate oligarchy.
In order for us to have a truly democratic system, we need to have a world-class broadband internet system. Therein lies another rub. The United States currently possesses a broadband network, like the infrastructure, that is worthy of a Second-World nation intent on making its way to Third. South Korea and Sweden enjoys 100-Mbps symmetrical speeds supported by fiber straight to the residence for $20 a month. There is ample bandwidth to download a high definition movie under 10 seconds. With Time Warner Road Runner, I pay $45 a month for asymmetrical speeds, advertised at 3Mbps download/sub-1Mpbs upload. One rarely enjoys the advertised speeds because the cable ISPs surreptitiously employs “traffic throttling” in their bandwidth management. This level of service is typical for most households across the nation.
If we had a world-class internet, streaming HD video would be a reality. The consumer would choose content, thereby bypassing Hollywood and Big cable, instead of having it dictated by a corporate oligarchy.
The fact that cable companies provide both TV and internet on the same pipe presents a conflict of interest. Young college students no longer subscribe to cable; they simply watch “House” or “American Idol” via Hulu on their laptops. This trend hints the direction that the market will move towards in the future. The cable companies realize this and to delay the inevitable they are trying to introduce broadband cap limits (Time Warner Road Runner attempted to do just this in NY and Texas a couple of months ago). They are seeking to prevent direct broadband content cannibalizing their TV business.
In order to overthrow the corporate oligarchy, we need to have a technological advocacy, awareness, and a grassroots movement amongst citizens:
1. Cut your umbilical cord to Big Cable. By law, certain basic channels are required to be broadcast free via air even with the transition to digital signals by June 2009. If you still own an analog cathode-ray tube TV, you are entitled to coupons for digital-to-analog converter boxes.
https://www.dtv2009.gov/
If you own a LCD/Plasma screen, you may want to invest in a high-quality digital tuner and a HD antenna. In my area, I get 30+ over-the-air channels, many are already HD, and two are even Korean language channels.
2. If at all possible, get internet access via DSL or better yet Verizon FIOS.
3. We need to have a convergence between the PC and the living room TV.
Much content is now available on the web, Hulu being a well-known example of such. Netflix makes movies available via the web. NBC provides its syndicated programming online in HD. These are just a few examples. The PC needs to evolve into a specialized multimedia device that inhabits the living room right under the TV, connected to high-speed broadband, optimized for the purpose of delivering content from direct sources on the web onto the living room screen, combined with additional functions traditionally fulfilled by DVD/CD players and Tivo, and be easy to use with a remote control.
4. We need to have a public-interest advocacy and lobby over control of the internet. Broadband needs to be understood as a basic public utility, like electricity, water, post, mass transit, and roads. Under the Obama Administration, a precedent has been set for the nationalization of private industry. Internet should be place under the control of the people, in the form of a revenue-generating Federal agency like the USPS, governed not by the profit-motive but the public good, national security, and the recognition of the internet as a prime driver of innovation.
I think I did Mojo, thanks for the clarification
Question: Do you think that Hollywood is racist? or do you think that they simply perceive the demand part of supply and demand as racist and as such are unwilling to take risks? As I kind of hinted at before, I’ve always just viewed Hollywood as a business, and as a business, I can understand (not agree with) their fear of taking risks. In this case, the risk is generating a big budget film that they fear either a) won’t receive enough Box Office earnings because it doesn’t appeal enough to the masses (and they’ll lose money on it), or b) won’t even receive enough investors/investment dollars to justify production.
In fact, that last bit is kind of interesting to me, Eric (or anyone else!) do you know if there are more racially diverse scripts being introduced to Hollywood that aren’t of the stereotypical nature that are just being passed over? or is there a lack of those scripts even being introduced as projects?
Hmm….although I hate to keep going back to this topic of what’s racist or not, I think at this point we can settle on some definitions that will help clarify everyone’s point of view on issues not only related to Hollywood but also other issues.
First off, it seems that Jaehwan, et. al argue that because of Hollywood’s mechanisms (social, political, economical, etc.) and more importantly, the products it produces promoting racial stereotypes and other messages that subjugate racial minorities the Hollywood industry is racist. I doubt they will extend the label of “racist” to everyone working in a “racist” system, but it would be reasonable to assume that any product produced by a “racist” system that continues to promote racial stereotypes or discriminatory messages should be labeled racist.
Now, there are probably two levels of racism within that label: intentional (bigotry) or sub-conscious (includes being “colorblindness”). Most of us are stuck on “intentional” racist, but I can see that Jaehwan, et. al are trying to bring up more issues related to the sub-conscious side of racism in an industry like Hollywood.
That being said, a question that I’d like to see people’s opinions on is the following:
Justin Lin, directs and produces “Better Luck Tomorrow”, largely outside of the Hollywood system, and it is far from anything anyone would label racist. It clearly promotes the opposite of stereotypical images for the Asian racial minority.
Years later, Justin Lin makes several films, one of which is Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift. In this film, a white Caucasian male from the U.S. beats the Asian Yakuza antagonist (evil Asian stereotype) at drifting (white dominating Asian stereotype) and wins the Yakuza’s girlfriend (Asian male emasuclation stereotype). Thus, Tokyo Drift is exactly a product produced by a “racist” system, big Hollywood studio, promoting racial stereotypes. Would anyone agree that this film by the definition set above should be labeled “racist”? Granted, especially with Justin Lin at the helm, it’s not “intentionally” racist, but because it does promote those stereotypical images, it should be classified as “subconsciously” rascist. And of course, you couldn’t possibly extend the label of “racist” to Justin Lin given his previous film, “Better Luck Tomorrow” and his own personal beliefs and efforts in the filmmaking community to advance the image of Asian Americans.
Now with that aside, there is certainly a dearth of positive Asian media images and that is a shame and unfair. While life is full of both, that doesn’t mean that it should always continue to be that way. More positive images of Asian Americans is in big demand by the Asian American community and I’m interested to see how people step up to the plate to deliver that. Hollywood can make money based on that demand. Whether or not they could make more money catering to a “white” majority audience, I can’t say because I don’t have data or the ability to analyze that. What I can say is that I many a major Hollywood studio has probably lost more money on films that have catered to the “white” majority then they ever have lost investing in a film that catered to the Asian American audience. That alone should at least prompt Hollywood marketing CEOs to investigate new revenue streams that could be achieved by targeting the AA community. Maybe they already have and decided not to do so. That’s a judgement call. Would I agree with their judgement? Definitely not, and this is where the indie film industry would come in.
@jaehwan
I’m going to stop debating whether Hollywood’s racist or not. It’s pointless. It’s a sucky system that, through private enterprise, will eventually adopt the sentiments of its audience. It’s extremely slow at doing that, which is why we all seem to hate it.
“What’s the difference between your indie fight choreography and “system” fight choreography? Just curious.”
What I mean by “system” fight choreography is there’s a big rift between Director, Fight Choreographer, Editor, and Director of Photography. So there’s rarely a unified vision of how the fight scene should be portrayed. What happens instead is they rely on tried-and-true methods to “just getting it done” by using the standard angles, getting a ton of coverage, and letting the editor put it together however he pleases. It’s cheap, but it’s not as solid as it could be.
“There are a limited number of transmission frequencies for TV and radio, and the government decides who gets what. Would it be too much to require them to diversify? Especially since I pay my tax dollars to have them manage this?”
Gov’t should auction them off and send everyone tax rebates with the auction money (or pay down the deficit with it). There are something like 800 total available TV channels in the US, and selling them to high bidders like Google, Microsoft, Warner Bros, BET, etc. would allow those companies to then find more efficient uses for them. For example, some of them are extremely close in frequency to wi-fi frequences. Imagine country-wide wifi for $15/month. It’d bring down cell phone costs, which would benefit all incomes. The other channels could probably be divided so you can get 10 channels out of one for a less-than-perfect image quality. Maybe for music or very basic information or something. Sell em!
@kobukson
“South Korea and Sweden enjoys 100-Mbps symmetrical speeds supported by fiber straight to the residence for $20 a month.”
As for broadband that is supplied by the government, you can’t possibly copy SK or Sweden. Such social programs aren’t easily emulated with a land mass so huge, heterogeneous, and populated. I’d rather see deregulation of the airwaves and have them allow businesses to sell the cheapest broadband possible. Then it’ll be cost effective. I also don’t understand the need for 100-Mbps bandwidth for EVERY household. That’s just not cost effective at all, but it’s government so it doesn’t matter (for now). Eventually those costs get out of control, and your “public good” gets abused, running deficits etc., we’re hearing this story every day on the news in California.
As for using cable internet, there are alternatives. The market for internet providers in the US is extremely good. Add to that the fact that internet comes to cell phones in 2 different signals, and it’s obvious we’re doing well. Also remember that cable internet comes bundled with 800 channels of TV because that’s the most cost-effective way for the companies to do it. If you don’t get the TV package, then you just get expensive (and in my experience unreliable) internet. If you get both, and you’re a TV junkie, it’s the best deal on the planet. It’s hard to find places with 800+ channels of programming. But people still have a CHOICE. We’re not taxed for 800 TV channels, we only buy them if we want them, and they still sell. I get internet for $25/month because I have companies competing for my dollars. People can shop wisely and discover the merits and problems of the various internet providers. That’s the benefit of having a market for this stuff.
I agree with the notion that the best way to deal with the cable conglomerates is through high speed internet. How to go about it is where you seem to want to use social programs. I’d strongly advise against that, as the technology has come an incredibly long way without taxing people for it. I think it should continue that way. Public good my butt, I never watch TV. And I know some folks who don’t do internet. Let people who want it, pay for it.
“Internet should be place under the control of the people, in the form of a revenue-generating Federal agency like the USPS”
You mean “government control”, right? If the government controls the internet through a monopoly like USPS (which is now losing money) but allows for competition through narrow pathways (like how UPS and FedEx can’t send non-urgent mail), all they’ll do is slowly raise rates while cutting benefits to consumers, just like USPS raises rates and has now has to cut delivery days to make up for it’s projected $6.8 billion dollar loss in 2009. They’re also extremely slow at implementing new technology, as seen by the fact that many post offices are simply removing stamp machines rather than introducing updated ones.
Plus, I don’t want the government having any control over the internet. That sounds too much like China and North Korea.
I think Hollywood is about as deliberately racist as the fast food industry is deliberately prejudiced against healthy people. But both are plagued with sub-standard mediocrity due to the bottom-line/lowest common denominator mentality. But with movies like “Fast Food Nation” and “Super-Size Me”, fast food industry has become reformed. I dare say McDonald’s is a healthier place to eat now than it was 10 years ago.
Perhaps there needs to be an equivalent of “Super-Size Me” and “Fast Food Nation” for Hollywood itself. Turn the scrutiny of the camera lens of Hollywood on Hollywood itself. But I do not yet see the likes of Michael Moore or Morgan Spurlock arising from Asia-America.
@Ed-
appreciate your input. It’s an interesting point you bring up about Justin Lin. I think the problem you run into as an indie guy is that it’s easy for you to be co-opted by the major studios with the lure of big budgets, the excellent catering, better film equipment, etc….and once you get into that system, you are now a puppet of it. I think that Justin Lin probably fought hard to make the changes with Tokyo Drift but at the end, he lost those battles. Does that make him a racist? In the strict sense, no. But it’s telling that the system and mechanics of how the major studio operates can squash any dissent or objections. Plus, there’s the threat to one’s livelihood if you keep objecting to questionable material or storylines. The studio has the power to say, “You know what, Justin? We don’t think this is working out. We’re going to go with another director and writer.”
I think there are people who are stepping up to the plate to show positive images and like Eric has said all along, you have to work OUTSIDE the system that works against you to control your images and your story.
@Eric-
yes, I agree, we’ve beaten that horse ten ways till Sunday. I understand your viewpoint but don’t necessarily agree that it’s all just what the market will bear. But I hope you sort of see where I’m coming from. If not, then we’ll just agree to disagree. You’re right—the system and mechanics of the major studios suck. And if you’re really passionate about film, then you’ll find a way to bring your vision and creative endeavors to life.
Also, found some interesting comments by David Ren, writer/director of the indie movie “Shanghai Kiss”, on IMDB:
“This biography is completely inaccurate. “Shanghai Kiss” is hardly a “big budget” film and I do not have “bigger budget films on the way”. I do not care about making big films. I only care about telling stories I’m passionate about and my stories tend to have indie sensibilities. ”
“This is David Ren, writer/director of Shanghai Kiss. It’s come to my attention that a DVD Screener copy has leaked onto the internet, which is unfortunate because we are still a month away from release. Since the leak just a few days ago, tens of thousands of people have already downloaded it, which is almost unheard of for a fairly small indie film. While I’m happy that so many people are seeking out the film and enjoying it, I’d like to share my thoughts on the situation.
Shanghai Kiss is an autobiographical story and a film that is very personal to me. Some of you have commented on the lack of Asian male leads in American films that are not in the action/martial arts genre. This is especially true for love stories. This is because Hollywood doesn’t think America is ready to accept an Asian male as a romantic lead.
This film was not financed by a major studio. It wasn’t even financed by an independent financing company. A large portion of the film was financed by a single investor, who put her life savings into the movie. She even sold her house, which she had owned for twenty years. This investor has never made more than five figures a year, but still put in in excess of seven figures. She did this because she felt that this was a story that had to be told and it would be a huge step forward in the way that Asian Americans are portrayed in the media.
Our deal is a royalties deal, meaning the investor gets a percentage of every DVD sold. If this film is a success, Hollywood will take notice and realize that a love story with an Asian male lead could be profitable. If it fails, we could see another twenty years without another film like this. So if you enjoyed it and want more films like it to be made, please support it by purchasing the DVD…..
This is not a film produced to make a lot of money. This is a passion project for, not just me, but everyone involved. The cast worked for almost nothing. Hayden Panettiere’s fee was probably her lowest since she was four years old. She did it because she believed in the movie and knew it was time a story like this was told.
I want to make clear that I’m not asking people to support the film just because of the Asian American cause nor am I trying to guilt people into sales. I’m only asking the people who truly enjoyed it to show Hollywood their support. Movies are greenlit based on the kinds of movies that have been financially successful in the past. I also want them to understand that, in this case, when they are pirating or illegally downloading the movie, they are not taking money from a large faceless corporation, but from a middle class worker like many of us.
Respectfully,
David Ren ”
“I’m glad you loved the film. Now you know what it takes to get an Asian American film made. A lot of people talk about the lack of realistic Asian American representations in the media, but it’s take courageous investors to put their money where their mouth is and change that.
If you want to pursue filmmaking as a career, the easiest way to write a great screenplay. More than that, write one so personal, there is no one else who can direct it but you. Once you are established, you might get offers to do more mainstream Hollywood fare but I believe the first film should always be a personal one. Develop your voice and make sure that voice stands out.
David”
Just some more food for thought on the DIY approach as opposed to begging Hollywood for a bone. It seems like David Ren is stepping up to the plate. I just hope he stays true to what he said about not caring about big budget movies and all. Because really, isn’t it the dream for all indie film people to get recognized at Sundance or Telluride or whatever film festival by the majors? wouldn’t most people jump at the chance to sign with a major studio?
It’s amusing (though very predictable) as hell that White America still has a hard time admitting that Hollywood is racist.
What’s next?
Debating whether the Earth is round or flat, or does the sun rise in the East?
All you have to do is judge Hollywood and White America’s media in general by their actions and the racist crap they churn out–from Charlie Chan and Stepin Fetchit of the past to yellowface minstrels like David Carradine (and their modern imitators).
It ain’t rocket science.
But apparently White political denial and spindoctoring die hard.
Too bad they will have a hard time rationalizing away things like this:
http://fadeinonline.com/articles/minority-report/
And the abili “Hollywood is just responding to the market and giving people what they want” is pretty interesting.
If that is true, then that says a lot about the people who give their money to watch and support Hollywood trash, doesn’t it?
But that’s American McShit culture in its essence.
Kobukuson, that’s a great point about the industry needing a “Super Size-Me”, etc. to shine the light on all the outright bigotry and the more subtle forms of “racism” that occur in Hollywood. But like he said, outside of PBS it’s going to be hard to get that message out there. Again I think the whole problem is how the label “racism” is viewed in mainstream society.
“Racism” has been demonized so greatly by the media in mainstream society that people are scared as hell to be racist in anyway shape or form. They’ve seen Don Imus, a famous white male radio host for over 20 years or something like that, lose everything he has in an instant over a simple racist comment. People seeing that think, “man, if that can happen to that guy, I don’t ever want to be caught being caught with a shred of racism”. People are very much on-edge about the issue of racism which is why you can imagine alot of people don’t want to talk about it much less confront it. To them (myself included) we grew up thinking the isssue of being racist was settled simply by how much you tolerated other people unlike yourself in terms of racial appearance. As you grew up a little, you realized that beyond tolerance, it was also a matter of recognizing how certain things like certain words, and stereotypes that could determine your level of racism. And that’s where I think mainstream society is at right now. In that mindset, if you’ve accomplished tolerance and discernment of racist thinking so as not to produce outwardly racist behaviors (this is where the “colorblind” mentatlity comes in) you’ve lived up to society’s expectations regarding racist and can be classified as a non-racist. The fear is gone and you can go about living the rest of your life and facing other challenges.
This is where AA activists see the problem. Racism doesn’t end there. To them, the time has come to broaden that scope of racism to include things like media representation of Asian Americans, the “glass ceiling” etc. However, since the topic of “racism” has been so demonized by the media, to begin to turn the mirror on collective mainstream society is to invite them to see the “evil” in their ways and that is probably TOO HEAVY for society in its current state to handle. If “racism” wasn’t such a demonized issue, I imagine mainstream society would feel alot more comfortable with looking at the issues at hand and be able to cope with the challenges of eliminating “racism” in society and this would actually be much more progressive to achieving gains for minorities.
To sum it up, it’s kinda like a kid playing basketball for the first time. All the kids says he sucks and can’t play ball and he might practice hard to prove them wrong, but he’ll more than likely grow up with a inferiority complex about sports and shy away from ever hitting the court again. Ideally, you’d hope that other kids wouldn’t tell him he sucks, but if you can’t control that, it would be very helpful if there was someone there to back him up and encourage him to keep trying. Mainstream American society doesn’t want to hear that they suck in terms of racial equality, there is NO COUNTRY on Earth that wants to hear that about their own culture, but they DO need to be aware of the issues and somehow get more of a mindset to work towards improving their game.
Now I’m sure there are some people reading this thinking that mainstream America’s limited sense of “racism” is dumb, ignorant, etc. but you gotta remember that it took along time for people to switch over from black and white TVs to color, from analog to digital, from CD players to MP3 players; there are early adopters, the early majority, the late majority, and laggards. People like you are early adopters, I could be more in the early majority, and alot of people are still in the late majority with the KKK and Fox News making up the laggards. Society like Hollywood is massive glacier and does indeed respond to change slowly.
And Mojorider, yes indeed, that was definitely my point about the example of how mechanics in Hollywood could certainly turn even a filmmaker’s work like Justin Lin into something “racist”. The idea being to take the sting out of the faceless label of “racism”. People like myself, Eric, etc. we’re here because like mainstream society, we certainly do not want to be “racist” or produce work that people would consider racist. Now, of course you can’t please everyone, but because we’re here in these AA blogs, we’re interested in how we can put out films that are more sensitive AA issues. Which is why early on, we’ve been struggling to determine exactly what is “racist”, so as to know where to start.
@ Ed Kahana
Wow, and I thought reading Eric’s posts hurt my head and dropped my IQ down a few points! But then again, I wasn’t expecting much from Eric. But Ed, you really gave me a brain tumor! Jesus Christ, 139 posts later and we’re still “struggling to determine exactly what is racist” while at the same time trying to justify that ‘unknown’ racism through fucking applying hacked economics 101 out of a crackerjack box.
Racism (and I am using that term as a catch all) and institutions can only be fixed if we don’t call out the bullshit and racism that happens. Yeah, that really makes sense dude. Yeah, likening Don Imus and racist systems that are in power and entrenched in America to the little kid who is not particularly good at playing basketball and has low self esteem. Wow! You are my hero!
Ed, I don’t know where you get your facts, ideas, and perspectives from…but thank you for sharing. I had a good chuckle. Can someone laugh and cry at the same time?…WOW! Just amazing! This whole thread is just so amazing!
Ed, racism cannot be demonized. If you look up the definition in any dicionary (which I suggest that you do) it is clearly defined as a negative already. Racism deals with the idea that some ethnicies are racially superior to others. Saying that racism has been demonized is like saying that child molesting has been demonized… one can’t demonize the demonic, so to speak.
Also, Don Imus had a loooong record of making racist comments, jokes, and banter, on his show. The problem was that he (and you apparently) had interpreted the fact that he had gotten a pass on it to mean that he had the right to continue doing it in perpetuity without reprecussion. His “nappy-headed ho” comment was simply the last straw in a continuing pattern of racist humor that many minorities have objected to for the entire 20 years he was doing it. And to say that Don “lost everything” is useless hyperbole. Did anyone confiscate his property, liquidate his bank account, or thow him in prison? Did they repossess his car? Don Imus is still a multi-millionaire and doing FAR better than the vast majority of the people whom he has offended.
Imus was not arrested or driven from employment by secret police or a government comission. He was let go because he reached a market tipping point in which his controversial comments began costing his employers more money than it was making for them. Live by the market, die by the market. So please spare the sob story.
Ed,
It was good speaking with you and Eric yesterday for the podcast. The content was great, and so far, it looks like the audio quality is decent too (audio quality always seems to be the one variable we can’t control). You had a lot of really good insights on roles, the business, and how Asian Americans can work in your industry. The podcast will go up tomorrow, and I hope everyone gives it a listen.
So on this latest thread….I agree with mT and King, regarding both your Don Imus statement and your basketball-playing little kid analogy. Imus is in power, had been for a long time, and still lives better than just about anyone on this board. Mainstream society is in power too. I think it’s incorrect to think of the these wealthy rule-makers as victims here. When a mainstream company backs a Miley Cyrus who publicly shows her racist gestures, my kids suffer more than the wealthy Walt Disney Company or the wealthy and famous Miley Cyrus.
Anyway, I’m looking forward to your comments on the podcast tomorrow.
Unfortunately, my analogy apparently didn’t communicate the message I was trying to get across. That certainly isn’t the first time that this sort of thing has happened largely because I often try to juggle too many thoughts and probably leave some holes in my examples, but to clarify:
The basketball analogy was not meant to be sob story. It was meant to be an insight as to how mainstream society reacts to thoughts about race and why that reaction can pose challenges to gains for minorities. I do not mean to cast the mainstream societal majority as victims, but in mmy opinion mainstream society often view themselves as powerless victims incapable of change part of which is because they are scared to death to be associated with racism. Thus, they take a defensive approach. It’s a defense mechanism, and it’s trained by the media.
With the Don Imus example, I, like most of mainstream American society, saw a media host’s career go down in flames. If the media doesn’t follow up with a story of how Don Imus is still hot stuff despite losing his show then the interpretation of the story and the moral lesson that the media effectively produced was this: if you are associated with racism you will suffer big consequences. This message is what the media puts out all the time which is why you hear everyone touting “diversity” because what better way to say that you are not racist than to promote that you are the exact opposite. Whether or not that diversity stuff checks out, I’m not going to debate about that. I’m sure most of you agree (myself included), especially in the case of Hollywood, is that it’s bullshit.
“Racism (and I am using that term as a catch all) and institutions can only be fixed if we don’t call out the bullshit and racism that happens. Yeah, that really makes sense dude.”
mT, I didn’t say that (at least I’m clarifying that was not the intended message). If the kid sucks at basketball (racism), the kid needs to be aware of the problem to fix it–period. Now, you can take the heavy-handed approach and call people assholes, idiots, racists, etc. or you can take a different one. So, I’m not saying that problems with racism can only be fixed if people don’t call bring attention to it. I personally agree with a different approach. You may not agree with it, but we’re both still addressing the issue. Case in point with films, I don’t get all crazy slamming blogs about how racist it is to cast a white dude as the lead in the new Airbender movie, instead, I work on my script casting two Pacific islanders as leads in an action-adventure movie. Both forms of activity work towards addressing an issue of media representation of minorities. Some like it hot, but I personally cannot sustain being “angry” all the time like alot of the AA activists here encourage because anger doesn’t work for me.
But Ed, the very strategy of ethnic activism, these past 50 years, has been to apply societal pressure against racism. The whole idea is to make people who perpetuate racist ideas to feel uncomfortable when doing so.
So, then you come along and say, “Wow, do we really need to make people so unfcomfortable being a racist? Can’t we just apply the carrot and forget about the stick?” The answer is no.
The “mainstream” needs both the carrot AND the stick if it is to change. We all understand that neither one can be applied flawlessly, but in past decades, minority activists have made measurable progress utilizing this method. It’s not perfect, but nothing is. But obviously it cannot be applied without some people compalining about how “touchy” minority people have become and how “overly sensative” and “politically correct” everthing is nowadays.
But another way to see this is that White people are now simply experiencing a bit of social push-back from minorities. But that’s normal! All ethnic groups have to deal with pressures, from other ethnic groups. Welcome to the club.
King, I see your point. I would certainly agree that you need the carrot and the stick approach. Different situations require different ways of handling for the best outcome, I am just personally more of the carrot approach when it comes to the world of media and film. That “carrot” approach would be the indie film approach that we’ve been discussing.
At SFSU, professors greatly emphasized how the protests and riots of the 60s led to the creation of the Ethnic Studies department both on that campus and across the nation. Certainly this would be a great example of how the stick approach yielded excellent gains for minorities.
I was laughing my behind off when that guy was saying “All you’ll do is make it where filmmakers won’t want to use Asians in their films just to avoid activists etc.”
HAH! Talk about the biggest idle threat I’ve ever heard an unrepentant self-entitled white guy give. Talk about arrogant and belligerent.
What this clown was saying was that if he doesn’t get to portray Asians the way HE wants to then he won’t cast them at all. What a joke. Peolpe like him are ADDICTED to their own racism. He can’t make it through his day without indulging their notions of white primacy.
He KNOWS what it is you’re demanding: no more stereotyping. And he boldly sat here and told you that “If you object to what I do then all that will happen is I’ll stop casting Asians.”
Well acting “opportunities” like these Asians don’t need!
Considering how he’s continuing the dehumanization of Asians why didn’t you guys jump on these fools and DARE them to do it? Dare them to stop casting Asians. I can promise you their embargo will last all of 5 seconds. His yellow fever will QUICKLY overcome his momentary ban.
I mean does anyone with an I.Q. above room temperature think these rednecks who are addicted to their racial notions/biases are actually going to stop?
The ONLY way you’ll get better parts for Asians in film is when fools like these two jokers realize that they will either portray asians with respect of else.
Oh, and when this clown says he comes from a “multicultural” background because he grew up near black people in Louisiana! HAH! About the ONLY two ethnic groups in Louisiana are blacks and whites. That’s not multicultural it’s DUO-cultural. And it’s a feeble talking poiint by someone who flies the “See, I grew up in a town with some colored people.”
Too bad he didn’t learn anything from it!
Next time some joker calls himself saying that their having lived (according to their TOTALLY uncorroborated claims) close to non-whites makes them SO open-minded.
Just remind them Trent Lott lived in a state with a nearly 40% black population.
And David Duke comes from a state with a 35% black population.
This Blake character has as much credibility as they do. His talking points are so thin and so ridiculous and so blatantly PATRONIZING that I can’t believe you let him get away with it.
Just a little perspective on the much-promoted idea that Hollywood doesn’t really see Black, White, Yellow, or Brown, and is really only in it for the green.
Allow me to offer you an example of how what seems to make good economic sense doesn’t always actually happen when it comes to race and long standing prejudices.
You may, or may not, know that in the mid-1990s, African-descended women first began to make inroads into the ranks of supermodel level high-fashion. They had been introduced in the 1970s but the 1990s was to be their ascendancy as supermodels. Now, this may sound a bit odd to some, but there was a very real worry in high-fashion that this simply would not work. Of course, it wasn’t that the liberal and open-minded fashion industry was bigoted!! — it’s just that OTHER people wouldn’t buy clothes off the backs of black models! So, you see, the industry was just protecting their investment.
But Wow—it did work.
Black supermodels soon emerged and became every bit as famous, as sought after, and as glamorous as their White counterparts. Models like:
Iman
http://thecomebackgirl.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/iman1.jpg
and Naomi
http://www.artfagcity.com/wordpress_core/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/naomi-campbell_195597g.jpg
and Tyra
http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w108/chabao1/TyraBanks009.jpg
very quickly proved that non-white women (and Black is about as non-White as you can get) could bee seen as beautiful, could do the job of supermodel, and could sell products. BUT as the nineties ended, Black models literally went out of style, and the percentages of African-descended models on the runways has taken a dramtic plunge since the turn of the century, even though no one disputes that the Black supermodel “experiment” worked.
So… in july of 2008, partly in protest of the lack of Black models represented in high-fashion, Vogue Italia decided to dedicate a “Black issue” exclusively to African-descended models. It was release in July 2008 and immediately sold out (even though July is traditionally a very slow month for fashion mag. sales). Therefore, for the first time in Vogue history, they had to reprint an edition due to the incredible demand.
http://www.wowowow.com/post/all-black-italian-vogue-flies-newsstands-68869
http://www.foliomag.com/2008/all-black-italian-vogue-s-white-hot-newsstand
http://adage.com/bigtent/post?article_id=129759
So now that it’s almost a year later, you might think that things might be changing in the high-fashion industry. They haven’t. Instead of trending toward a more diverse showing of models including all groups (which the evidence suggests would not only make more sense, but more money) the fashion industry has fallen back on a bevy of very pale, very blonde, and very thin girls of mostly slavic ethnicity, almost exclusively.
QUIZ QUESTIONS:
1) Is this really just about money?
2) Is Hollywood any more honest with itself than the fashion industry?
3) Why don’t White models ever “go out of style?”
4) Is it possible to create a demand with heavy marketing and then just “respond to the market” that you created?
Worth thinking about.
King,
That’s a great point. I do remember that Golden Age of African American models. It was like they all came up so fast, and then all of a sudden, it was over. How many new young black supermodels are coming out these days?
Yes, and where, pray tell, are the Asian supermodels? At this point, the fasion industries in China, Japan, S. Korea, and Hong Kong, are major contributors of both markets and money. Are there really not enough Asian women buying Prada to at least warrant a little more exposure on the runways of Milan and Paris? Should the models reflect, even to a small degree, the women who actually purchase the products?
What’s wrong with using Asian women as supermodels in the west? They have certainly been exotified enough, given all the rice chasing that’s going on. You can’t argue that they don’t represent a large enough market… there are even more Asians in the world than their are Whites. You can’t argue that Asian’s can’t afford to buy the products, at least based on the wealth statistics. So why do the high-fashion runways look like this?
http://images.nymag.com/images/2/daily/2009/03/20090303_models_560x375.jpg
One of many articles on the subject.
http://www.nydailynews.com/lifestyle/2008/02/10/2008-02-10_fashion_week_runways_lacked_minorities.html
Again, I ask, is this really all about making money, or are there deeper, and more tribal instincts playing out here?
I personally don’t believe that Hollywood is any different.
King,
Those women in the first link look like zombies. I’m gonna have nightmares tonight. On the bright side for Asian women, from your link, it looks like the Asian mannequins are doing a good job reppin’. So you can be an Asian model, as long as you’re silent, made of plastic, and don’t fall over and injure shoppers.
I think the Asian supermodel thing may be a bit complex. We have the societal prejudice thing, but there is more to it (which may explain the mannequin phenomenon). I might try to describe it in a future post, if I can manage to write it without offending people…
Oops. I think I’m off. A mannequin is actually a real person, right? I guess I learn something new every day.
“Yes, and where, pray tell, are the Asian supermodels?”
- The argument I’ve heard, is that the majority of us Asian ladies are just not tall enough, you see. To have a show with a run of very tall, long-legged white women be interrupted by a smaller Asian woman? Well that would distract people from the clothing with an obvious physical difference. And that’s a no-no. It’s a very convenient excuse. Of course similar arguments also exist in film and music, etc, etc. And of course it’s motivated by prejudice, whether it’s nepotism or bias, casting couches, outright bigotry, it doesn’t really matter.
I’ve worked in film long enough to hear every horrible and shocking sexist and bigoted comment you could ever imagine coming out of a person’s mouth. So for me to have people even suggest that the film and fashion and music and art industries aren’t influenced by these forces is well…I don’t buy it for a second.
I mean take a look at these ‘new hip’ Transformers in the upcoming Transformers film and tell me that this comes from demographic research
http://chud.com/articles/articles/19917/1/TRANSFORMERS039-LITTLE-BLACK-SAMBOTS/Page1.html
How many people have money riding on this movie? How many of them would have been in a position to see early screenings and notice that something was amiss? I mean, everybody knows Bay is a massive bigot (the last Transformers movie was like a 2 hour long commercial for racial stereotypes), but this is just insane.
In the end the consequences of these actions are what really matter and these people should be called into account for it. Just because they’re feeding a ‘racist’ demand, doesn’t mean they can’t be held responsible for empowering total assholes.
But in no way does that mean that I believe in censorship or ‘regulation’ of the arts, that’s a tactic that always fails and will always be used later on to harm the underprivileged.
Look at the MPAA for proof of that.
Created to simply give ratings for movies to inform consumers of what kind of film they’re walking into and now the industry uses it to hold down indie and foreign filmmakers by limiting their markets. I mean look at almost any foreign movie at your local rental place, and 99.9% of the stuff that comes from any place but a major Hollywood studio is instantly either unrated or rated R regardless of content. And that was before the bad old days in the 80s when the MPAA was practically a hitman gutting popular indie cinema like the old Italian Studios, where it was demanding 14 minute to 20 minute cuts out of any popular genre film that got a State-side distribution deal.
The butchering they did to the Godzilla franchise and Kung Fu movies and French cinema and Italian cinema and Russian cinema and Anime and how that effected the way those movies were perceived plot-wise, execution-wise, quality-wise, etc, is ASTONISHING.
But that’s the only road censorship takes, you create an obvious tool that can be abused and people will abuse it for their own ends.
@King – wow, excellent points there. It certainly bolsters the factual statement that Hollywood is a racist entity. I just don’t entirely agree with the argument that Eric Jacobus proposes that it’s all about free market forces. If you control the media, you control what gets seen and you don’t have to care about the demand from the consumers. If they did, then the major studios would be pumping out original screenplays instead of retreads of old hits, eg, The Heartbreak Kid, The Bad News Bears, Taking of Pelham 1,2,3, and endless sequels.
@Gailyip – thanks for the link and your insights. Yeah, I’m not into the censorship and regulation of artistic endeavors either, but you’re right: the MPAA, meetings held in secrecy and unknown board members, is the agent of censorship and I fully agree that it puts a stranglehold on indie films that dare to be edgier or unconventional. Isn’t the kiss of death to be NR? Because the indie film maker now has the trouble of finding distribution for a NR labeled movie!
@ jaehwan: Zombie chic… and they don’t even look pretty! But I would definately like to hear you thoughts on the Asian supermodel question. I have no idea why there are none, so it would be interesting to have someone explain it.
@ Gailyip: Given the number of Asian Women in the world, you cannot tell me that there are not enough tall ones around. I’m only asking for 4 or 5. I mean, I’ve seen that many walking around the streets of Los Angeles. I agree with you that it’s just an excuse.
@ mojorider: I think that economic gain is obviously a big motivator, but it is clearly not the ONLY motivator. The mistake is in looking at an economic system seperately from all other possible influences and motivations.
@mojorider Yes, anything that potentially harms your distribution is the kiss of death in film.
Being unrated and having a theatrical run just doesn’t happen anymore. And theatrical runs are like a ‘promo’ trailer for the DVD sales (which is where the industry really makes its money). So having your movie released without a big theatrical run is like releasing any product without any kind of real mainstream promotion. Unless you’re one of these grassroots guys who has the smarts and the skills to find and generate your audience to make your money back? You’re fucked.
And some places like Wal-Mart, well, if you’re not distributed by a major American company and you don’t have a rating? You don’t get into Wal-Mart (or in some cases Blockbuster, etc). And because Wal-Mart has made itself the ‘only show in town’ for tons of small-towns and small cities across America? Boom. There’s a huge core group of your audience gutted in a single blow. This is why the music industry allowed in those ‘Warning’ stickers. It was for the EXACT same reason as the MPAA, so that the big distributors could use a censor-style loophole to kneecap the small guys while appeasing the outraged soccer moms. And that’s exactly what they’ve done. It allows groups like Wal-Mart to dictate to the consumer and the audience at large, what they should be able to watch and listen to, while eliminating and absorbing the competition.
That’s the real reason why you got people in the film and music industry constantly complaining about the internet, because its shot their whole system to shit. Online a couple of guys doing a web comic like Penny Arcade can have as much promotional power as Marvel comics! Tila Tequila who’s a small Asian model, got a TV deal, and was on the cover of tons of mainstream magazines that had NEVER put an Asian on the cover, EVER. Why? The internet. So people telling you that you can’t make change, that change is impossible, or that it we can’t create a demand for Asian American films, music, etc? Are full of shit. And nobody can tell me that there’s no audience for Asian action heroes or Asian leads. Akira Toriyama and Masashi Kishimoto have made billions of dollars and broken tons of cable network ratings and sales records by promoting Asian heroes in comic books and anime to a predominately white culture.
Eric’s right that the system is glacial when it comes to change, but a large part of that is middle management attempting to justify their jobs, often at the expense of the artist’s work. If you want a really interesting insight on big budget filmmaking rent Ryûhei Kitamura’s Midnight Meat Train. There’s an awesome commentary track on that DVD where Kitamura (who speaks perfect English and is incredibly well spoken) and Clive Barker go into painstaking details about how the modern big studios work and how inner-politics basically eviscerated their horror film.
@King Oh I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to come off sounding serious when I was describing their argument. No, of course they’re full of shit. When there was a huge undeniable demand for Tila Tequila, they stuck her 4ft 1o inch Asian ass on the cover of Maxim and Stuff to make a quick buck. But you know…that doesn’t prove there’s some kind of demand for Asian super models, no, that was just “Tila” and she was “special” … It’s bullshit.
@ Gailyip, No, my bad! I didn’t mean to come off as adversarial to your position, I meant to agree with you.
We both think that it’s a ridiculous excuse.