Yellow Face in Hollywood

[Tiassa]

Not quite as offensive, from my perspective

Question is are these portrayals as offensive to Asians as black face is to people of African origin?

For my part, as an Asian-American, no. That is, they're not as—the operative word being "as"—offensive. At least, that's how it seems to me. Blackface has always been more or less derogatory in its conception and execution. Griffith, for instance, could have hired a Chinese actor to play Cheng Huan, and the issues of that portrayal would largely remain as they are. Was it unfair to apply a Chinese character in the mysterious context of an opium-smoking, vaguely nefarious influence on a young, pure, white girl? Compared to the caricatures in Birth of a Nation, the character of Cheng Huan wasn't especially offensive. Indeed, such people undoubtedly existed, and the exploitation wasn't nearly so grotesque as American blackface has always been.

The idea, though, that a Chinese man wasn't suitable to play a Chinese character is a curious one.

Looking at some of the examples you have provided, one might wonder what the actors were thinking. In Benny Hill's case, the answer is somewhat obvious. Christopher Lee and Peter Sellers? They were probably thinking, "Paycheck!" Peter Lorre, as well. But, still, there is some aspect of exploitation in the context of why these films were made, and if they didn't stand on their own merits without the star power, should they have been made at all?

There are plenty of films that shouldn't be made, but find their way onto the screen for the sake of star power. Mike Myers in The Love Guru, for instance. Or Adam Sandler in You Don't Mess With the Zohan. The aforementioned performance by Robert Downey, Jr. in Tropic Thunder, however, is a classic outing—one for the ages, especially as it invokes some of the very issues we are discussing here. C. Thomas Howell as Mark Watson in the 1986 idiot comedy Soul Man is a strange example because, to the one, it addresses issues of black, white, and blackface; to the other, it shouldn't have been made—it's a terrible film. Indeed, James Earl Jones was probably thinking, "Paycheck!" when he agreed to play Professor Banks. Two scenes redeem the film: an ocelot joke, and a late encounter between Watson and Banks when the blackified character confesses. Still, if the world needed this film to facilitate the black-white dialogue, it would be indicative of a deeper problem between people.

 

[ElectricFetus]

More like 7.5x, but that's neither here nor there. Crouching Tiger is a statistical anomaly. That's the part you're overlooking. Yes, I was happy to see it do well, too, but it's the deviation, not the rule. As films like Hero and War remind, Asians aren't a big box office draw.

The anomaly could simply be getting over the foreign factor and all the subtitles.

Besides, if there was an expected high return for Asian faces in the cinema, Hollywood would already be all over it. Yes, there is racism in Hollywood, but it's not so blatant that the execs would ignore a potential gold mine. The reality is that the dearth of Asian faces in Hollywood blockbusters in the twenty-first century is largely a matter of market demand.

I'm willing to believe the US is still racist enough not watch Asian American cast, of course since we never tried we don't know.

I find it a curious phenomenon, though. Americans seem to appreciate certain story elements out of Asia, but they prefer the characters to look more Asian. According to one list I found, while Crouching Tiger is the highest-grossing foreign-language film in American history (barring The Passion of the Christ, which is considered a domestically-made foreign-language film, and apparently is thus counted in another category), it is also the only Asian entry on the top ten.

I don't see how that validates the "more Asian" argument.

For my part, as an Asian-American, no.

I don't think you or anyone can speak for an entire ethnicity/race.

 

[ElectricFetus]

now-a-days.. its easier just to get an eye lift to look Asian then tape! hahaha

Now days it just easier to pretend they were not Asain to begin with.
http://www.manaa.org/twentyonedvd.html

 

[ScaryMonster]

For my part, as an Asian-American, no. That is, they're not as—the operative word being "as"—offensive. At least, that's how it seems to me. Blackface has always been more or less derogatory in its conception and execution. Griffith, for instance, could have hired a Chinese actor to play Cheng Huan, and the issues of that portrayal would largely remain as they are. Was it unfair to apply a Chinese character in the mysterious context of an opium-smoking, vaguely nefarious influence on a young, pure, white girl? Compared to the caricatures in Birth of a Nation, the character of Cheng Huan wasn't especially offensive. Indeed, such people undoubtedly existed, and the exploitation wasn't nearly so grotesque as American blackface has always been.

Tiassa, does that opium fiend 19th century stereotype of a Chinese
man seem more offensive because a Caucasian is playing the part in make up? I think it has an element of condescension to it, like fancy dress.
I can't speak for other people but it makes me feel embarrassed to see it.

idea, though, that a Chinese man wasn't suitable to play a Chinese character is a curious one.

You'll note that all the images I've posted date from the 1970s back, do you think that after that time Chinese actors were taken more seriously? I think with the film going public becoming more sophisticated with the release of films like the Godfather and the French Connection, having a lame Chinese caricature played by a Caucasian was just not on.

at some of the examples you have provided, one might wonder what the actors were thinking. In Benny Hill's case, the answer is somewhat obvious. Christopher Lee and Peter Sellers? They were probably thinking, "Paycheck!" Peter Lorre, as well. But, still, there is some aspect of exploitation in the context of why these films were made, and if they didn't stand on their own merits without the star power, should they have been made at all?

There are plenty of films that shouldn't be made, but find their way onto the screen for the sake of star power. Mike Myers in The Love Guru, for instance. Or Adam Sandler in You Don't Mess With the Zohan. The aforementioned performance by Robert Downey, Jr. in Tropic Thunder, however, is a classic outing—one for the ages, especially as it invokes some of the very issues we are discussing here. C. Thomas Howell as Mark Watson in the 1986 idiot comedy Soul Man is a strange example because, to the one, it addresses issues of black, white, and blackface; to the other, it should not have been made—it's a terrible film. Indeed, James Earl Jones was probably thinking, "Paycheck!" when he agreed to play Professor Banks. Two scenes redeem the film: an ocelot joke, and a late encounter between Watson and Banks when the blackified character confesses. Still, if the world needed this film to facilitate the black-white dialogue, it would be indicative of a deeper problem between people.

I have to agree with you on the movies you've mentioned but I might cite the example of the Peter Sellars movie called "The Party" which has a cult following, many people love this movie but how do Indians feel about it?

Peter Sellars From "The Party"