Charlie Chan: Were Fox right to ban him?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 31 Oct 2005, 05:49

Word has it that despite remastering these classic 30's detective programmers for the Fox Movie Channel the company has shelved these films indefinately because of negative racial stereotypes (in other words Charlie is played by a white guy).

Do you agree with this?

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 31 Oct 2005, 09:48

I havent seen any of the charlie chan movies, so I cant comment on if I would deem them racist or not or whatever... but I feel they should just be released. It's a part of movie history, and it might not be a proud moment of history, but it IS a part, so we should just accept things were different back then, the world wasnt yet as globalized as it is today, so we often had many (wrong) prejudices towards other people and countries etc...

So I don't think they should be kept in the closet, just as all those war-cartoons of disney and warner bros shouldnt be kept from the public, or Tintin in Congo, or that brother rabbit movie which is apparently racist for having a nice black guy in there who becomes friends with a white kid (my god how racist!) ...

What are we going to do in 50 years, when the Russians are our closest allies and friends: ban Ahnuld Swarzunegger's movies?

I think these companies should grow up, and instead of worrying about their past mistakes, concentrate on their current task, which is to make kick-ass movies and release them on kick-ass dvds...

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 31 Oct 2005, 10:03

I agree with Yi-Long actually

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 31 Oct 2005, 10:23

grim_tales wrote:I agree with Yi-Long actually

You are just too lazy to write your own opinion and arguments!

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 31 Oct 2005, 12:15

I agree it is part of movie history and shouldn't be ignored, and it was a product of its time. Although the stereotypes may seem awful now, I dont think any offence was intended when it was made.

What was wrong with TinTin in the Congo?

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 31 Oct 2005, 12:30

Been a while since I read Tintin in {the?) Congo, but the africans weren't really portrayed as very smart. Also, I believe there was some cannabalisme and other simular stuff insinuated. Anyway, many people deemed it gave/gives a wrong impression of black people and africa etc, so they dont want the book on the shelves. Personally, as a kid I just took it as a story and it didnt alter my opinion about black people* or whatever, but maybe I'm just really really brite...

*= ...and no, I didnt already think black people were stupid and man-meat eaters prior to reading the comic...

...smartasses. :mrgreen:

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 31 Oct 2005, 12:50

My Dad has most of the Charlie Chan movies taped from TV (back when companies had the balls to show them) and as a bit of a fan of B-movie detective thrillers I found them to be most enjoyable. What struck me was how UNracist the films were (*barring Charlie Chan in Egypt). Charlie is played as a wise old sage; a 1,000 times smarter, more cultured and dignified than ANY of the white folks in the movie. Charlie is never shown to be in anything other than positive light. The original Charlie, Swedish actor Warner Oland, was perfectly cast, and even though now the part would rightfully be played by a Chinese, we shouldn't ignore these films because of modern PC prejudices that in their own peculiar way are as "damaging" as some of the "banned" works Yi-Long has mentioned. If these ever get shown again check 'em out and you'll see what I mean.

*In Egypt features the infamous Steppin Fetchit in a co-starring role. The only racist charicature in the entire series that I can recall.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 31 Oct 2005, 13:01

Markgway wrote:
*In Egypt features the infamous Steppin Fetchit in a co-starring role. The only racist charicature in the entire series that I can recall.

Cool name though

I take it the guy had to do a lot of chores or whatever? Being bossed around or whatever?

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 31 Oct 2005, 13:32

Mark what would you say about Mickey Rooney's negative portaryal of a Japanese man in Breakfast At Tiffany's?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 31 Oct 2005, 21:15

Yi-Long wrote:Cool name though
I take it the guy had to do a lot of chores or whatever? Being bossed around or whatever?

Yeah, one of those shufflin' eye-rollin' "yes, boss" stereotypes. The only character in a Charlie Chan movie that ever bothered me. It IS racist.

Mark what would you say about Mickey Rooney's negative portaryal of a Japanese man in Breakfast At Tiffany's?

Even taking into account it's a comedy I can't defend this character. It's lazy racist humour. Mickey Rooney is a talented performer but this is strike against him.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 05 Nov 2005, 21:35

Is this just a rumour or fact?

All this PC bollocks is just that bollocks. I'm all for equality but politicians, marketing people, people who think they know best never actually bother to consult with the people they're supposed to be saving. I doubt very much any Chinese-Americans etc . . . would actually find this offensive.

I sure as hell hope Paramount never cut 'Mr. Yunioshi' from Breakfast at Tiffany's. It's well in the past and should not be treated with 21st Century thinking.

I read in the news recently one school is now calling 'Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs', 'Snow White and the Seven Gnomes'. I seriously doubt anyone would actually be offended by it.

That's what pisses me off the people in question aren't actually consulted to ask if it offends them.

Yi-Long wrote:What are we going to do in 50 years, when the Russians are our closest allies and friends: ban Ahnuld Swarzunegger's movies?

Huh? He's Austrian.

I'm missing something right?

Yi-Long wrote:Been a while since I read Tintin in {the?) Congo, but the africans weren't really portrayed as very smart.

The British are portrayed as racist and very stupid in "Once Upon a Time in China" but that's not been cut!

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 06 Nov 2005, 00:01

bradavon wrote:
Yi-Long wrote:What are we going to do in 50 years, when the Russians are our closest allies and friends: ban Ahnuld Swarzunegger's movies?
Huh? He's Austrian.

I'm missing something right?

In a bunch of his movies, as well as in most USA action blockbusters from that era, the russians (or arabs, or whatever) weren't portrayed in a PC way.

Yi-Long wrote:Been a while since I read Tintin in {the?) Congo, but the africans weren't really portrayed as very smart.

The British are portrayed as racist and very stupid in "Once Upon a Time in China" but that's not been cut!

...ehm... yeah... so what's your point?

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 06 Nov 2005, 10:25

Arnie is Austrian, but I think he said he once he was an admirer of Hitler (or his public speaking?), the Austrians were known for being even more anti semitic than the Germans.

Brad I mentioned the Snow White thing in another thread. Bloody stupid I agree

If you're offended by what is just a children's panto which has been performed for generarions and has upset no-one, by a sense of humor, fuck off and leave the rest of us alone

I bet no "short people" whatsoever are offended though.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 06 Nov 2005, 10:44

bradavon wrote:I sure as hell hope Paramount never cut 'Mr. Yunioshi' from Breakfast at Tiffany's. It's well in the past and should not be treated with 21st Century thinking.

Oh, I don't think it should be cut.

That's what pisses me off the people in question aren't actually consulted to ask if it offends them.

And even if people are offended that doesn't automatically mean changes should be made. Lots of things offend me in today's society but nobody cares about that.

In a bunch of his movies, as well as in most USA action blockbusters from that era, the russians (or arabs, or whatever) weren't portrayed in a PC way.

Yes, I think it's absolutely ridiculous that Arnie didn't treat those meanie terrorists in a more caring fashion. Nasty German badman. And we all know how wonderful Russians were during the cold war (oh, I shouldn't use the term war: it's negative)!

grim_tales · Post by **grim_tales** » 06 Nov 2005, 10:52

Someone has to be the bad guys...

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 06 Nov 2005, 12:47

grim_tales wrote:Someone has to be the bad guys...

exactly!

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 06 Nov 2005, 13:27

How come the Dutch are never the bad guys???

Well, except in Goldmember.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Nov 2005, 14:21

Because there's so few of them

. There's nearly as many Scots as there are Dutch

Yi-Long wrote:...ehm... yeah... so what's your point?

Precisely that it's okay to be racist against White people (and sexist against men opening the point) but not "so called" minorities.

tom2681 · Post by **tom2681** » 06 Nov 2005, 17:24

In HK movies the CIA is always the bad guy.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 06 Nov 2005, 18:17

Exactly but then again they often are in American movies too.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 06 Nov 2005, 18:49

bradavon wrote:Because there's so few of them . There's nearly as many Scots as there are Dutch

Yi-Long wrote:...ehm... yeah... so what's your point?
Precisely that it's okay to be racist against White people (and sexist against men opening the point) but not "so called" minorities.

Ow yeah, that I know, but I thought you meant that they should ban those moveis too then. I dont think they should ban ANY movies. If arabs are the bad guys: So fucking what? If chinese are the bad guys: so fucking what? If whites are the bad guys? So fucking what...

They're movies, they're stories... we need good guys and bad guys, etc etc. Not all movies have to be PC as far as I'm concerned. If a movie goes too far in making the villians into comic-book characters, it will just ruin the movie and no-one will take it seriously anyway...

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 10 Nov 2005, 11:31

There's definately Charlie Chan DVD sets coming in 2006, so who gives a flying fuck if some overly-PC pay TV channels won't air 'em?

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 10 Nov 2005, 17:35

Yeah, got any more infor about those DVD sets, Eva?

I know MGM said "we don't give a fuck" and put out the Monogram titles.

But all the best ones are owned by Fox.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 11 Nov 2005, 03:29

thedvdforums wrote:Other "Cinema Classics Collection" titles coming in early 2006 from Fox include The Charlie Chan Collection: Volume One (a box set with different titles that those MGM released in their Chanthology set), The Jayne Mansfield Collection (a box set including The Wayward Bus, The Girl Can't Help It and Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?), and new special editions of Valley of the Dolls and Beyond the Valley of the Dolls.

...and out this month in the UK

And coming November in R2: The Charlie Chan Collection (in Paris, in London, at the Circus, on Broadway, in Shanghai, at the Opera), The War of the Worlds (1953) (Special Edition) and Charlie Chaplin - The Mutual Films - Volume 2

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 11 Nov 2005, 11:22

Fingers crossed these are all the remastered Fox prints.

Thanks for the info, Eva.