| |
|
"the voices may not actually be Asian-American; however they do remind the viewer"
Some viewers, an important distinction. Your paragraph about Wonder Woman etc. avoids the obvious question, which is: If we assume for a moment that the Neimoidian voices are deliberately based on Asian tone and cadence, is this necessarily a bad thing? And does the voice then trump the observed behavior and history of the characters, which in my mind is much more representative of an American stereotype than an Asian one.
If, as someone suggested in the Evil Empire thread, the villains in the prequel trilogy are meant to represent the current state of US politics, does a voice render everything else null and void?
"The serial voice, however, along with the emphasis on trade at a specific moment in history and in a particular social context allowed (and possibly encouraged) the audience to make these connections."
What social context and specific moment in history do you mean? I think audiences can make all sorts of connections from perceptions related to any given text. This doesn't mean the text actually contains what the viewer/reader thinks it does (see for example the writings on the homosexual undertone of the recent Spider-Man film). It's not really possible to overestimate the amount of unrelated baggage we bring to texts. Robert Anton Wilson's 23 thesis is particularly relevant here. I think people predisposed to assign racially motivated categories to life will magically find patterns in anything.
"For example, Flux never said Lott Dodd beat a Nute Gunray manakin after receiving orders or anything."
That's true. What he actually said was that the Neimoidians are "cartoon slurs" of Japanese businessmen. And then failed to provide any details from the films to support the assertion.
"I actually believe Lucas attempted to address the criticism in Ep2. Gunray is now the only Neimoidian with that characteristic voice because he has to be recognizable. If this is true, it lends some support to the theory."
If true, then yes. But this is a massive assumption made entirely on your perception of the first film, your perception of the second film and your particular thought pattern analyzing the difference between the two. It's not actually based in reality.
"Bill Cosby, unfortunately, is another long complicated thread."
Which is a neat way of sidestepping the issues raised.
"Dyson is careful speaker who, for the benefit of CNN, commented quite fairly on the news of the day. You locked onto four or five words of an otherwise thoughtful statement (even as chopped up into soundbites), words modified to be possibilities rather than declaratives, in order to ignore the whole. The Carribean thing is my bad, cribbed from another commentator."
Then it might be appropriate to present relevant comments from Dyson rather than using him as a shorthand. Presenting a "thoughtful statement" will probably get more mileage than a soundbite - particularly one that, as with "Carribean gait," is absurd no matter the context.
"I have no reason to believe Ahmed Best is any more aware than Cuba Gooding Jr or Jimmy Walker."
I find this sort of thing offensive. "I naturally am more well-informed and intelligent than the people who are actually involved in the production."
"The Dyson quote fits perfectly here: 'maybe Lucas or his people had trouble separating stereotypes from the sort of things that would help strengthen the movie.'"
Maybe. Or maybe the whole thing is in Dyson's head. Who can say? It's a statement that requires a lot of evidential support from the films themselves to start to make credible. As I said (and as evidenced by the lack of film examples presented by yourself and others), it seems as if making the accusation is enough, that the possibility equates somehow to fact. A bit like the old witch trials. There's no adequate defense to modern cries of racism, is there?
"It is, of course, only a suggestion. But Lucas and crew have publically made it a point of pride that the SW universe is itself a bricolage of film history."
Yep. But it's a huge assumption on the part of specific viewers that they know what parts of what types of films are being used. That Lucasfilm is modeling Star Wars as a bricolage doesn't actually support or work against either argument.
"Again, Jar Jar's screentime is slashed in Ep2."
Yes, but for a reason intrinsic to the story, and in a manner which not only justifies but requires the presentation offered in The Phantom Menace.
"And, as you say, the major human leads all have North American accents. It seems, when we start doing quantitative analysis, the good guys are mostly North American or British. Am I wrong?"
The human characters, yes. And primarily North American at that (Neeson isn't using his 'normal' accent in the first film, suggesting that traces of a lilt are accidental).
"My entire argument is that there's some dodgy representation in the SW films and that that's important."
It's a fine argument, but it's not the one you're making. You're actually arguing for the possibility of dodgy representation. To argue that there is in fact dodgy representation, you would not only have to identify specifics from the films, which you haven't done, but you would have to also explain away the mass of contradictory evidence, such as the homogenous white male composition of the evil Empire, the multiracial patchwork of the Rebellion, the fact that all the black characters are good and so forth.
"I'm going to insist that research done at universities the world over on public response to media and representation is, in fact, evidence."
That's fine, if you bother to actually present it. But you don't. Instead you wave your hands at some nebulous research without offering the relevant portions.
"My continual reference to your use of "nuh-uh," TNW, stems from your quoting of bits of posts (whether my words, Flux's, or Dyson's) and typing "No" or "that's idiocy" afterwards."
Which I have done occasionally, sure. But I notice that's what you hang on, rather than actually addressing all the instances where I offer material from the films. Because, as I've said before, to addres the actual films is to defeat yourself, because they simply don't allow a racist interpretation. And I'll defend calling the statement "Jar Jar walks with a Carribean gait" idiotic, because it is.
"The Jar Jar meesa/massa issue is Dyson commenting on a media shitstorm. Some viewers were confused a'la "not like [you]/here."
But again, you didn't actually present a case for this. You just namechecked Dyson and moved on to the next issue. Taken in a literal sense from the text the mesa/massa issue is nonexistent.
"'As early as 1980 Vader is shown to be a white guy.' I'm not sure I follow you."
In The Empire Strikes Back we see Vader without his helmet on. He's white.
"I'm still troubled by the definitive viewer racism line that runs through this bit."
I'm not sure what you're referring to here.
"The coding of black as evil has always been problematic at best."
No, it hasn't. Darkness and light are primal concepts. It's only much later that people began linking them to pink and brown.
"It's no surprise that some should question the use of a African-American actor in a black suit to signify the pinacle of evil."
If anything in the text supported a racist reading, sure. But it doesn't. So the continual harping on the point itself smacks of racism, of the inability of certain viewers to allow Jones' "actor" coding to supercede his "black" coding.
"Taken individually, clicks and stops are nothing to be worried about. Taken in the context of the rrest of the text, reasons for concern become apparent."
Except that, again, you're not actually presenting anything from "in the context of the rest of the text." |
|
|
