| |
|
"Yes, if the Asian-American-esque voices are deliberate, then it is a bad thing."
Yet you refuse to make an argument why. I'm sorry, I just don't buy the "this is the way things are and you can go research it yourself" line of debate. If you're not prepared to support your points, you shouldn't make them. It undermines your entire argument and makes you look rather silly.
"The observed behavior and character of the Neimoidians is no more American than sarariman. You've provided no evidence of this. In fact, given that they appear to have more leisure time than the average American in a suit, you're argument is as ridiculous as you claim others' are."
Well in fact I did provide evidence from the film for an American reading on the Neimoidians, in that their observed behavior fits an American stereotype (a collection obsessed with trade backed by military might, which is a fair summation of US policy). They don't appear to exhibit any behavior associated with stereotypes of Japanese businessmen. Which returns us to a point that you continue to avoid: Does voice trump behavior? I'm curious why you think the Neimoidians have leisure time, since we only ever see them at work in the films.
"Episode I, on the other hand, does contain some caricature voices - whether intentional or not, whether siginificant or not."
A little quantum psychology tells us this is a false statement. Perhaps you should say: "Episode I, on the other hand, contains some voices that some viewers believe to be caricatures." Because the fact that there's a debate at all proves this is an issue of perception, not fact.
"You reuse a statement I admitted was a mistake over and over in your post like a trophy."
I use it because it illustrates the ridiculousness of your argument. And also because it's the only piece of actual "evidence" you've trotted out. Well, to be fair, I suppose you also said Jar Jar has a Jamaican accent, which is using the text. But since Jar Jar doesn't sound like any Jamaican I've ever met we're back on the "some viewers believe" line of debate, which doesn't get either of us very far.
"Are you certain Lucas has made no comments regarding Jar Jar's or Gunray's reduced screen time. You're obviously a bit more fanatical about the contents of the films than I, but I tend to do my homework."
If you want to offer up an interview excerpt than by all means do so.
"If you'd like to talk about Bill Cosby, start another thread. But offhand, yah, it's bad when he does it."
Again - why? Perhaps this is a different discussion, but is it bad when gay men adopt stereotypical voice patterns and body movement? All all stereotypes bad, all of the type?
Thanks for that earlier link, by the way. I'll be reading that this weekend.
"Jar Jar is not arrogant."
Which was my point, actually. To take offense at Jar Jar's "me" because it reminds some viewers of an uncomfortable term is as silly as a reading that Jar Jar is arrogant based on the sound of the same word. In neither case does the text support the reading.
"Actually, there are plenty of defenses against modern cries of racism. One is to shout, another is to apologize, and still another is to alter one's representations."
Notably absent is the possibility that the accusation is false.
"You're all about multiple interpretations and relativism, so it shouldn't be too difficult to begin to empathise with concerned parties."
I've said I'm open to the possibility. I've also pointed out that people aren't actually using information from the films to make their case. But you finally begin to do so below, which is a step.
"But... just to be playful, the majority of speaking parts in all 5 films are performed by white actors acting as white folks. That, in itself, is contestable representation."
No, it's not. The films are made in a specific social context. In this context they, especially the prequels, are among the most diverse films of their type. In particular, although white actors portray many members of the Rebellion, they portray all of the members of the Empire. The Empire is all white. It is all male. The Rebellion isn't. Most of the white actors in the sequels are locked in by the initial 1976 casting in terms of family members and role re-creation. From 1980 most new major characters are minorities or aliens, aside from the Emperor and Liam Neeson.
In fact I'd argue that the prequels are among the most racially diverse films I've ever seen. It would be easy to bring up the issue of diveristy in minority and non-American films, but I'm not silly enough to make a case for Star Wars on the notion that other films are worse, don't worry!
"If I crib from, say, Stepin Fetchit or Leni Riefenstahl I might be drawing on dubious and discomfiting sources and might expect to have to defend my choices."
Yes, but you're making an assumption about what films are being referenced. Because of the way you view Jar Jar (again, a way others do not), you might incorrectly assume that his portrayal is based on a certain type. I think Lucas does draw on Riefenstahl, incidentally, for the omninous scene toward the end foreshadowing the creation of the Empire. It depends on what you reference and how. I'm not sure many would have a problem with the Riefenstahl sequence in Clones, since in the context of the series it is coded for "evil."
"All leads excepting two are white (North American or British)"
The human leads, yes. Not surprisingly, considering most of them are locked into casting choices from 1976. But it's interesting to see who gets placed where, how the alien characters are used and so forth. It's the white characters, after all, who are evil. The good characters are led militarily by a woman and an alien, and led spiritually by a black man and an alien. As we are discussing primarily the prequels when the racist claims come up, the only new white character who wasn't locked in by the original films' casting is Liam Neeson. And I suppose that useless flunky Sio Bibble, if we're going to be meticulous.
If on the other hand you want me to say the primarily white American composition of the core group of protagonists is locked into the realities of the Hollywood system in 1976 then yes, I'm with you all the way. I'm not sure FOX would have given Lucas funding for Star Wars if the human leads weren't white. What is more relevant, I feel, is that beginning with Empire in 1980, the characters Lucas added when he wrote his own check are primarily minorities and aliens. Again, the only white character who didn't have to be white is Liam Neeson, and I'm not sure I can consider casting a single major white man over four films a sign of the crushing white patriarchal orthodoxy.
"Darth Vader is coded black and voiced by an African American actor when evil, barring one scene filmed after the initial criticism was raised."
Again, I've demonstrated why this argument shows the racism of the proponent. Just out of curiosity, was the "initial criticism" raised prior to Empire's release? I really don't know, I was a kid at the time. That raises another interesting idea - if we are to assume there are racist depictions in the alien characters in the Star Wars films, and that this is necessarily a bad thing that may have a material effect on viewers, then might we assume that some of the films' positive depictions have had good material effects? Does the strong depiction of Leia to a generation of children have a bearing on the wider acceptance of female equality now that those children are grown than was around in 1977? Do the depictions in Star Wars materially affect the culture aside from a consumer perspective?
And depending on how we answer that question, we must consider whether the racist depiction of alien characters (if they indeed are racist) have more or less impact than the positive depictions of minority characters such as Mace Windu, and how this may affect the current generation of child viewers. If Jar Jar is indeed a racial stereotype that modern children are likely completely unfamiliar with, is Jar Jar a damaging presence next to Mace Windu, the crucial heroic role of the Bail Organa in the third prequel, the Indian queen in Clones and so forth?
Do the glottal clicks of the Geonosians undermine for impressionable child viewers the integrationist theme of the heroes and the white homogenous patriachy of the Empire? Is the possibility of racist undertones to some of the CGI characters dangerous for child viewers, or is it merely an intellectual past-time for the adults?
"Imperial stormtroopers, which outnumber officers, are brown skinned males"
You assume the stormtroopers are brown-skinned based on the clones. You don't yet know the clones and stormtroopers are the same thing. And even if they are - by your Vader argument above we must accept that the stormtroopers are "coded white." No?
"There are approximately four females, all white (oops, save one), of note in the galaxy"
It's interesting though that aside from Zam they are all in positions of leadership, though. There's a bald woman in the Senate who presumably wields considerable power and influence, although we don't meet her in the narrative, and of course the Jedi Council by its nature is "of note" and contains several females.
"All aliens in leadership positions are males"
Yes, but the ultimate head of the Rebellion to whom they report is a woman. It'd be interesting to do a gender-based interpretation of Star Wars. Outside of Ewoks, Tuskin raiders and those ones with the two head tentacles, do we ever see an alien female?
"All those in the rebellion speak English (north American)"
Like R2, Chewbacca and Nien Numb, you mean? And should we categorize Ackbar's Churchill impression as more evidence of racism? What about Yoda's Muppetism?
"All but one human Jedi is white (and male)"
Of the Jedi not locked in by the 1976 casting most are alien. And again, they all report to Sam Jackson. We also see a fair number of female Jedi in the prequels, fighting alongside the males as equals. I could be mistaken, but I think the action figure gender ratio of Jedi Council dolls for Clones is 50:50 incidentally.
"Aliens coded primitive (spears, loincloths) utilize non-english/western/northern phonemes and in some cases languages; excepting the Gungans and Neimoidians"
I'm not sure you can say this about the Ewoks. I'd also argue that exceptions in this sort of thing rather disprove the rule. Instead, we have basically the Tuskin raiders and the Geonosians. That's two for two, and the Geonosians aren't even shown as primitive (they have advanced weapons, create the Death Star and so forth).
Now, if we consider that any time a subtitles are used the speaker is a villain, then you've got an argument forming. But it is in itself not an argument, but rather something to be processed in the larger context of the films. Out of context it appears troubling. In the context of an integrationist fairy tale, one in which alien languages must be kept to a bare minimum due to the nature of the assumed audience, the alien languages must be reserved for characters with scant screentime. Because of the nature of the stories, cameo characters tend to be evil and, therefore, speakers of alien languages tend to be evil. All of which is highly questionable out of context but wholly defensible within it.
"Jar Jar recalls unsettling representations from past films"
For some viewers, who can't seem to agree on what representations those are.
"Nute Gunray cribs speech patterns from openly racist serials"
He appears to, but then displays behavior or physical characteristics that matches no known racial stereotypes. Unless we assume his big, round eyes are meant to play into his militarized trade aspect as a racist portrayal of Westerners. That's another interesting discussion. Does Star Wars present stereotyped images of the West? More specifically, caucasian men, who as a group seem to want to dominate and oppress, acting mainly through physical violence? Does Star Wars contain racist depictions of everyone?
"Mon Mothma may be the only female never shown in chains"
Ah, but Leia and Padme escape their chains without male help to successfully fight back against their jailer, so we might more accurately read this as female empowerment than male fantasy.
"All love-relationships are between white heterosexual human couples"
Considering we see only one romance per trilogy this is difficult to make into a convincing case - especially since the racial composition of the prequel romance is necessarily linked to one member of the original romance. Much more interesting and troubling is the notion that good characters can't have sex.
"You honestly expect me to pony up stats and quotes while you throw terms like idiocy and stupidity about and claim Star Wars isn't worth a Google search."
What I expect is that in a debate you will provide evidence and construct a case. Instead of saying, "I observe X and here is my reasoning," you are basically saying, "X is true and this other guy agrees with me. Ask him if you want reasoning."
"So there we go. In fact, when compared with the averages for film and TV in the US, Star Wars ends up, all five times, being a bit of an underdog."
This would depend on how we qualify "major characters," surely. Because in your examples above you're not very accurate (other women than Mon Mothma are not shown in chains, we actually do see minority female Jedi and so on). Certainly Clones has a more diverse cast than just about every other mainstream US film this year.
Look, we're just going around in circles. I'm sure you're an intelligent, friendly guy who's perhaps locked into an analysis of a text that doesn't easily support that analysis. And I'm sure you feel the same way about me. I doubt we're going to convince each other - I know if I don't take the time to do scads of academic research you won't buy my arguments, and I certainly won't buy yours if they don't take the text itself for primary evidence. So maybe we should just agree to let this trail off. Maybe we can bitch about The Phantom Menace together or something. |
|
|
