Political Correctness run haywire - Fox cancels Charlie Chan (1 Viewer)

[Chris Lockwood]

> "The Beverly Hillbillies". As a Southerner, I find the series both insensitive and regionalist.

Actually, if you watch the show, the Clampetts were shown as more intelligent than the other characters.

 

[JasenP]

While I final the decision disheartening, as long as the films are somehow easily available and not buried like Disney's Song Of The South I will be content.

 

[RobertR]

Is it just some small, overly-sensitive faction that complained?

It was an Asian-American activist group that (like other groups) presumes to speak for all Asian-Americans.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

StudioBrief mentioned the two groups whose links are in my message above.

Whenever a so-called "civil rights" organization claims victory when an act of censorship has been committed, simply because they were the offended party, I call that HYPOCRISY.

 

[Ken Chan]

Counting the days until TCM bans "Gone With the Wind" for the line, "Lawzy, we got to have a doctor! I don't know nothin' 'bout birthin' babies!"

At least Hattie McDaniel was black.

//Ken

 

[RobertR]

At least Hattie McDaniel was black.

Actually, that line was spoken by Butterfly McQueen.

 

[Chris Lockwood]

At least people can get Gone with the Wind on DVD. I don't know that the Chan films are out.

 

[John Watson]

As oomeone said , the Beverly Hillbillies were good folks - and most of the sententious pc bullies are immune to irony, and blind to their own hypocrisy.

As I said elsewhere on this subject :

the "sensitivity" of today's films (where it exists) is a social fascist ideology where wannabe Red Guards and de-facto Brown Shirts get to bully everyone else, and line their own pockets at the same time.

they create a level of hypocrisy unknown in previous times, and the cult of victimization, that suffuses western society today

god forbid that the idiot citizens of this unracist unsexist utopian society should ever collide with reality. Or read a history book

why, they'd burst into tears, need trauma counsellors, and financial compensation from the State for the rest of their lives.

As for Charlie Chan, Tarzan, Show Boat, etc, bring 'em on! The rest of us can handle them.

 

[Jack Briggs]

John, it is precisely that kind of post which threatens to derail a very delicate conversation. Rein in your rhetoric. JB

 

[Robert Crawford]

Looks like Fox has amended that last paragraph in the popup window and is saying that positive feedback from their subscribers will influence their decision to schedule the Charlie Chan films again. So any member that's doesn't agree with Fox's actions in this matter, needs to write them a respectful letter that they should rescheduled these films again.




Crawdaddy

 

[Chris Lockwood]

> What, they're so incompetent they'd botch it to begin with? It's not difficult. Robbery Homicide Division had a diverse cast including an Asian.

I didn't say not casting certain ethnic groups was the right way to go, just that the casting people might use reasoning like that. Or maybe they don't think about who lives in the city where the show is set.

Not casting people probably comes off as less offensive than portraying them in the wrong way. It wouldn't be the first time that people said they're aren't enough X on TV, then when more X characters were cast, people didn't like the way they were portrayed. Look at the miniseries Kingpin for an example.

 

[Greg_S_H]

Or Sopranos, which had a segment of the Italian community up in arms over the portrayal.

 

[Ken Chan]

Not casting people probably comes off as less offensive than portraying them in the wrong way. It wouldn't be the first time that people said they're aren't enough X on TV, then when more X characters were cast, people didn't like the way they were portrayed.

This isn't a Hobson's choice. You don't fix invisible casting with offensive, stereotypical casting. Cast them in regular, non-offensive roles (although that might require actual effort). Do enough of that, and then they can be bad people too. But if the overwhelming majority of portrayals is negative, can you really fault any particular group for being ticked off?

Of course, just because some group is ticked off doesn't necessarily mean something should be banned. But sometimes you have overly-sensitive corporations without a backbone. That's a whole 'nother problem.

//Ken

 

[Robert Crawford]

Did any of you that disagreed with Fox's action ever write them an email to let them know how you feel about this issue?





Crawdaddy

 

[Chris Lockwood]

> This isn't a Hobson's choice. You don't fix invisible casting with offensive, stereotypical casting. Cast them in regular, non-offensive roles (although that might require actual effort). Do enough of that, and then they can be bad people too. But if the overwhelming majority of portrayals is negative, can you really fault any particular group for being ticked off?

Again, I'm not saying the casting is the way it should be, just speculating on what might be happening.


> But if the overwhelming majority of portrayals is negative, can you really fault any particular group for being ticked off?

Yeah, but there are even complaints about people being cast in a role like a maid, which is an honest, legal job that nobody should be ashamed to play. It does provide a real job for an actor.

Don't forget the Cosby Show from the 1980s; people actually complained about the Huxtables being a doctor and a lawyer (even though the characters were rarely shown working). But if they had been written as say a gas station attendant and a janitor, somebody would've complained about them being in lower-level jobs.

 

[Rob Gardiner]

Robert,

I sent Fox a nice little note asking them to put them on the air again, either with a disclaimer or late at night.

 

[Paul Drake]

Did any of you that disagreed with Fox's action ever write them an email to let them know how you feel about this issue?

You bet, and then some. I have e-mailed them daily, snail mailed letters to the top 5 Fox Movie Channel execs, and placed a phone call to their VP of Public Relations.

In all of the above I have been very careful to be respectful, but firm in my points. The VP was a cordial gentleman who showed me the same respect I showed him. He obviously had heard from many, many people concerning this.

I also left a message with USA Today after their paper had some glaring inaccuracies in an article about the cancellation. The article stated that the Chan actors were made up with buck teeth and yellow facepaint. Both are very false. One of my points with the Fox VP is the amount of false information being spread about the characterizations in these films. Other falsehoods are that Chan was portrayed as "subservient" (polite,yes, but he was always persistent and didn't back down) and that he shuffled (not evident in a single Fox film). Despite what others articles claim, he didn't repeatedly use the phrases "Ah, so" and "Confucious say" (his catch phrases were "Thank you so much" and "contradiction please")

I sometimes think people are using the Peter Sellers character in "Murder By Death" (a hilarious satire/movie in its own right) and assuming that every Oriental film detective was portrayed that way.

I certainly don't know for sure, but based on the firestorm that this has caused, I would guess the films will be back fairly soon.

 

[Greg_S_H]

About the only knock I can see against the films is that a non-Asian was chosen to play the lead role. This is unfortunate and wouldn't fly today, but everything else about the series was very respectful from the entries I've seen. Chan spoke in colloquialisms, but he was respected by the other characters, and was almost always right. Also, his sons were played by Asian actors and were both very American in speech and attitude. That had to be stereotype-breaking in its own right. I hope, at the very least, that Sen Yung and Keye Luke are honored for their work.

I am debating whether to send a message supporting the marathon. My cable service doesn't carry Fox Movie Channel, so I'm not sure if I should have a say in the matter.

 

[Paul Drake]

I am debating whether to send a message supporting the marathon. My cable service doesn't carry Fox Movie Channel, so I'm not sure if I should have a say in the matter.

Hi Greg,

Although you don't receive this channel, please ask yourself if:

1. Fox's actions trouble you from a conceptual point of view (ie does this strike you as an overreaction, unfair, etc.). Put another way, do you think most viewers are intelligent enough to tell the difference between reality and a 65 year old movie and should be allowed to make their own judgement/choices about these movies.

2. Are you concerned that this action will set a precedent which will lead to many more movies, TV shows becoming unavailable for future generations to enjoy?
For example, if NAATA et al succeed in getting Chan off the air, then the anti-Sopranos forces are going to have a lot more ammunition the next time they go after HBO.

If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then I would suggest that you do have a say in this matter. The issues here go way beyond Chan. They strike at the very fundamental rights we have as Americans to be able watch these films without censorship.

Yes, the anti-Chan forces have a right to speak their objections about these films (assuming they actually have watched them and can provide specific examples of their concerns). But they don't have the right to stop the rest of us from enjoying them.

 

[RobertR]

Part of the irony I see in this is that the same edition of the Los Angeles Times that had the story about protecting people's sensibilities on Fox (based, of course, on subjective criteria) also had a story about how much a director was bitching about the MPAA's ratings criteria, which is also an attempt to "protect" people's sensibilities using subjective criteria.