Friday, July 20, 2007

Rob Schneider: Bringing yellowface back

I don’t go around looking to get offended, particularly on behalf of other ethnic groups. But I saw some shit today that made me sick, angry and depressed.

Don’t ask me why I thought Adam Sandler’s new flick, “I Now Pronounce You Chuck & Larry,” would have a few laughs in it. (It doesn’t.) But I wasn’t prepared to see Rob Schneider doing a Japanese caricature that turns back Hollywood’s clock 50 years.

We’re talking overbite and goofy glasses. We’re talking Earl Scheib skin tinting. And, of course, “ring” is pronounced ling.

Who was supposed to laugh at this?

We all know Rob Schneider hasn’t been funny in 15 years. (The Copy Guy sketches burned up all the comedy fuel in his comedy fuel tank.) Schneider must give excellent handjobs, or else why would Adam Sandler keep putting him in movies?

Better question: Are Asian Americans gonna tolerate this bullshit?

Please, somebody, call Mr. Schneider to account... just so I can hear him defend himself by saying he’s got Filipino ancestry and that makes him Asian so he’s entitled to do yellowface shtick.

I want to hear him say that.

Where y’all at, Sansei? What you gon’ do? Put the chopsticks down and RIOT, you meek motherfuckers!

And when you’re finished going all “Hai Karate” on Schneider, drag Mickey Rooney’s carcass out of the old-folks home and apply a little more foot-to-ass therapy. (Or have you forgotten “Breakfast at Tiffany’s”?)

Go ’head... it’ll make you feel good, my brothers and sisters from the Orient. And you know what? Whitey will respect you for it.

You don’t see him trying to pull that blackface crap anymore, do you?

Oh, wait... What the hell is this here? (HT: Racialicious.)

65 comments:

SJ said...

I'd rather watch Carlos Mencia than Rob Schneider.

Which says a lot.

Anonymous said...

I haven't seen it but the movie's whole concept also seems to reek of homophobia, too. Ick!

Undercover Black Man said...

^ Yeah, and then there's that...

Adam Sandler's basically got the sense of humor of a 13-year-old.

Dougfp said...

^ Having the sense of humor of a 13-year old is, unfortunately, why he makes $20 mil a picture.

Jetpacks said...

sj brings up Mencia, who I think does all sorts of (shitty) ethnic impersonations.

I'm sure some sort of stoned brotherhood formed long ago at SNL, where both Adam and Rob, in a drunken moment of bonding, pledged to one another, "If I ever make it big, bro - you're coming along for the ride." (Reminds me of the Eddie Murphy/Arsenio Hall alliance. Or Spade/Farley - et al.)

So now we get two 13 year olds for the price of one. Oh, and let's toss in the King of Queens guy, who only recently disppeared for not long enough.

On a side but related note, I recently saw a Vietnamese comedian on Comedy Central. 90% of his act was making fun of his mother's thick accent and his own culture. Hopefully he'll grow out of that. Henry Cho started the same way, but his act has been polished now to where most of his material is universal without appealing to stereotypes.

Doctor Memory said...

Ever time I'm ever tempted to think a slightly kind thought about Adam Sandler (basically ever time the Hanukkah Song comes on the radio), I remind myself that Rob Schneider's "career" is entirely his fault. Then the hate returns.

DeAngelo Starnes said...

doctor memory - hilarious!

It is unfortunate that sophomoric humor makes so damn much money because none of it is watchable. Or remotely funny. Or socially redeeming.

When his tv show was on the skids, Richard Pryor said tv is for retarded people. That's not fair to the retarded but it certainly says something about low bar humor has to hurdle to be successful to the American public.

Maybe that's why the Administration can sell a war, presidential privilege, and the like to the public - and get away with it.

Thordaddy said...

So doing "yellowface" is terribly offensive and beneath the incredibly high standards of Hollywood, but Ang Lee writing and directing a movie about gay cowboys in Montana is the epitome of cultural art?

Come on Mr. Mills, since when did Hollywood have to follow an ideological script?

Undercover Black Man said...

^ Ang Lee didn't write it.

Thordaddy said...

Mr. Mills,

You're right about Lee not writing the script which makes the movie's success and Lee's exaltation all the more inexplicable. What does a man from Taiwan know about gay cowboys in Montana from the 1800's?

Again, why is "yellowface" offensive, but Lee directing a gay cowboy film to be lauded?

S.O.L. said...

thordaddy,

If these things have to be explained to you ...

Seriously, the so-called gay cowboy movie wasn't an airhead, homophobic comedy for 11-year-old boys but a moving story about two people who were trying to find love in a sometimes cruel world. It just so happened that the two people in love were gay.

Them being gay wasn't the point. I'm not saying it was a great film but it was certainly a serious film that tackled a fairly universal theme about love and tolerance. A theme, I might add, with which an immigrant director with a unique artistic vision might have a little bit of insight.

I think we can all safely say that Adam Sandler's new film isn't real strong on theme.

"Brokeback Mountain" was as much about being gay in America as invading Iraq was about 9/11. But I have a feeling that the whole "metaphor for life" thing is gonna be a tad bit over your head.

Thordaddy said...

s.o.l.

LOL! Are you kidding me with that spiel?

"Brokeback Mountain" was lauded for one reason and one reason only and it wasn't because of Lee's cinematic genius and beautiful camera shots of the Montana country side or the "universal theme about love and tolerance." You can't really believe that, can you?

Really though, since when did Hollywood follow an ideological script?

S.O.L. said...

Thordaddy, I'm still confused as to how you can't clearly see the difference between Ang Lee's directing "Brokeback' and Rob Schneider's viciously racist portrayal in "Chuck and Larry."

Your question couldn't be more obtuse.

And by the way, Lee just directed the film. It was written by Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossana based on a short story by E. Annie Proulx. In other words, directors aren't the only people responsible for making movies. Someone writes the script. And heck, not a gay person among that group. Go freaking figure.

And I repeat. It wasn't about being gay. The being gay part was supposed to be besides the point. If some folks made it the point, so be it. But that's not what it was about.

Now if you want to explore the bigger themes of "Chuck and Larry," I can't help you there.

But you go ahead and hide behind Hollywood and your claim of its ideological bent. 'Cause we're all trying to make left wing commie gay movies, ya know. Just like the left wing media conspiracy. Wouldn't ya know I've been part of both?

When you say shit like that, it only says that you have an agenda and that I was right about you missing the metaphors.

S.O.L. said...

thordaddy,

it wasn't just the "yellowface" by the way that's offensive. It was the racist portrayal of the Japanese as buck-toothed, slanty-eyed, lispers. I mean, really duh and double fucking duh.

Not sure what that has to do with gay cowboys.

I hope you're sitting down cause I have some big news for you.

Gay cowboys exist!

There I said it.

Don't get up yet. There's more. They still exist. In fact, gay people are everywhere!

And you know what? They are not all fay guys with limp wrists and tight jeans who say "darling" and listen to Judy Garland. Ain't that something?

And yet in your "liberal bastion" that is Hollywood, this is how they are still portrayed in film and television.

"Brokeback" is a decidedly rare example where they are shown as pretty normal folk, where the gay part isn't as important as their humanity. You don't have to be gay to empathize with love and loss, do you? You would have to ditch your prejudice, though.

Undercover Black Man said...

Just to add to S.O.L.'s fusillade...

"Brokeback" afforded dignity to the human person; yellowface attacks the dignity of a whole class of people.

I've been meaning to bring up Eddie Murphy's performance as a Chinese character in "Norbit." Interesting contrast to Schneider here... and I wouldn't call Murphy's performance "yellowface."

The makeup was naturalistic, not mocking. Same with the accent. Crucially, Murphy's performance wasn't intended to evoke laughs by the diminishing the dignity of Asians. Murphy was portraying a specific character... and it was his best piece of acting in an otherwise weird and off-putting flick.

Thordaddy said...

s.o.l. and Mr. Mills,

You find "yellowface" offensive and I find the normalization of homosexuality offensive. The only difference is that I don't need to violate my liberal principles while you do.

Again, since when did Hollywood have to follow a liberal script? It seems both of you are more disturbed by this reality than anything else?

BTW, how exactly is doing "yellowface" racist as opposed to being just somebody's artistic vision?

Also, isn't normalizing homosexuality much more damaging to our society than Rob Schneider doing "yellowface" in a movie?

Undercover Black Man said...

Also, isn't normalizing homosexuality much more damaging to our society than Rob Schneider doing "yellowface" in a movie?

Pardon my harshness of tone, Thordaddy, but that's the only useful thing you've said in this thread. That is a provocative question. And I can respect the sensibilities of those who resent the "normalizing" of homosexuality.

I can even agree that Schneider's yellowface shtick is, in the grand scheme of things, pretty trivial. Profoundly uncool, but trivial.

The thing is, homosexuality is an immutable element of human cultures. It is part of the human story. Is it "normalizing" homosexuality to write about it with honesty and compassion?

S.O.L. said...

UBM, sorry for the late-night fuscilade. :-)

Thordaddy,

Your agenda is finally spoken. You're just another hater. And I thought we might be getting somewhere.

Your blog says you are a man in search of truth. But you're not interested in the truth. You only want your version of it. How can anyone argue with such a closed mind?

What damages society is people who dress up prejudices as morality. What damages society is hatred, pure and simple.

Whether you want to acknowledge homosexuality or not, it exists and has existed for as long as humans have lived in organized societies. In this way for some people, it IS normal. There is nothing anyone can do to change this fact.

Ignorance and hatred diminish us all. And that's a fact.

S.O.L. said...

Honesty and compassion. What the world needs now.

As usual, David, you are much more eloquent than me. And I spelled fusillade wrong, too.

Dougfp said...

Hey, he's still a one-note paranoid, but I for one, welcome Thordaddy back. I especially enjoy how he never comments on any subject you raise unless it involves race or gay sex.

A real Renaisance man.

Thordaddy said...

s.o.l.,

Once again you fail you're own liberal principles of nondiscrimination and tolerance. You're hatred for normality is transformed into something noble. It would be laughable if it wasn't so destructive.

You're right that I am revulsed by homosexuality. It's actually the innate nature of the heterosexual to do so.

But in reality, it is your ideological acceptance of homosexuality and a homosexual's innate revulsion for heterosexuality that is the real damaging ethos in our society.

To claim something normal because it exists is pure sophistry.

It's one thing to treat homosexuals like human beings, but it's a whole other ball game when the YOUR reigning ideology reflects the homosexual nature and it seeks to dominate both public and private morality.

You need to realize that your ideology is rooted in hatred for normalcy and heterosexuality and both are essential ingredients for any society that wishes to survive.

But again, when did Hollywood have to follow an ideological script?

Dougfp said...

^ See? He just can't help it...

justjudith said...

it's the number one movie this weekend and i bet there will be few protests...

justjudith said...

wow, david! what a spirited debate. just what a blog should be. and even though you guys disagree -- way to keep it above par. i get people who just call me an idiot under anonymous...great.
i bow to your blogging greatness.

Thordaddy said...

justjudith,

Who do you expect to protest? Liberals...? Asians...? Who...? And under what principles will they protest? A protest is necessarily discriminatory and intolerant which would violate liberal first principles. That will leave out liberals in general and liberal Asians in particular as potential protestors unless they decide in this particular case to shuck their beliefs.

The only people that can take a principled stand against this movie are conservatives and I'm sure they will do it in the form of choosing not to see it at all. That's my protest.

justjudith said...

thordaddy -- just a figure of speech. the audience the movie is aimed at probably won't even notice the character could be perceived as offensive by anyone. and while i don't deal in strictly liberal vs conservative speak, i don't plan to see it either. so we're even.

Anonymous said...

Just a quick aside though.. Rob Schneider is an Asian American... (his grandmum is Philipino..)

Undercover Black Man said...

^ I pointed that out in my original post.

Lola Gets said...

Lord, help me. I thought that character was suposed to be Jewish!
Ahahahaha!
Oh well, racial comedy for all!
:)
L

Anonymous said...

A few things to add to your discussion. I've worked on a number of Happy Madison productions. Nice guys for the most part but if I weren't getting paid I'd never see any of their movies. Rob Schneider is indeed 1/2 Filipino. His mother is Filipino not just his grandmother. And David you ask "who was supposed to laugh at this?" Judging from the test screenings I attended, just about everybody. Even more disheartening was when some focus group memebers picked him as their favorite character for his "perfect portrayal the Japanese accent." Also, though he keeps his politics fairly quiet, Adam Sandler is a self confirmed right wing conservative as are almost all of his producing partners. Many of his fans are jingoistic and conservative and helped to make it the #1 movie last weekend. (David I'm sure you caught his none too sublte plug for Giuliani in there.) Question for Thordaddy: Does Adam Sandler "violate" his conservative philiosophy by producing a movie which promotes tolerance for the "normalcy" (however clumisily and perfuntorily) of the homosexual lifestyle?

Thordaddy said...

anonymous,

It is well known that Asians are not high in the liberal pecking order. In fact, Asians are second to none in terms of receiving intolerance and discrimination from the practitioners of nondiscrimination and tolerance. And for those of Asian descent, it is well known that the Japanese are not seen highly amongst a wide swath of the Asian world. Its dislike is manifest in its alliance with the Western world and rooted in deep racism.

To claim that Sandler is a right-winger and makes movies normalizing homosexuality shows that you have no idea what conservatism is and you are substantially to left. This is a liberal movie and Asians are currently acceptable targets. It was the white Western world that reached out an allied with Japan. That alliance is 60 years strong.

Anonymous said...

Thordaddy you are quite adept at judging people you've never met and movies you've never seen. You think you can sum up someone's politics based on a single issue or two. You must be the only true conservative in your own mind. I'm glad I now have you to tell me what my political POV is. It's also interesting that even though I've known and worked with Adam for nearly 10 years you can tell me what his politics are. How many liberals were literally cheering the invasion of Iraq as Sandler and his cohorts were? Does that violate his credentials as a liberal now? A couple of other questions for you. Do you consider Rupert Murdoch to be a true conservative? Are there any violations of your true conservative principles in any of the programming he approves on Fox? Just asking Thordaddy.

Undercover Black Man said...

Let me squeeze in a "thanks" and a "welcome," Anon.

Adam Sandler's politics make no difference to me. But to present a straight-up old-fashioned anti-Asian caricature... without subverting it or otherwise mitigating it, or even commenting on it... that's uncool.

Thordaddy said...

Mr. Mills,

You must understand that discrimination against Asians is acceptable to many ideological liberals.

Anon,

To claim that one is a right-wing conservative- and I'm speaking of "conservative" in the traditional American sense- while making movies that normalize homosexuality either means your definition of conservative is a liberal one and therefore not constrained by any traditional paramenters or your definition of conservative is only in the most abstract sense.

Undercover Black Man said...

You must understand that discrimination against Asians is acceptable to many ideological liberals.

Thordaddy, I'll grant you that the collective academic, entrepreneurial and professional success of Asian immigrants and Asian Americans confounds the normal U.S. leftist race dogma (i.e., that non-whites need special favors from the state in order to compete with whites).

Anonymous said...

I'm new to this blog (linked from Racialicious.com) so I've never read anything written by thordaddy before. I'd like to say that thordaddy comes across as partly insane, and simultaneously laughable and pitiable.

As for Rob Schneider: he's never been funny. He's D-list to the core, if that. The fact that he's half Filipino means nothing and its a moronic argument that "Well I have Filipino heritage and that's Asian, so me mocking Japanese for money, of course, is perfectly justified."

Rather amazingly (note sarcasm) Filipino in fact does not = Japanese, and some Filipinos don't even particularly consider themselves "Asian" in the first place, but of course in a movie like this any ounce of cultural know-how would weigh too heavy on the average viewers' small and sensitive "brains."

Also, I find it sad that in a movie with such a blatantly racist caricature of an Asian person, costar Kevin James is married to and has children with an Asian American woman, and writer Alexander Payne was formerly married to Korean American actress Sandra Oh. And Tila Tequila, also an Asian American female "celebrity," was in this movie for, what else, T & A.

This is in keeping with the typical white American male ideology that Asian women can be sexy little playthings but Asian men will always be fair comedic game and will be reviled, caricatured and unfailingly perceived as foreign.

Unsurprisingly, white American males were this movie's target audience, and it looks like they came out on in droves to see it.

In any case, props to Undercover Black Man for bringing this racial caricature up when, actually, I haven't seen any Asian American bloggers do so yet.

Ike said...

I watched the movie yesterday. (Thank goodness for free passes, at least that alleviates SOME of the guilt). My Latino friend laughed. I glared. I told him it was a racist Asian stereotype. He said, "Oh, sorry. I thought he was just supposed to be retarded."

Thank you, Rob Schneider and the directors of this movie, for showing the world that Asian-ness is akin to being retarded.

So Rob - according to you and your racist little movie, your mom is a retard and whore. And Kevin - your wife is a retard and whore, and your kids as well. Just because of their race.

Seriously. I know you guys don't give two shits what people think so long as you're making money, but hopefully you actually love your families?

/sigh... I wish there was a way to actually tell them that to their faces.

Kai said...

First time commenter via Racialicious...but, um, not a lot of Asian readers around here, huh? This is the first I'd heard about this portrayal, but I'm gonna try to drum up some noise among Asian American activists. In fact I just attended a meeting of Asian American media activists in NYC on Monday and have some appropriate avenues in mind already...

Thanks to our host Undercover Black Man for pointing out this issue. We'll see what happens.

Peace.

Undercover Black Man said...

Welcome to the new readers from Racialicious. I tried to urge Carmen to see this flick with her own eyes, and she was like "Life's too short." I don't blame her.

Anon, that's news to me about Kevin James's wife. Somebody, somewhere along the line, should've just said, "Hey, we got to do better."

Thordaddy said...

anon say,

I'd like to say that thordaddy comes across as partly insane, and simultaneously laughable and pitiable.

Ah... The wonderful world of righteous liberalism. Never too quick to display their intolerance and discriminatory tastes when necessary.

Only in the world of liberals -where principles are seen as quaint and provincial- can a guy who makes a juvenile movie that normalizes homosexuality and stereotypes Japanese be called a right-wing conservative.

There is a reason why Asians have not, as of yet, been lured by the liberal's racial grievance industry. There is also a reason why not too many Asians will jump to the forefront to decry the stereotyping of the Japanese.

First, the Japanese have a very traditional culture and their men are not prone to whining like little honeys as are most of the American minorities who have their precious little feelings hurt. Secondly, amongst Asians, Japan is seen as overtly superior and elitist. This is in part due to its alliance with the West. Meaning, many Asians look down upon Japan because they hold deep racial prejudice against white Europeans.

Now Anon, I'm sorry these uncomfortable generalized realities don't fit in your ideological precepts, but it is what it is.

Jeremy Pierce said...

This isn't exactly new for Rob Schneider. He and the rest of the SNL cast used to do this kind of thing all the time in the late 80s and early 90s. Do you remember the Asian game show sketch? Do you remember the fortune cookie sketch? I've got to wonder what Jackie Chan thought of some of the ideas that tried to put forward when he hosted. I haven't watched the show much lately, but my understanding is that things haven't changed much.

Anonymous said...

Thordaddy, thanks for playing "Completely Missing The Point". And thanks for failing to answer any of the questions I put to you. Allow me to answer your charges. I did not call Sandler a right wing conservative, I pointed out that's what he calls himself. Also, knowing him a bit, I think he's probably as uncomfortable with homosexuality as you are. The movie is more 3's COMPANY than BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN. According to your logic Adam is a liberal because the movie thinks it's ok to make for of the Japanese with a silly racial cariacature. The movie also contains all of the usual gay stereotypes for yucks from homophobes. Also makes a lot of fun of fat people. Also, in his last movie CLICK, Rob Schneider did a similar silly racial caricature of and Arab prince. Are Arabs and fat people also groups that the typical liberal thinks it's OK to make fun of. CLICK also makes fun of fat people. How about blacks, hispanics, gays and, once again, fat people? LONGEST YARD anyone? How about Hawaiins? 50 FIRST DATES with Rob in the offiensive role again. Or hermaphodites? 50 FIRST DATES again. Budhists? Now there's a group typical liberals can't stand. That was a really sensitive portrayal of them in ANGER MANAGEMENT. Oh and what about the gays. CHUCK & LARRY despite it's perfunctory message of tolerance has plenty of fun at the expense of gays through stereotypes. And nearly every other movie in the Sandler "canon" deride gays with offensive humor. One movie where he says maybe gay people aren't all that disgusting and they deserve to be treated with a little common courtesy and now he's a flaming liberal! Now Anon, I'm sorry these uncomfortable facts don't fit in your ideological precepts, but Sandler's filmography is what it is. Thanks again for speaking about what you don't know you pompous self appointed genius! Don't let ignorance of the given subject ever slow you down. I know you won't.

PS-Could you explain that whole bit about how other Asians view the Japapnese again? You've only done it 2 or 3 times now and it's just starting to sink in about what that has to do with non-Asian Adam Sandler supposedly being a liberal. I think you should include that not very interesting opinion in every post you put on any blog anywhere. It could be kind of your signature. Very hip.

Thordaddy said...

Anon,

Please point out where I said Sandler was a liberal? In fact, I said that his movie was a liberal movie. Also, I said that Sandler is not a conservative in any traditional sense. I can claim to be a black ballerina, but that does not make it so. Actions must justify claims and I'm not sure where you've shown Sandler's actions that support his self-described label of conservative. I think his movies show that he is in fact very liberal.

I actually know quite a few liberals that supported the resumption of the first Gulf War. Christopher Hitchens comes to mind as do many of the neoconservatives.

As for Asians in general and Japanese in particular, think of Cho and the Virginia Tech massacre and then spend some time at a Chinese forum. Ask yourself why the massacre at Virginia Tech has been all but erased from the public consciousness? Ask yourself what effects a Japanese alliance with the West has on other Asians? Ask yourself why liberals haven't pulled Asians into the fold of victimhood?

As for your question about Murdoch, of course he is not a traditional conservative any more than Bloomberg, Schwarzenegger, or President Bush are conservatives. Apparently, you are not knowledgeable in regards to conservative thought?

Anonymous said...

So Christopher Hitchens (the man who smacked down Mother Teresa) is a liberal as well as the neo-cons. This time that is what you called them, "liberals", not "non traditional conservatives" which I would accept. I even accept the non-traditional conservative label you tag Sandler with, fine. We have one agreement. But Hitchens (a former liberal) is actually what you claim to be on your blog, a truth seeker but certainly not a liberal. That is why neither the left nor the right can ever count on him for an argument. He may not be a traditional conservative but he is not a traditional liberal either.

My examples from the Sandler filmography prove that these films do not use any modes of traditional liberal thought. Other than CHUCK & LARRY's (a movie you judge based on hearsay-way to support your claims with inaction) one example you call his movies liberal with no examples. To paraphrase your idiotic example, I can stand in a garge and call myself a car but that does not make it so.

As for Cho, V-Tech U decided to include him in their memorial service for the victims. That ultra traditional liberal action turned my stomach. It does, however, shoot down your claims of liberals not bringing Asians into the victimhood fold. More extreme examples of inclusion into victimhood are few and far between.

Please provide your definition of a traditional conservative as well as traditional conservatism itself. I am interested to know.

Thordaddy said...

Anon,

I think you can generally distinguish between liberal, conservative and traditionalist, at least in the American sense, by how each person views homosexuality.

A radical liberal will assert the normality of homosexuality and work towards equalizing it with heterosexuality. He does this by suppressing certain freedoms cherished by the whole of society.

A conservative may or may not be against the normalizing of homosexuality. He is generally neutral as it pertains to the issue of homosexuality. He may hold personal bias against homosexuality, but he rarely expresses public disproval. Adam Sandler would be such a "conservative" as he very much seeks to "conserve" society's status quo which is represented by an ever increasing tolerance towards normalizing homosexuality.

A Traditionalist recognizes homosexuality as an abnormal and destructive orientation and may seek to suppress many or all attempts to normalize it through public action.

As for Cho and his inclusion in the memorial for the slain, it is clear that the university has a large representation amongst liberals and this would explain his inclusion although he was the mass murderer. But, it was also clearly conveyed by Cho pre-mass murder spree that he felt subject to great amounts of discrimination and intolerance. It should also be noted that he never referenced conservatives, rednecks, racists or white males, but only rich and very liberal students that cared more about material goods and raunchy parties than anything else.

The reason the university buried the murderer with the victims was a subconscious admission of guilt in the way they preached but didn't act towards Cho.

Ryne said...

wow man, just saw the movie tonight, got home, and was about to post on my own blog. i decided to search online to see if anyone else shared the same sentiment i had regarding schneider's performance and yours came right up.

i'd write my own lengthy post here but i'm saving it for my own blog...i'd just like to say it's pretty sad that he, a half-filipino man, would piss all over the asian actors before him who gave him the chance to act on the big screen in crappy roles.

Undercover Black Man said...

Ryne, welcome. I read your post before I even so your comment here, and I think it's a bulls-eye.

Anonymous said...

I've been reading this for entertainment (groovy, thanks!) until I saw the Alexander Payne reference. I didn't even know this was at some point a Payne-Taylor script. Lord. That should explain a lot. Now I'll probably see this stupid film just to see if I can see the ghost of the Payne version.
-Renee

SJ said...

I don't really see how one can compare Brokeback Mountain and "yellowface". One humanizes a minority as "normal", while the other makes a caricature out of a very small minority.

"Traditionalists" die out over time anyway...at one point in America a traditionalist was someone who didn't accept the negroes. Thordaddy would probably get disgusted if his daughter/son decided to date/marry someone outside the white race, though such attitudes are now frowned upon as a whole in this country.

Similarly, it's only a matter of time before homosexuals are accepted around the world more. So many (mostly Western) countries around the world allow same-sex civil unions at the very least. Heck, even Israel does!

My main concern about the right-wing has always been about how they demonize minorities. The blacks, the Latinos, the Japanese, the Homosexuals, the Muslims, and on and on...just get over it already. Social mores change with time. Deal with it.

SJ said...

Woah woah woah woah woah. It's written by the same guy who wrote one of my favorite movies of all time, Sideways? What is going on here??

Anonymous said...

Yeah. Just found this.

Incredible. But it stands to reason--imagine Election in the hands of someone else.

-Renee

S.O.L. said...

Thordaddy

More than once, you’ve relied on the canard about how we “liberals” are violating our own principles by calling you out on your prejudice. This is circular logic in the same way a dog chases his own tail. You ain’t getting nowhere, sir.

For starters, I would die for your right to say whatever the hell you want about gays or Asians or liberals. Just because I think you’re wrong and I say so, doesn’t mean I’m intolerant of you. The difference between us, and why I am more able to stand on my principles than you are yours, is that I understand that living in a country like ours, where freedom is valued over religion and dogma, means I have to accept everyone, no matter what they believe.

I don’t argue for homosexuality (I couldn’t care less about it one way or another), I argue for acceptance and compassion. Heck, I don’t have to understand why my husband’s cousin is gay, but I love him.

I’m not violating my principles by taking a stand against your point of view, even if I say it’s wrong for you to feel that way. I’m speaking out for the same reason you are. I’m not saying you’re wrong to feel the way you do – hey that’s between you and your own soul. But I can challenge your basic assumptions which don’t really have any basis in actual reality. That doesn’t mean I’m intolerant of you. For you to say that is an assumption not supported by the facts.

For your information, Hollywood doesn’t follow an ideological script. It follows money. So there goes another one of your straw man arguments.

You characterize homosexuality vs. heterosexuality as each one having “innate revulsion” for the other, but that's an extremely simplified reasoning. It's also a complete misreading of accepted, peer-reviewed science. Many who share your beliefs that homosexuality is immoral reject rational thought and science but the literature is out there – and it’s far more complete and compelling than studies that would support your point of view.

While gays are wired to be attracted to the same sex and it’s true they do not have desire for the opposite sex, to say that translates into “innate revulsion” is, again, making a broad leap of assumption. You can’t back it up with real science.

Normal is a strange word to use, I agree. But you’ve no greater right to its definition than I do. In 1942, my father was told Jews couldn’t be architects. He was told this by his high school guidance counselor. Slavery was “normal” once too. Claiming something as normal is pretty arrogant. What I said or hoped I made clear (if I didn’t, that’s on me) earlier was that to some people being Gay is normal. It’s their biology, the way they’re wired. It’s as normal to them as being hetero is to you. Sure, in order for a species to survive, we have to engage in heterosexual sex. It’s certainly a dominant human trait but there’s enough evidence (not anecdotal but scientific) that homosexuality has been a part of the human experience for as long as we've walked the Earth. It has survived this long so maybe it is part of our nature.


What’s a fact is that you can’t change biology. You might find homosexuality repulsive and you can feel free to reject it but if you say it hasn’t been a part of the human experience, then you’re just rejecting fact.

I’m curious as to what is it about homosexuality that has damaged our society? Not enough babies being born? Seriously, are we in danger of under-populating the world?

I'll say again that you do not seek truth as you say. You seek to spread your version of the truth. And then you spin, spin, spin until the facts say what you want them to say. You call someone out for their intolerance and arrogance as you yourself are demonstrating intolerance and arrogance.

It's pretty easy to see through it. I'd rather be on the side of compassion than blind dogma like you. No one will ever change your mind. You won't let yourself be confused by fact or truth.

Thordaddy said...

s.o.l. proclaims,

More than once, you’ve relied on the canard about how we “liberals” are violating our own principles by calling you out on your prejudice. This is circular logic in the same way a dog chases his own tail. You ain’t getting nowhere, sir.

It is merely an attempt to expose the fallaciousness of organizing society on the "principles" of nondiscrimination, tolerance and equality. You can't do it. But you can attempt to do through the use of force and suppression of people's fundamental rights.

For starters, I would die for your right to say whatever the hell you want about gays or Asians or liberals. Just because I think you’re wrong and I say so, doesn’t mean I’m intolerant of you. The difference between us, and why I am more able to stand on my principles than you are yours, is that I understand that living in a country like ours, where freedom is valued over religion and dogma, means I have to accept everyone, no matter what they believe.

You can't stand on "principles" that don't allow one to stand on principles. The "principles" of nondiscrimination, tolerance and equality are no principles at all, but rather abstract ideals that must be enforced by an unmatched powerful elite. You very much support this powerful elite and its attempt to enforce abstract ideals on the whole of society.

I don’t argue for homosexuality (I couldn’t care less about it one way or another), I argue for acceptance and compassion. Heck, I don’t have to understand why my husband’s cousin is gay, but I love him.

Like I said before, it is one thing to treat homosexuals as human beings, but it is an entirely different matter to normalize homosexuality and claim it the equal to heterosexuality. Such a claim is self-evidently FALSE and will always be so.

I’m not violating my principles by taking a stand against your point of view, even if I say it’s wrong for you to feel that way. I’m speaking out for the same reason you are. I’m not saying you’re wrong to feel the way you do – hey that’s between you and your own soul. But I can challenge your basic assumptions which don’t really have any basis in actual reality. That doesn’t mean I’m intolerant of you. For you to say that is an assumption not supported by the facts.

Your "stand" must be of a discriminatory and intolerant nature and not equal to other stands or else it is not a stand. Therefore, any attempt you make to take a "stand" will violate your liberal "principles." The only way out of such a conundrum is to change your principles so you are not forced to violate them.

For your information, Hollywood doesn’t follow an ideological script. It follows money. So there goes another one of your straw man arguments.

Again, I asked since when did Hollywood have to follow an ideological script? By protesting the "yellowface," the protestors are taking the "stand" that "yellowface" is not allowable in Hollywood. Why?

You characterize homosexuality vs. heterosexuality as each one having “innate revulsion” for the other, but that's an extremely simplified reasoning. It's also a complete misreading of accepted, peer-reviewed science. Many who share your beliefs that homosexuality is immoral reject rational thought and science but the literature is out there – and it’s far more complete and compelling than studies that would support your point of view.

Read any radical feminist website and the contempt and vitriol for men and child is for all to read. Do some perusal of homosexual websites and read the stories of wild and destructive promiscuity. Homosexual advocates have in fact been very successful in portraying homosexuality in a benign and simplistic way. They have been very successful in convincing the public that homosexuals are just like the rest of us only they are attracted to people of the same sex. This is a naive and provincial view and it is propagated by liberals and radical homosexuals.

While gays are wired to be attracted to the same sex and it’s true they do not have desire for the opposite sex, to say that translates into “innate revulsion” is, again, making a broad leap of assumption. You can’t back it up with real science.

There is certainly no credible scientific evidence to suggest that homosexuals are "wired" to be attracted to the same-sex. In fact, human beings aren't "wired" at all. The scientific consensus as of now is that some people may be pre-disposed to homsexuality and then their environment helps to manifest that disposition. But a true homosexual has to have both parts, attraction and revulsion, or else he/she are actually bisexual.

Normal is a strange word to use, I agree. But you’ve no greater right to its definition than I do. In 1942, my father was told Jews couldn’t be architects. He was told this by his high school guidance counselor. Slavery was “normal” once too. Claiming something as normal is pretty arrogant. What I said or hoped I made clear (if I didn’t, that’s on me) earlier was that to some people being Gay is normal. It’s their biology, the way they’re wired. It’s as normal to them as being hetero is to you. Sure, in order for a species to survive, we have to engage in heterosexual sex. It’s certainly a dominant human trait but there’s enough evidence (not anecdotal but scientific) that homosexuality has been a part of the human experience for as long as we've walked the Earth. It has survived this long so maybe it is part of our nature.

I'm not really concerned whether homosexuality is a part of our nature. Murder and rape are a part of our nature and therefore can be claimed to be normal. The question is whether homosexuality should be normalized and given equal footing with heterosexuality? Those who say it should show a destructive disregard for the preservation of our society. One need only look at those countries that are perpetually liberalizing in their attitudes towards homosexuality to see that those same countries are dying.

What’s a fact is that you can’t change biology. You might find homosexuality repulsive and you can feel free to reject it but if you say it hasn’t been a part of the human experience, then you’re just rejecting fact.

It doesn't matter whether its biology, abnormal genetic makeup or conscious behavior. The only thing that matters is whether the homosexual disposition is given equal footing and/or preference to that disposition that is mandated for our survival.

I’m curious as to what is it about homosexuality that has damaged our society? Not enough babies being born? Seriously, are we in danger of under-populating the world?

I believe all Western countries are below replacement levels. In a nutshell, that means the peoples of those Western countries are dying. Even in America, with a replacement level a little over 2.0, such a number is skewed by the baby-making machines that arrive via mass immgration. Also, because homosexuals are now the new untouchables, many people are feeling the wrath of oppression and suppression of basic fundamental rights like Freedom of Speech and Freedom to Associate.

I'll say again that you do not seek truth as you say. You seek to spread your version of the truth. And then you spin, spin, spin until the facts say what you want them to say. You call someone out for their intolerance and arrogance as you yourself are demonstrating intolerance and arrogance.

I don't claim to be a liberal, but rather, I understand that in the real world one must discriminate and be intolerant of many destructive and dangerous trends including the normalization of homosexuality and the attempts to equalize it with survival.

It's pretty easy to see through it. I'd rather be on the side of compassion than blind dogma like you. No one will ever change your mind. You won't let yourself be confused by fact or truth.

If entire peoples are dying and they are your peoples then your compassion rings hollow.

S.O.L. said...

Thordaddy.

I apologize for suggesting that you accused Hollywood of following an ideological script. You're right, there's no reason why they should. I don't support limits on creative or artistic freedom.

As for the rest of this stuff, like I said, you're not looking for truth. You're looking to spread your gospel. My compassion is forcing an abnormal behavior on people like you? You can't argue with that, just like you can't argue that taking a stand for the acceptance of all is discrimination.

Following your logic, you must then agree that banning abortion is wrong because it infringes on my rights and freedoms? Or do you have a new take on that one?

You're still chasing your tail. Good luck with that.

Capell said...

UBM, I've been "blogstalking" you for perhaps a month or so. I can't remember how I happened upon your site (probably through one of my astute and savvy friends). I've wanted to comment from jump, but have not for fear of mucking up the intelligent posts and comments. That said, I of course had to choose this post to comment on. Like another commenter, I did see the movie for free. That would be the only way I probably would have seen it. I was free to maintain the low expectations I have for pretty much every other Adam Sandler film I have seen. I won't lie, I did laugh at parts. However, there was the whole Rob Schneider problem (which I knew going in). All I have to say about that is he's the one that has to look his mama, his grandmama, and all of Filipino relatives in the eye and justify that. I got excited when I saw Ving Rhames, and when he "came out," I thought his character might bring some balance and masculinity to the portrayal of homosexuals. That hope was quickly dissolved. All that to say, if the characters had a modicum of depth and maintained a semblance of the original script, this movie could have been funny, and made a point. That's all.

Sorry to take up all this space, UBM.

S.O.L. said...

I suggest everyone skip this silly film and rent "Victor/Victoria" instead. You won't find a more frank, intelligent and funny film also happens to touch on the silliness of homophobia. Blake Edwards at his best, a film that was clearly made with compassion and yet didn't pull any punches where comedy is concerned. Great performances by Julie Andrews, the late great Robert Preston and James Garner.

Adam Sandler couldn't shine Blake Edwards' shoes.

Anonymous said...

Thordaddy, I was ready to just let all of our back and forth go and accept that we just disagree. Then you had to go and conflate homosexuality with rape and murder. You defend all of your other hateful blogging, go ahead and defend that choice of analogy. That ought to be good.

Also for those concerned that maybe Alexander Payne had received a lobotomy, take heart. The CHUCK & LARRY script has kicked around Hollywood for years. It was a concept based on a true story. Jon Favreau, among many, MANY other writers, also took a crack at it. Sandler and Co. simply purchased the Payne/Taylor script and then did their own thing with it. Virtually nothing of the Payne/Taylor script survived. To have his name taken off of it would have been throwing away a LOT of money. The kind of money I don't think a lot of people could say no to. Let's just hope to see him back in the director's chair soon.

Thordaddy said...

s.o.l.,

It's not a surprise that you would be unable to distinguish how we should treat homosexuals in our day-to-day, one-on-one interactions and how our society as a whole should organize society.

Liberals are trying to organize a society that treats homosexuality as normal and equal to heterosexuality. Such a society would inevitably see a decline in procreation and some would begin to die commensurate to how far they would be willing to convince society of the impossible.

Homosexuality can never be normal or equal to heterosexuality anymore more than life can be equal to death. Heterosexuality is normal. Normal has no meaning without heterosexuality. To say both homosexuality and heterosexuality are normal while proclaiming there equalness is irrational and defies all logic. They are self-evidently unequal and will always be, but that does not stop liberals from trying to force the impossible.

I defy you to tell me how homosexuality is normal in any way other than it exists. Such an answer means all things are normal which is to say nothing is normal. And I compel you to explain how homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. Once again, they are only equal when they don't mean anything.

These attempts to organize society around the normalization of homsexuality have been quite successful in Western Civilization and we're slowly dying for it.

Undercover Black Man said...

Capell: Welcome, and thanks for commenting. I hope you stick around for a while.

I was gonna leave the Ving Rhames thing alone, but yeah... when he started camping it up, it was like the actor saying "Don't take this seriously, y'all... I'm just pretending to be a faggot, don't get it twisted." In other words, it robbed the moment of whatever putative human truth it was supposed to have, because it wasn't about the character.

Thordaddy said...

Mr. Mills,

I caught a glimpse of the modeling show Tara Banks puts on for aspiring models. I believe it was a new set of girls and the first gig was to get naked and be painted in order to pose with naked male models emulating Adam and Eve. One girl who was more traditional-minded couldn't do it and so the photographer (almost certainly gay) demanded she leave the shoot.

What does this have to do with Rhames? Very simply, actors, actresses and models must continually degrade themselves in order to stay viable in the business. Rhames playing queer was probably very tough on the actor, but such a refusal to play the part may have serious consequences. It's perverse.

Undercover Black Man said...

Thordaddy: The thing about Rhames is, how is it "degrading" per se to play a gay character? How can you become an actor as your profession and not be interested in the full range of human feeling, experience and behavior?

Rhames played a rapist (in "Patty Hearst"); was that degrading? Rhames got anally raped in "Pulp Fiction"; was that degrading?

But when it came to playing a character who wants to sleep with men, the actor wouldn't commit to it... he had to create that distance from it.

And don't tell me Ving Rhames doesn't know any gay people (perhaps one of his instructors -- at least one -- at the Julliard School of Drama?). He must know that homosexuals are human beings and entitled to respect as such.

Thordaddy said...

Mr. Mills,

I guess the answer depends on whether Rhames willfully sought those roles or was offered them and whether he did them for money, fame, professional skill or industry pressure.

My hunch is that Rhames was offered the role and then understood that a refusal could have professional repercussions for an actor who is both black and not an untouchable star.

I think you hinted as much when you explained Rhame's performance. Somethings just can't be convincingly acted out no matter how much professional skill and training one has done. And what is it to act like a homosexual, anyway?

Anonymous said...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/10/AR2007081001023.html?hpid=topnews

Opps Thordaddy. Here's an article in the "liberal" press (today's Washington Post no less) about your boy Cho. Guess they are still covering it. And btw, show me the quote where Cho blames "liberals" for his troubles.

Anonymous said...

Ok, new poster here. Who is this Thor character who thinks that the bad feelings *some* Asian people have towards the Japanese nation have to do with a "jealousy of the Japan-USA" alliance???


Has this fool not heard of atrocities such as The Rape of Nanking, Comfort Women, and the colonization of Korea? Don't you think that invading and torturing your Asian neighbors MIGHT have something to do with some of these bad feelings?

My god, Thor, don't even pretend to understand Asian racial politics. Any idiot who subscribes to a linear "Conservative vs Libeal" ideology is a moron.

As Chris Rock once said:

"No decent, NORMAL human being is all one way. There are some things I'm conservative about, and some things I'm liberal about. When it comes to CRIME, I'm CONSERVATIVE. When it comes to prostitution, I'm LIBERAL!"

Anonymous said...

An interesting thread indeed. Do you accept as a given the premise that it is unacceptable for people to present stereotypes of other races in their movies?

If so, were you similarly outraged by the 2004 movie "White Chicks" featuring a couple of black males dressing in white face and lampooning the supposedly vacuous bimbo white woman stereotype?

Regards,

Mike Ellis