Sunday Group
Week 3: January 19, 1997, 2 p.m. EST

1. Charlie Chan: Back for Good?  Or Evil?
2. Bad Representation or No Represenation?

Join us next Sunday at 2 p.m.  for a discussion on Asian American
responses to arms races and human rights violations in Asia and
a tenure dispute at Columbia, led by Ramamoorthi Bhaskar.

For latest Sunday Group information, check the web page at:
http://pantheon.yale.edu/~caase/sunday.html

Present: Andrew Chin, Michael Hirano, Tomoyuki Tanaka, Oliver Wang
Moderator and Editor:  Oliver Wang

Transcript
----------
Oliver: The first question on deck today has to do with the
"resurrection" of Charlie Chan: Chinese Detective, thanks to the folks
at Miramax and Russell Wong.  Even though the movie has yet to be
filmed, many in the APA arts and media community are skeptical about
_why_ Charlie Chan is being brought back.  Do you think that
resurrecting an old racial stereotype (assuming you believe that
Charlie Chan was one) could be done in a positive manner?

Tomoyuki: I'd say questionable representation is better than no
representation.  I think that the new movie will be as good (and as
bad) as the Joy Luck Club.  My contention has been that the Joy Luck
Club is the most racist and offensive film that I've seen in my life. 
[Tomoyuki's FAQ on the Joy Luck Club is available on his web page.]

Michael: I think there are two main issues.  One is access and the
other is representation.  As most people do not work in the biz, they
focus on representation.  To tell you the truth, i'm not that familiar
with with the new chan movie, but based on what I know about the Chan
character, it certainly does sound racially problematic.  I also hope
this discussion dosn't turn into a Joy Luck Club (JLC) bash.

Andrew: Questionable representation actually creates an obstacle to
self-representation, which might make it worse than no representation.
	Does anyone here remember the old Charlie Chan board game? Some
of my neighbors had it when I was growing up.  I used to feel really
creeped out about playing it, but I didn't realize why until after I'd
grown up.

Michael: Sorry, not familiar with the board game.

Oliver: Tomoyuki, how would you compare Joy Luck Club with Charlie
Chan?

Tomoyuki: I think that when a movie with questionable representations
(such as the Joy Luck Club) appears, we should acknowledge that we were
represented, but criticize the aspects that were problematic.  My
criticism of JLC has been that it reinforces old stereotypes about
Asians and that it presents terrible images of Asian men.

Michael: We as a community? as an audience? Our role as viewers is to
go see it or not go see it.  It's most important to discuss its
problematic elements.

Tomoyuki: I think at this point, we cannot decide whether to support
the new movie or not, because we don't even have a script.
	Let's not get into the same trap that Ebonics created for many
people. We need to put our forces together, not to blindly criticize
each other.

Oliver: Next question.  Given that "Charlie Chan" signifies a form of
"representation" for APAs, but draws from a questionable history of
racist caricatures ...how should we try to support or NOT support its
production?

Andrew: It's tricky. I think by far the most potent ways of getting
the message across are organized advocacy efforts.  A lone voice will
have little impact on the creative teams at Hollywood studios.
	MANAA, for example, is a great group.  They're good at coming out with
timely press conferences, but they could use some of that DNC money to
run ads.  The mainstream media has to be addressed on its own terms. 
For example, a one-page ad in TIME would do a lot to put media
misrepresentation of Asian Americans on the radar screen.

Tomoyuki: Yes, but MANAA is terribly underfunded.  Compared to what the
jewish organizations are doing, MANAA is exteremly tame and MANAA is
still almost completely unknown.

Andrew: But think of what MANAA could do with $1.5 million from the
Lippo Group.

Tomoyuki: Yes, personally, i'd love to see MANAA do some aggressive
stuff and get national press.  But support from overseas may not be
forthcoming.  For example, the MANAA people have said that Japanese
companies would not give any money to them (I guess).  The Japanese
companies are afraid of giving the impression of exerting pressure.

Oliver: Starting before that level though, do you think that APAs are
so starved for representation that they'll take anything they can get
and criticize it later if its detrimental?

Andrew: No, I think misrepresentation forces Asian Americans to speak
in voices that are not their own. To that extent, they actually serve
to amplify the voices of racism.

Tomoyuki: I don't think Asian Americans are over critical.

Michael: While I think the need for advocacy is very important, I think
the thrust for change will come from the inside.  More people working
in the industry, more Asians choosing acting, directing, or writing as
careers.

Andrew: Even little grassroots groups like the Sunday Group can help. 
The point is that we make a coherent statement of grievances, and it
comes from an organization, or a coalition of organizations, rather
than an individual.

Oliver: I think a deeper problem is the _lack_ of images that exist. 
I've found persuasive Garret Hongo's introduction to "Under Western
Eyes," where he relates how critical the APA community is about _any
kind_ of representation, especially that which comes from APA
authors/filmmakers, etc.  The reason, Hongo argues, is that there's
such a lack of representation now, that anything that comes out is
immediately scrutinized by the various Asian American communities to
see if it reflects them.  It's a consequence of not having anything
else to really look to.

Michael: Andrew, there is also an assumption that Asians don't get
treated fairly, while whites get to speak in their own voice.  While I
agree with this to an extent, I think it is really important to
acknowledge that representation that the Asians are seeking is not a
heck of a lot closer to "reality" than the existing stereotypes. 
Representation in pop culture is flawed and Asian caricatures are just
one example of that.

Andrew: It's not just voice, it's who gets to be considered universal,
whose perspective is presumed to be sympathetic and identifiable for
the audience and why.

Oliver: _Who_ gets to represent is the major difference.  While I don't
think self-generated stereotypes are positive either, at least its a
step in the right direction as opposed to always fending off
stereotypes from the outside.

Andrew: I'm not sure about that either.  With a hip Asian American
actor like Russell Wong doing the portrayal and hitting the talk show
circuit, it's almost as if it has our seal of approval.

Oliver: I don't see Wong as being a self-portrayal, unless he's writing
the script and directing the movie, but I see your point and that makes
sense.

Andrew: Even this discussion today points out the terrible dilemma this
places us in.  Putting Wong in to do the white people's dirty work
makes it hard for a lot of us to criticize what is being done.  

Oliver: Does this relate to the fear of "airing our dirty laundry in
public"?

Oliver: I'd like to bring this back a bit.  We've gotten into the
second question, and just to bring some closure to the question of
Charlie Chan: It's true...we have NOT seen the script yet.  However, I
do think that most of us can agree that Charlie Chan holds a similar
role in APA media history as, say, minstrel imagery holds in the black
community.  That being the case, what do you all think about this
character being brought back? Pesssimistic? Optimistic? Neutral? And
please elaborate on the reasons why.

Michael: Neutral. Problematic, but it does create jobs.

Andrew: It's really hard to change the _meaning_ of Charlie Chan as
Asian Americans have come to know it in their experience of racial
slights.  I doubt it can be done.
	It's not just the portrayal, but the name itself: the alliteration
draws from the same wellspring of racist trivialization as the "ching
chong chinaman" taunts that we grew up with in school.

Oliver: From my perspective, it's a mistake.  At worst, Charlie Chan
will live on.  At best, it'll be resurrected and transformed into yet
another stereotype: that of the kung fu kicking Asian male.  It's
different, but similarly one-dimensional.  I can't see how they can
write the script in any way that's going to undo the damage that's been
caused.

Tomoyuki: I'd be very happy if Russell Wong used *no* martial arts
action in the new movie.

Andrew: It's going to be really hard to add real human qualities to a
character that from the start was a purpose-built vehicle for whites to
convey their racist ideas about Chinese Americans.
	It's just another case of people of color having their race
problematized and placed front and center in the definition of who they
are.

Michael: The point i'm trying to make, is that we should certainly
strive for change, but we have to realize that in so doing, we are
asking those who are not Asian to re-examine their views, stereotypes
and perspectives.  To be fair, we should also examine our own views and
the sterotypes that we all hold.  And the first step is to understand
that representation in pop culture is not reality, and while we can see
the bum deal that asians get in it, many of us cannot see the bum deal
that many others get in it.

Tomoyuki: I think the new movie will be just a movie version of
Vanishing Son, and if so, it'd be something on the positive side.

Oliver: I thought Vanishing Son was horrible (plus just
poorly written).

Andrew: Was Vanishing Son really so positive? It reinforced an image of
Asian Americans as being perpetually haunted by ghosts of the old
country, being martial arts experts, talking in mystical riddles.  It
problematized our race in spades.
	The only difference between Vanishing Son and other chopsockey
shows was that now and then the Asian men went to bed with women.

Michael: True.  And The Joy Luck Club, seen as a positive step in
portrayal of Asian women, presents women as real protagonists, but they
are all still drop-dead gorgeous in an anorexic kind of way.

Oliver: Ok, time for the exit question: Bad representation or no
representation? State your preference and elaborate please.

Michael: I'd rather try and get a foothold in the industry with bad
representation and work from there.

Andrew: Self-definition is always difficult, but misrepresentation just
makes it all the more difficult by distorting the mirror and creating
market forces that punish authenticity.

Tomoyuki: My vote: definitely some representation even if it's
questionable.  I think that for Asian Americans today, total lack of
representation ("memories of an invisible man") is a bigger problem
than stereotyping.

Oliver: I think, at this point, we should fight for self-representation
or none at all.

Andrew: I think the only reason lack of representation is a problem is
that people have prior prejudices as a result of misrepresentation.  If
we hadn't been misrepresented to begin with, lack of representation
wouldn't be a problem.  
	I'd rather not be talked about than libelled and slandered.

Michael: Self-definition is very difficult with no experience in your
craft.  And exclusion is not a very appealing alternative to me.
(Not to say that exclusion doesn't exist.)