Thursday, March 22, 2018

Orientilism: Racism or Romanticism (& Why We Feel the Need to Risk it)

Aside from acknowledging that questionable Oriental depictions have long since swept Hollywood in a sort of derogatory renaissance, it is important to acknowledge why such "controversial" depictions of Eastern society market so successfully (I use the word "controversial" sparingly because it seems as if we seldom notice racism in oriental depictions unless we see other people complaining about it afterwards, negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes that point it out, etc.  Be honest, when was the last time you actually stopped in the middle of the latest action flick and said to yourself "wow that's racist"? Although that isn't to say that it isn't there).

So where is the appeal? To explore this idea I ask you to consider why one may or may not enjoy the genre of western (cowboy shoot-em-up) films. Films, in general, tend to have a distinct tendency to both romanticize and to proceed "conveniently". In the case of western movies, there's something about the sun setting behind a looming Texas canyon, the trotting on horse-top through a barren desert expanse to the unknown, or downtime by the fireplace after setting up camp for the night that you can't help but envy, with an unfamiliar reminiscing of sorts. That strange sense of appeal for something that is not yours, that longing or attraction for a setting depicted in a film is the very definition of romanticism. The element of Now this iteration of Orientalism isn't the type that often presents itself in action or "Bond" type flicks. This is the depiction in such works as The Bridge on the River Kwai, or even Eat Pray Love where the foreign setting and culture is meant to be endearing and subtle, if not entirely culturally accurate.

The second type of orientalism is much more derogatory and offendable. The notion of a foreign entity or location being the antagonist (¨Villain¨) or place where conflict occurs is all too convenient, easy enough to CTRL-C/CTRL-V. This is the type of orientalist portrayal that will make you think all Muslims are terrorist, or that every Asian field agent is trained in the art of the Samurai. Frankly, Hollywood can be racist in their questionable portrayals because it´s easy. Its easy for the villain to be the ´other´ and the hero to be the bad-ass westerner. In film and TV, it´s convenient to use stereotypical portrayals of foreign individuals as the enemy because it cuts back the need for sophisticated plot points, thoughtful writing, or exposition. The mind has been wired at this point to connect the dots.

¨Oh? The supervillain is a Muslim? Oh so he´s being depicted as a terrorist. I know from the sketchy foreign setting and strange behaviors portrayed of these people that this is a hostile environment, and since terrorist hate Americans that must be the motivations of all their evil-doing. That´s enough exposition for me. Bring on the gun fight!¨

At this point, it is important to remember that the word ´orientalism´ does not have any negative connotation on its own (it is only seen as negative because of the trend of racist or inaccurate depictions of it in media). Orientalism simply means the interpretation of eastern culture in western art/media affirming that it could be accurate or inaccurate, realistic or exaggerated. It is the standard by which we critique it that our ethical opinion is formed. To some, even the more endearing portrayals of Orientalism can be viewed as offensive so long as they are not entirely accurate. Is it just as racist to exadurate the 'good' in eastern society as it is to stereotype the 'bad'? In the same light, is any work that expresses Orientalism negatively a sign of the racism of the creators of the cinema, or the craving of the audience that eats it up without question? I personally find it hard to call Yimou Zhang derogatory and offensive for a work like The Great Wall, especially considering it is his own culture he is projecting.

And this leads me to my final point. People watch questionable oriental portrayals in film because they love it. They don't love it because it's racist or offensive though. They love it because it has become a standard in cinema and it's what the big corporations know will sell. It's often entertaining, it's different enough from our daily experience, and it's not there to challenge what we think we know.  The long game of "playing it safe" if you will. Does this place the blame on the viewer for lapping it up like brainwashed dogs at a watering hole? Perhaps we are the source of the problem but I'm not going to be enjoying Raiders of the Lost Arc any less the next time. That isn't to say that the underlining epidemic of racist and stereotypical portrayal isn't present, but for now, pass the popcorn please.

2 comments:

  1. Interesting post. To your last point, I would say the viewer may not be to blame, but the viewer still has a responsibility to disassociate inaccurate depictions of Eastern culture on television from Eastern cultures in the real world. Sadly, that's hard to do. People develop unhealthy, racist stereotypes of other peoples through inaccuracies in the media that are hard to reverse.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your discussion on film companies acting on these inaccurate portrayals and stereotypes is similar to what I discussed in my post of the movie Argo. I think some viewers don't think about the historical events and stories behind some of these films. Nevertheless, these films profit on creating this mysterious and ancient perception on Eastern culture.

    ReplyDelete