In many ways I agree with your points, Larry.
I also dissagree that seeing the alien portrayals as stereotypes requires a prejudiced mind. I feel that in a way we are talking about two different ways of seeing and enjoying movies- call it representational vs. non-representational if you like (I hate to think of it as deconstructive, but call it that if you like).
Many movies that I have greatly enjoyed have little to offer on the story surface. An example: Trauma, directed by Dario Argento. On the surface, a slasher flick with some visual flare and many plot holes. Between the lines it is something else altogether; the woman in red was played by a transsexual, that coupled with the specific act of sexual dominance she played on the villain makes it seem he is recalling the past in such a way as to not admit to himself what actually happenned. Watching with that in mind, the movie becomes much more interesting. It also requires the viewer to question what is presented- something seems off about the woman in red, she is attractive but not femminine.
Not all movies can, or even should be watched in this way, but it is difficult for some of us to turn that critical process off. I am not claiming to be smarter or more observant than others, I just watch movies in a different way and have a hard time accepting something too straightforward. [sub]it also helps you to tune out when C3PO makes yet another bad joke if you think about other things in the film.[/sub]
In many ways I agree with your points, Larry.
I also dissagree that seeing the alien portrayals as stereotypes requires a prejudiced mind. I feel that in a way we are talking about two different ways of seeing and enjoying movies- call it representational vs. non-representational if you like (I hate to think of it as deconstructive, but call it that if you like).
Many movies that I have greatly enjoyed have little to offer on the story surface. An example: Tenebrae, directed by Dario Argento. On the surface, a slasher flick with some visual flare and many plot holes. Between the lines it is something else altogether; the woman in red was played by a transsexual, that coupled with the specific act of sexual dominance she played on the villain makes it seem he is recalling the past in such a way as to not admit to himself what actually happenned. Watching with that in mind, the movie becomes much more interesting. It also requires the viewer to question what is presented- something seems off about the woman in red, she is attractive but not femminine.
Not all movies can, or even should be watched in this way, but it is difficult for some of us to turn that critical process off. I am not claiming to be smarter or more observant than others, I just watch movies in a different way and have a hard time accepting something too straightforward. [sub]it also helps you to tune out when C3PO makes yet another bad joke if you think about other things in the film.[/sub]
I would never suggest that being racist is a prerequisite for interpreting portrayals of anthopomorphic aliens as representative or analogous of ethnic stereotypes, on the contrary, I would expect that someone who is likely to argue that this is the case would more likely be anti-racist than not.
Nobody who knows me would ever suggest that I am a literalist. I’m a writer, and firmly believe that every work of art is a collaboration between the artist and the interpreter. The process of semiosis is far from a passive activity- You are the master who makes the grass green.
If you think my interpretation of Star Wars is a straight-forward or literalist one, wade through this. Is Star Wars “really” full of references to occult mysteries? Is the “Correllian” Millenium Falcon really a reference to Victorian occult novelist Marie Correlli’s airship in The Secret Power?
Is there any objective connection, or is it merely an imagined connection, which says more about the interpreter than the interpreted?
If you ever met anyone more compulsively analytical about film and literary theory than me, you would probably find them very irritating. 
Sorry, I felt the need to put a disclaimer in there solely because I feel a bit pretentious talking about film in this way. I feel that many of the early responses in this thread were overly literal.
Is the stereotypical imagery in the eye of the beholder? I honestly don’t feel it is. I don’t think it was intended on the part of George Lucas, that his obviously non racist views conflict with his goal of recreating the adventure serials of his youth. The original trilogy overcame this by being more obviously based in myth, the more recent films use the adventure serials themselves as a basis.
[major highjack to an already hijacked thread]
I find it more likely that Star Wars references the power of myth, than Aliester Crowley. Luke’s “wounded hand” and Anakin’s before him is given a mechanical replacement, the “magic stone” imbedded in the hero’s flesh.
Luke didn’t tear his eyes out for his incestuous thoughts, though. 
[/hijack]
grendel72 - I cannot believe that you are seriously suggesting that the robots were discriminated against! What next? We give medals to the missiles? 
Seriously, though, I still cannot understand this statement which has been made in various forms throughout the thread:
This is where the problem is - it boils down to the fact that Jar-Jar is seen as having (accidental) racist undertones because some aspects of his character are clearly reminiscent of aspects of another particular character or sterotype. However, by this reasoning, any character walking with a gangly gait is racist - despite the fact that this is patently untrue. See the earlier example of Shaggy, for instance.
If you compare Jar-Jar with Fetchit, then he’s a black caricature. However, if you compare him with Shaggy, then he is a white caricature. This test just doesn’t cut it.
All these so-called subtle racist undertones are nothing more than defining characteristics of ethnically neutral aliens. You say Watto is a Jewish stereotype 'cos he’s greedy; I say he is just a greedy alien. There is nothing to tie him down to any stereotype, unless being greedy is all that is needed. In this case, Scrooge (and his Disney counterpart Scrooge MacDuck) is a Jewish stereotype. Augustus Gloop is a Jewish stereotype. Arthur Daley is a Jewish stereotype. Ming the Merciless(!) is a Jewish Stereotype.
It’s been established that Watto doesn’t “talk Jewish”; he doesn’t “act Jewish”; he doesn’t “look Jewish”. To fly in the face of all this evidence and claim that he is still a Jewish stereotype seems to me to be ridiculous.
This isn’t a case of “you say tom-ay-to, I say tom-ah-to” - it’s a case of “I say tom-ah-to, you say subtle racist stereotype of a Spaniard”.
Some posters here contend that it is possible to see racist undertones in the New Hope characters, if you just open your mind. I contend that there is no such thing; you are seeing connections where there are no connections, and reverse-stereotyping is the only way you can link any of the characters to any particular group.
I’m willing to put my money where my mouth is - I have here a crisp ten pound note (with a free portrait of Her Majesty) for whoever can demonstrate that any of the main characters is a racist stereotype. Think of me as a cheap-skate James Randi, if you will.
I’m not asking for indisputable proof; that would be ridiculous. I think we all agree that it is impossible to prove (for example) that Watto is meant to be Jewish (unless the credits contain the words “Watto the greedy Jew”).
Give me a list of one character’s traits and show me how, on the balance of probabilities, this means you can link him to a particular group. Remember that we are agreed that the accents are indeterminate.
Show me why Watto is a greedy Jew, rather than just greedy. Show me why Jar-Jar is a gangly Jamaican, rather than just gangly.
I want to see how you can place a character in one particular race or ethnic group rather than any other. Unless you can show this, then the stereotypes simply cannot exist.
Thanks jamesp, now I don’t have to go tredging back in this long ass thread to find a dumbfuck making an overly literal interpretation. Not that who interprets things ovely literrally is a dumbfuck, just those who don’t read what I’ve been saying.
It’s really hard to argue with tag team defenders when one person claims Jar-Jar doesn’t shuffle, I counter that he does, someone else comes back and claims that is a traditional way of animating tall characters, when I mention two tall cartoon characters off the top of my head that didn’t shuffle “oh, one of those characters was a black guy”.
Interpretation is a hard thing to defend, If you don’t see it you’re going to say I’m wrong. The biggest point on my side is that people independantly saw the same thing.
I never said it was intentional, read my posts. And keep your 10 pounds, what is that 50 cents American.
Letting my mercenary nature show, I’ll switch up and try for the ten pounds. (It’s closer to about $15.00USD, grendell, or $23.00CDN- enough to pay for another screening of Attack of the Clones.)
To make it interesting, I’ll argue that the Gungans are a lampoon of German people.
I’ll open with a blind assertion - Gungans are a sublimated version of the “clumsy, simpleminded kraut” stereotype.
While so far, it has been asserted that the Gungan accent is either a) carribean, b) african, c) southern slavey, no one has been able to provide any specific resemblances. On the contrary, some pronouns are modified in ways that can only be associated with Teutonics: “You-sa saved hissen life?” “You-sa bringen ussen and the Naboo together.”
The Gungan leader, Boss Nass, looks very similar to stereotypical “bloated krauts” portrayed by allied propagandists during the first and second world wars. Compare Herman Goering. The Gungans are an overtly martial society, boasting a “grand army”, which clearly is more analogous with the conquering Germans than with west-indians.
Well, maybe not a good enough try to nail the 10-pound prize, but it’s better than the arguments we’ve heard so far, since it touches on objective, empirically-verifiable reality twice, which is a little better than “Jar-Jar is based on Stepin Fetchit- and I don’t care if he’s really modelled after long-dead, (and white) physical comedians- he’s obviously a racist stereotype”, even if he does resemble nothing so much as Baby Schnooks in Basil Fawlty’s body. “Neimodians are asian stereotypes - and I don’t care if they’re really modelled after a Hungarian actor’s portrayal of a Romanian aristocratic fiend.” “The Fetts are hispanic stereotypes, and I don’t care that they’re really played by New Zealanders with no hispanic ancestry, accent, or looks at all.”
This is the same type of willful unreason that makes it possible for someone to say “Chinese people are bad drivers, and I don’t care if on average, they drive just the same as everyone else.”
This type of thinking is called “prejudice” - “sentence first, verdict afterwards.” It’s mental poison, and it provides mind-forged manacles for those that employ it.
Far from being a dumbfuck, Sir James makes an obvious and perfectly valid point - if many different people interpret a supposed “stereotype” as being “stereotypes” of a variety of different ethnicities, then by definition, it’s not a stereotype- it’s a more complex character, open to interpretation.
As for discrimination against droids in the SW universe, that’s a given.
“We don’t allow there kind in here.” (Mos Eisley)
They’re “born” into service, bought and sold like chattel, stolen by diminutive slave-traders. “We’re made to suffer. It’s our lot in life.” Even Aniken, released from his own bondage, has no difficulty commiting the same sort of injustice against C-3PO. “Don’t worry. I’ll make sure mom doesn’t sell you or anything.” “Sell me?!” No droids in the food-line, even in a refugee ship. The republic is no utopia - and there’s a lot of room for improvement. Fight the power!
I don’t see the point of arguing this further. Carrying the point this far just proves how stupid I am, I will never be able to convince anyone of something so subjective.
So what do y’all want? Do you want me to deny what I saw? Do you want me to admit I’m some kind of evil bigot because of what I saw? How is my interpretation any less valid than yours; in the real world, divorced from the fan-boy world of internet geeks, many people arrived at the same view as I did.
Let us consider the “face” on mars. It can be scientifically disproven that it exists, that doesn’t change the fact that many people saw it. Jar-Jar shuffles, you can point to examples of tall cartoon characters walking similarly, that doesn’t change the fact that many people interpreted his gait as shuffling.
Non-shuffling tall cartoon characters:
Prince Charming, Spike Spiegel, Lupin III, The Harlem Globetrotters, The Cat in the Hat…
The examples of tall characters “shuffling” all came from cheap animation where the shuffle was a result of minimising the number of frames. Jar-Jar was hardly a “cheap” character to animate, or a poorly animated one otherwise.
But you haven’t argued it at all, you’ve merely made a simple assertion.
I’m not arguing that people didn’t have the subjective (or projective) perception, I’m arguing about the objective reality of character. Is Jar-Jar’s walk/antics really a black lampoon? No, he’s just an exaggerated clumsy, awkward character, like many others, of no particular race. His “minstrel-show” scenes are copied exactly from classic physical comedy - not minstrel shows.
I don’t deny that you look at Jar-Jar, and are reminded of things which are, in reality, totally unrelated to his character. I don’t imply that that makes you racist, that would be silly. But it’s not uncommon for people to value their own subjective impressions of something in spite of all reasoning to the contrary. This is the sad and inevitable result of formal logic being removed from public schools’ curriculum. C’est la vie, it makes the masses easier to manipulate.
The reason that people have pointed out that non-black characters also shuffle, is to underline the flaw in the syllogism:
All “shuffling” characters are black stereotypes.
Jar-jar “shuffles.”
Therefore, Jar-Jar is a black stereotype.
Invalid major premise, the syllogism is false. Not that difficult to comprehend, surely?
But you haven’t argued it at all, you’ve merely made a simple assertion.
I’m not arguing that people didn’t have the subjective (or projective) perception, I’m arguing about the objective reality of character. Is Jar-Jar’s walk/antics really a black lampoon? No, he’s just an exaggerated clumsy, awkward character, like many others, of no particular race. His “minstrel-show” scenes are copied exactly from classic physical comedy - not minstrel shows.
I don’t deny that you look at Jar-Jar, and are reminded of things which are, in reality, totally unrelated to his character. I don’t imply that that makes you racist, that would be silly. But it’s not uncommon for people to value their own subjective impressions of something in spite of all reasoning to the contrary. This is the sad and inevitable result of formal logic being removed from public schools’ curriculum. C’est la vie, it makes the masses easier to manipulate.
The reason that people have pointed out that non-black characters also shuffle, is to underline the flaw in the syllogism:
All “shuffling” characters are black stereotypes.
Jar-jar “shuffles.”
Therefore, Jar-Jar is a black stereotype.
Invalid major premise, the syllogism is false. Not that difficult to comprehend, surely?
But, Larry, you are the one who removes all other aspects of his character to discredit a differing perception. He shuffles, is cowardly, clumsy and obsequious, and his speech patterns sure as hell sound to many people like overdone stereotypical “black” speech.
I don’t think it is intentional, and I have pointed out what I consider to be at least a partial basis for it.
The comparison to saying Asians are poor drivers is offensive to me, as is the implication that I am being illogical simply because I dissagree with you.
BTW, I always thought Shaggy’s walk was inspired by the “keep on truckin’” dude. Now I’ll be accused of being prejudiced against hippies.
As an eastern New Yorker of Irish and Polish descent, I am offended at the exclusion of a representative of my people in this movie.
You can only hold us down for so long!!!
You people were clearly represented by Pilot #3 of the Naboo force attacking the Federation control station.
Pay attention the next time you watch it.
You people were clearly represented by Pilot #3 of the Naboo force attacking the Federation control station.
Pay attention the next time you watch it.
Not what I had in mind as regards racial stereotypes, but it serves the purpose well. The sum total of the Gungans characterisation does closely resemble the wartime “Hun” stereotype. I don’t buy the accent part of the argument, but with the Gungans, it doesn’t matter: everything they do and the way their society is set up does seem to be a direct rip-off of the old German war machine. It’s not a deliberate rip-off, I would say, but the archetypes are there.
See, grendel72, this is very different from claiming that Jar-Jar acts “black”: with the Gungans, all their traits can be fitted to a “German” stereotype; with Jar-Jar, only certain traits can be matched to a “black” stereotype - and these matches are pretty tenuous to say the least.
Larry Mudd - you have demonstrated how it is possible to place the Gungans in one particular ethnic group rather than any other. You get the tenner - e-mail me an address and you get the note.
Jumping in at the end! Maybe I’ll get the last word.
What is the argument here?
- Lucas intentionally used racial stereotypes?
I think the majority of both sides of the fence in this thread would agree that if these stereotypes exist, they were not used intentionally or consciously.
- Racial stereotypes are present in the movie?
For a stereotype to exist it must conform to a widely held simplified image or idea of a group of people.
That there is such debate on the issue, that peopole can’t even pin one particular stereotype onto a character, that a significant proportion of people (sample taken from this thread and casual conversation) don’t see the stereotype at all, and that some only see it after it has been suggested by others, indicates that the percieved stereotypes are not inherently present within the characters.
My impression is that, unlike obvious stereotypes that are easily recogniseable to the vast majority of viewers, these perceived stereotypes are overly reliant on the personal interpretation of individuals and as such, they are a product mostly of the viewer, not the film or the film’s creator. Therefore they cannot be said to exist inherently within the film’s characters.
-
Hi Opal
-
People who see non existant stereotypes are betraying their own racism?
Not much disagreement on this. Silly statement injecting emotion into the issue for little benefit.
.
.
.
.
To the original OP… er, I mean, to the OP:
Yes the idea that “swarthy” New Zealanders with their Kiwi accents and Maori skin tone somehow portrays a stereotypical image of Mexicans* is utterly ridiculous. That is an exellent example of someone applying their political perceptions and agenda to something with the result that their own inane fears, prejudices, and feelings of inadequacy are exposed to the light.
*Was it Mexicans? I’ve plowed through this thread and now I can’t remember
Jumping in at the end! Maybe I’ll get the last word.
What is the argument here?
- Lucas intentionally used racial stereotypes?
I think the majority of both sides of the fence in this thread would agree that if these stereotypes exist, they were not used intentionally or consciously.
- Racial stereotypes are present in the movie?
For a stereotype to exist it must conform to a widely held simplified image or idea of a group of people.
That there is such debate on the issue, that peopole can’t even pin one particular stereotype onto a character, that a significant proportion of people (sample taken from this thread and casual conversation) don’t see the stereotype at all, and that some only see it after it has been suggested by others, indicates that the percieved stereotypes are not inherently present within the characters.
My impression is that, unlike obvious stereotypes that are easily recogniseable to the vast majority of viewers, these perceived stereotypes are overly reliant on the personal interpretation of individuals and as such, they are a product mostly of the viewer, not the film or the film’s creator. Therefore they cannot be said to exist inherently within the film’s characters.
-
Hi Opal
-
People who see non existant stereotypes are betraying their own racism?
Not much disagreement on this. Silly statement injecting emotion into the issue for little benefit.
.
.
.
.
To the original OP… er, I mean, to the OP:
Yes the idea that “swarthy” New Zealanders with their Kiwi accents and Maori skin tone somehow portrays a stereotypical image of Mexicans* is utterly ridiculous. That is an exellent example of someone applying their political perceptions and agenda to something with the result that their own inane fears, prejudices, and feelings of inadequacy are exposed to the light.
*Was it Mexicans? I’ve plowed through this thread and now I can’t remember
I think one reason it’s tough for people to see each other’s points of view here is that the “stereotypical” qualities in the characters in question are very blurred. (But IMHO it’s a bit disingenuous to claim that an alien character can’t have some traits in common with a human stereotype just because it also has some obviously non-human traits.)
Since, as most people here are happy to admit, Lucas doesn’t seem to be actually a racist, nor to intend any insult to the members of any group, none of his characters are truly racial caricatures. I think that the similarities that have been identified with existing stereotypes have been correctly pegged as the result of lack of originality and/or homage to earlier movies.
So I certainly don’t find those similarities actually offensive or insulting, but I certainly did spontaneously notice them in both Episode I and Episode II:
-
Watto seemed like a generic “greasy, greedy shopkeeper” with thick accent and small stature who was often associated in bigoted sterotyping with “Mediterranean” peoples: could be Jewish, could be Arab, or Turkish or Italian or Greek.
-
The N-people whose name I can’t spell
reminded me of stereotyped “Orientals” (i.e., “generic” East Asians): “inscrutable”, formal, suspicious, clipped speech and tonal accent vaguely reminiscent of some Chinese or Japanese people’s inflections of English. -
Jar-Jar seemed like a stereotypical clownish black sidekick of the “Stepin Fetchit” sort, faithful and willing but kind of dim, frequently making comic clumsy mistakes, outgoing and affectionate but not very brave, and relieved to have someone else do his thinking for him. In this case, there were some “tropical” associations in speech patterns, music and so forth that brought to mind superficial associations with Caribbean cultures of the cruise-ship-commercial, blue-cocktails-with-little-parasols sort.
On the other hand, the bounty hunter Jango (?), though I would have described him as “Latino-ish looking” if anyone had asked me before I knew he was Maori, didn’t seem to me at all similar to any bigoted stereotypes of Latinos. (Of course, I haven’t seen as many bigoted stereotypical images of Latinos as I have of “comic darkies” or “greasy shopkeepers” or “wily Orientals”, so it would probably have to be pretty blatant and specific before I’d notice it.)
I agree that a lot of these impressions are in the eye of the beholder, and I’m pleased to see that nobody here seems to be jumping to the conclusion that the filmmakers deliberately intended these resemblances to be derogatory. But I think that just because a stereotype is vague and inaccurate and can be interpreted in slightly different ways doesn’t necessarily mean it’s nothing but a figment of the viewer’s imagination. I think the resemblances to ethnic stereotypes that many of us have noticed in these movies are really there: they’re not deliberately derogatory and they’re not unambiguous, but they’re there all right.
Umm, I gotta say I saw a Jewish stereotype in Watto in Episode II. I don’t think this was racist, just uncreative, but still it was kinda painful to sit through.
Giant curved nose, beady eyes, shrewd/greedy businessman, the accent, dark curly beard and most importantly THE HAT!!! He was wearing a hat in the style of those worn by Hassidic (sp?) Jews! I doubt I’ll be able to find a picture of this just yet, but I’ll try.
I’m not offended so much as disappointed in the fact that this is the best they can come up with for a character. Oh well.
LC
Looked more like a bowl than the hat I think of when i consider the Hassidim.
I enjoyed how Watto seemed a bit more mellow and much older in this picture. He wasn’t shrewd or greedy anymore. He just handed Anakin the information as soon as he recognized him. Very subtle, but it was there.