erik lundegaard

How Roger Ebert is Wrong in that Sundance Clip

The clip below has been making the rounds in the wake of Roger Ebert's death last week.

At Sundance in 2003, during the Q&A after a screening of Justin Lin's “Better Luck Tomorrow,” an audience member stands up, talks about the talent on screen and on the stage, then asks, or demands, “But why, with the talent up there, and yourself, make a movie that's so empty and amoral for Asian-Americans and for Americans?”

Then Roger Ebert stands up. Among other things he says is this: “What I find very offensive and condescending about your statement is that nobody would say to a bunch of white filmmakers, 'How could you do this to your people?' ... Asian-American characters have the right to be whoever the hell they want to be!”

Everybody loves this clip. The presumption of the one guy, the lusty defense by the other. It's a Hollywood movie in microcosm. We have our villain (the presumptuous bastard), our hero (Roger Ebert, RIP), our stance (moral).

Question: In what way is the villain right? And in what way is the hero wrong?

Roger asks why white filmmakers don't have to justify their choices. They do, but not as white filmmakers. Francis Ford Coppola and Martin Scorsese had to defend their choices as Italian-American filmmakers. Philip Roth spent a career defending his choices as a Jewish writer. Of course Coppola and Scorsese had to defend themselves from other Italian-Americans, or at least Italian-American groups, while Roth had to defend himself from Jewish groups. That's the presumption in the above clip. The questioner steps outside the racial lines we've all drawn. He's a chastising outsider in what, at best, is an internecine affair.

In a perfect world, yes, no artist, no person, is asked to embody their race, even though, in other contexts, such as the big screen on Friday (Jackie Robinson in “42”), and in the book I'm currently reading (“Hank Greenberg: Hero of Heroes”), we celebrate this. But we don't live in a perfect world.

I grew up in Minneapolis, Minn., Scandinavian descent. After college I lived for two years in Taipei, Taiwan, where I quickly realized that if I acted in such a way it wouldn't just be me acting this way. I wouldn't just be an asshole, in other words, I would be an American asshole.

Or would I? I suppose the greater question is this: Do majorities suffer from this type of myopia (seeing the one as representative of the whole) or do minorities only fear that they do? And is this fear its own form of myopia (seeing the majority as one entity) or merely common sense (people are the way they are)? This conversation isn't limited to racial matters, by the way. See: Cars/bicyclists, for example. See anything.

In the above, Roger is mostly correct. Asian-American characters do have the right to be whoever the hell they want to be. But the other dude is right, too. Justin Lin made his characters shallow and empty in a world that's already full of the shallow and empty. For that, Lin has been rewarded mightily by Hollywood. His new movie, “Fast & Furious 6,” opens in May.


Posted at 07:00 AM on Wed. Apr 10, 2013 in category Culture  
Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

Sara Vizcarrondo wrote:

I'm a female in a male dominated field and I think about this all the time. It is a better world when we act as representatives of something (gender, age, nationality, vehicular preference) because it keeps us accountable, but all film characters are representations, so the issue is complicated by our impression what we're watching has some bearing on our “real world.” Which it does, but with such a grain of salt. The clip of Mr. Ebert defending BETTER LUCK is a great example of his humanism, which often felt misdirected (to me) but is also spiritually accurate. He's suppressing a potentially censorial sentiment--that's towing the critical line--and he's doing it in real time with real people, unprotected by his publication or the confines of his desk. It's laudable. I only wish the dialogue hadn't been so pugilistic because both sides could stand some parsing through; if it's a fight, there's a winner and we lose a lot to that.

Comment posted on Wed. Apr 10, 2013 at 11:07 AM

Erik wrote:

Well said. Agree with it all.

Comment posted on Wed. Apr 10, 2013 at 11:12 AM

Chichikov's Soul wrote:

Ugh, I was hoping you're kidding, but there really is going to be a “Fast and Furious 6”.

Comment posted on Thu. Apr 11, 2013 at 07:46 PM

You may bypass the ID fields and security question below if you log in before commenting.


 
 





Receive notification of further comments via e-mail

« Who Knew Prof. X was a Slacker?   |   Home   |   Consumption Written with Lightning »
 RSS    Facebook

Twitter: @ErikLundegaard

ARCHIVES

All previous entries

LINKS
Movies
Jeffrey Wells
The Film Experience
Roger Ebert
Baseball
Rob Neyer
Joe Posnanski
Cardboard Gods
Politics
Andrew Sullivan
Alex Pareene
Hendrik Hertzberg
Friends
Cloud Five Comics
Copy Curmudgeon
Deb Ellis
Andrew Engelson
Jerry Grillo
Tim Harrison
Eric Hanson
Ben Stocking
Jim Walsh
dative-querulous