Grex Agora46 Conference

Item 53: Fox bows to the PC crowd and cancels Charlie Chan film festival.

Entered by pvn on Thu Jul 3 05:40:31 2003:

So the news says.  Don't make me no never mind (a black stereotypic
idiomatic expression) as I refuse to do cable so won't miss what I
didn't have in the first place.  Anyways, the next thing you know the
three stooges will be banned for being too violent.  Then _A day at the
races_ will be banned for being racist - those Marx brothers...
communists for sure...

So what if the lead character for racist reasons wasn't chinese (all
three or four?) of them.  It doesn't detract from the fun of the movie
and if ethic purity in characterization is the factor then I can think
of a lot of movies that need be banned for the same reason (from Anthony
Quinn to Lou Diamond Phillips as the actors). 

And it is a fact from what I vaguely recall of the CHarlie Chan movies
that a lot of the stereotypes were bang on.  The chinese really do refer
to "number one son" just like they refer to "number 15 philosopher's
dorm" (I have pictures of that apartment building in beijing).

I can also think of movies that streotyped white men - a basketball
movie comes to mind.

This cultural 'book-burning' is no less wrong even when it is supposedly
towards a good end.
10 responses total.

#1 of 10 by oval on Thu Jul 3 15:23:52 2003:

it would've been much more interesting if they'd cast a black guy instead of
woody harrelson.



#2 of 10 by polygon on Thu Jul 3 15:30:37 2003:

I have never seen a Charlie Chan movie, but I have read some of the
Charlie Chan books.  Supposedly they were the first popular novels in
English to feature a Chinese protagonist.

I'm disappointed to hear about this, but I can't say that I'm surprised to
hear about "Faux" doing something dumb.


#3 of 10 by spectrum on Thu Jul 3 16:41:33 2003:

This is news to me. I didn't hear about there being a CC fest in the first
place.  I'm a big fan. I guess some poeple are trying to do a orwellian
re-write of history along with the book burning.  We will see this trend
escalate in the future. suxors bigtime


#4 of 10 by albaugh on Mon Jul 7 03:57:41 2003:

It's ironic that it's Fox doing the banning, given the amount of crap it
produces and airs.


#5 of 10 by gull on Mon Jul 7 15:23:10 2003:

The banning doesn't shock me, but the idea that Fox would back down from
something because it's not PC does.  I mean, these are the people who
gave us "Joe Millionaire".  (In spite of all the rhetoric that allowing
gays to marry would destroy the institution of marriage, I think Fox is
doing a much better job than homosexuals ever could.)


#6 of 10 by pvn on Tue Jul 8 07:29:26 2003:

Really?


#7 of 10 by gull on Tue Jul 8 14:02:20 2003:

MSNBC has fired Michael Savage, who apparently didn't realize that he
couldn't get away with the same stuff on TV that he can get away with on
his late-night radio show:

http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/07/07/savage/index.html

Excerpt:

MSNBC on Monday fired Michael Savage for anti-gay comments.

The popular radio talk show host who did a weekend TV show for the cable
channel referred to an unidentified caller to his show Saturday as a
"sodomite" and said he should "get AIDS and die."

"His comments were extremely inappropriate and the decision was an easy
one," MSNBC spokesman Jeremy Gaines said.

There was no immediate comment from Savage, according to a spokesman at
his office in California.


#8 of 10 by tod on Tue Jul 8 18:13:53 2003:

This response has been erased.



#9 of 10 by pvn on Wed Jul 9 06:39:20 2003:

His ratings sucked.  Isn't it the same network that canned Phil Donahue
recently?  An ethical business to invest in - "show me the money,
honey".  


#10 of 10 by gull on Wed Jul 9 14:05:14 2003:

Not only did his ratings suck, but some major advertisers had pulled out.

He should stick to late night radio, where they're desperate for any
content at all.


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: