DRAGON SEED (1944)

[Obveeus]

DRAGON SEED: Every once in awhile I watch an old movie and am absolutely
horrified to see what the previous generation subjected themselves to in
the name of entertainment. This 1944 film starring the likes of
Katharine Hepburn (Academy Award winning actress), Walter Huston
(Academy Award winning actor and father of John Huston), Agnes Moorehead
(Bewitched), Henry Travers (IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE), Hurd Hatfield (THE
PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY), and other white people pretending to be Chinese
peasants is monumentally more insulting to race appropriation than any
Adam Sandler spoof on westerns or James Bond film with someone who isn't
Scottish as the lead. Katharine Hepburn's performance here, especially,
stands out as appalling. She is done up with a slanty eye look that
renders her unable to blink for the entire film. Moreover, she must have
studied some Chinese film (or maybe a Geisha girl film) and spends this
film trying to ape what she believes to be the way all Asian women act
all the time; with horrible results that would end a person's career if
done today. Moreover, the casting department made the silly spectacle of
white people pretending to be Asians stand out even more by casting a
bunch of Asian children to play their children in the film and a
background of Asian actors into minor role characters to fill out the
cast. Then, as if that wasn't enough, they often had the characters try
to mimic pigeon English dialog to sound like Chinese speakers that had
learned English as their second language.

The film, DRAGON SEED, is based upon a Pearl S. Buck novel that tells
the story of Chinese farmers before and during the Japanese
invasion/occupation of the second world war. The script does a very good
job of addressing a number of deep issues. War, starvation, disease,
resistance vs. acceptance and what defines being a traitor, the passive
nature of some men vs. a the warlike love for killing in others, etc...
The film even addresses issues like simple labor (farming or crafting)
vs. scholastic endeavors (learning to read or play music) at a time when
the educational/industrial revolution is just tipping a society even in
the absence of war. The film even doles out parental lessons to children
in the proper beating of one's wife in order to attain the proper level
of subservience. Very few wartime stories written/filmed today come
close to the depth of this film.

DRAGON SEED, being from 1944 also carries with it the stigma of WWII and
so there is a certain level of underlying propaganda designed to
dehumanize the Japanese and to make US citizens sympathize with and
relate to the Chinese, but none of that message is overdone or drowns
out the realistic sensibility of the story. Moreover, the film manages
to tell this tale under the restrictions of the era that limited
violence and sexuality from appearing clearly on screen. So, yes, people
vomit, but only with their backs turned, people are shot but they really
do not bleed as they die, and people are raped, but subtly and off-screen.

In summary, DRAGON SEED is a rather well written film with plenty to
say, but is burdened with some horrid acting (Hepburn and Hatfield most
notably) and casting choices that would not even be tolerated today.

[moviePig]

("Subtle rape" may get you a few inquisitors.) Not that box-office draw
wasn't -- or isn't -- isn't everything, but I'm wondering what Asian
screen-talent would have been available in '44, had the studio wanted
it. Heck, Shakespeare's women were played by boys.

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

[OldBob]

On 9/4/2015 9:34 AM, Obveeus wrote:
>

> In summary, DRAGON SEED is a rather well written film with plenty to
> say, but is burdened with some horrid acting (Hepburn and Hatfield most
> notably) and casting choices that would not even be tolerated today.

So Asian characters were played by Caucasians, so what?
They're actors playing a part.
Things were different then and it's foolish to judge them by today's
standards.
That being said, I've seen Dragon Seed and have to say it is dreck, not
because of the white actors playing Asian parts but because the
performances were uniformly god awful (I simply can't stand Hepburn in
ANY role but in her Asian getup she is simply ludicrous).
This film is wartime propaganda and should be relegated to the dustbin
of history.

[Stephen DeMay]

> notably) and casting choices that would not even be tolerated today But Charlie Chan smart detective

[Obveeus]

On 9/4/2015 9:53 AM, moviePig wrote:

> ("Subtle rape" may get you a few inquisitors.) Not that box-office draw
> wasn't -- or isn't -- isn't everything, but I'm wondering what Asian
> screen-talent would have been available in '44, had the studio wanted
> it.

This was a film that shouldn't have tried to sign American stars and
wedge them into Chinese characters. that being said, some adapted to
the task better than others. Walter Huston didn't really look the
part, but he did a wonderful job compared with the rest of them.
Katharine Hepburn, on the other hand, was just horrid. Looking at IMDB
trivia, it seems that Judy Garland was the first choice for the lead
role. I never liked her acting, but she could not have been any worse
that Hepburn was in this role.

> Heck, Shakespeare's women were played by boys.

...and probably did a more believable job in many cases.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 9:53:46 AM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:

> ("Subtle rape" may get you a few inquisitors.) Not that box-office draw
> wasn't -- or isn't -- isn't everything, but I'm wondering what Asian
> screen-talent would have been available in '44, had the studio wanted
> it. Heck, Shakespeare's women were played by boys.
>

And those "boys" fulfilled the same role as the yellowface. In the first case it was unbridled sexism and in the second unbridled racism. There was plenty of Chinese actors or Chinese American actors to play the parts. The only real star was Anna May Wong and she had to go to Europe to make a decent film. There is no excuse and no debate about this. You live in a racist and sexist culture and you've been so indoctrinated that you're blind to the -- if I may -- obvious. But justifying racism by using examples of sexism is pretty funny. You guys break me up. Really. Sometimes this place is a hoot.

[trotsky]

On 9/4/15 12:17 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:

> You guys break me up. Really. Sometimes this place is a hoot.
>

Usually it sounds like you're in the middle of a break *down*.

[Bill Steele]

To be fair, the real motivation for the casting was probably that studio
bosses thought they had to have big name stars on the marquee to get
people to come. They may have been right; the audience in those days
was conditioned to expect familiar faces (even if disguised). It was the
era of the studio system, with their stables of actors to choose from.
Nobody was making independent films with offbeat stories and unknown
actors.

I'm reminded of the abortive Charlie Chan TV series proposed somewhere
in the 90s. They issued a statement saying they were conducting "a
worldwide search for a Chinese actor of sufficient stature to carry the
role...who could speak English with an accent acceptable to American
audiences." This is in California, where the population includes
thousands of Asians who probably don't speak Chinese. Maybe the problem
was that they couldn't do a good fake Chinese accent.

They made the pilot with Ross Martin (known for ethnic disguises on the
Wild Wild West).

I think Keye Luke spoke excellent English. Fortunately he got a good
steady job later on Kung Fu.

[Obveeus]

I understand a motivation to have the characters speak in Chinese. I
don't understand the motivation to have the characters speak English,
but with a Chinese accent. Unless the character is supposed to
specifically be a an immigrant / first generation American, why would
they need a 'fake Chinese accent'?

[moviePig]

I assume it's akin to BEN-HUR, where, for consistency, all the Romans
had to speak (English) with a British accent ...or even like standard
background music that tells whether a scene is funny or sad. To feel
secure, we need our "subliminal" guideposts...

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 3:31:37 PM UTC-4, Obveeus wrote:

> I understand a motivation to have the characters speak in Chinese. I
> don't understand the motivation to have the characters speak English,
> but with a Chinese accent. Unless the character is supposed to
> specifically be a an immigrant / first generation American, why would
> they need a 'fake Chinese accent'?

Because that was the tradition of yellowface that began in the US during colonial times when they weren't any Chinese, let alone Chinese actors. The tradition manifested in various forms from racist comedy routines to more sympathetic characters such as in Broken Blossoms. By the time Dragon Seed rolled around, yellowface had been accepted as a theatrical choice. If they did speak Chinese, who would understand them? It seems odd to isolate one aspect of an entirely false presentation.

[Obveeus]

People who can read the English subtitles? If you've seen something
like DAREDEVIL (Netflix offering), it has a fair amount of Chinese
dialog in it, subtitled as needed.

> It seems odd to isolate one aspect of an entirely false presentation.

Which one aspect was I isolating? I complained about the casting, the
attempts to make them 'look Chinese', and the pigeon English-y
dialog/accents they saddled the characters with.

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 6:07:18 PM UTC-4, Obveeus wrote:

> People who can read the English subtitles? If you've seen something
> like DAREDEVIL (Netflix offering), it has a fair amount of Chinese
> dialog in it, subtitled as needed.
>

Subtitles in a Hollywood film from the 1940s? For the whole movie after years of production so Katherine Hepburn can learn Chinese dialog? Are you back on the pipe?

[Obveeus]

I thought we were suggesting alternate actress options to Hepburn and
ways to make the film less of the insulting cultural joke that it was.
If, instead, your goal is merely to claim high ground over everyone
in the newsgroup...

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 8:50:44 PM UTC-4, Obveeus wrote:

> I thought we were suggesting alternate actress options to Hepburn and
> ways to make the film less of the insulting cultural joke that it was.
> If, instead, your goal is merely to claim high ground over everyone
> in the newsgroup...

Oh, please . . .

[tomcervo]

On Friday, September 4, 2015 at 12:41:12 PM UTC-4, Obveeus wrote:

> > Heck, Shakespeare's women were played by boys.
>
> ...and probably did a more believable job in many cases.

In the John Mortimer-scripted "Will Shakespeare", Ron Cook plays Jack Rice, the young boy player who played roles like Juliet. He didn't camp it, or drag it; he adopted a feminine manner, quite subtly. Gives a very good impression of an actor so good that Shakespeare could create great roles for him.

[moviePig]

Here's your entry into this thread:

--------
ME: Not that box-office draw wasn't -- or isn't -- everything, but I'm

wondering what Asian screen-talent would have been available in '44, had
the studio wanted it. Heck, Shakespeare's women were played by boys.

YOU: And those "boys" fulfilled the same role as the yellowface. In the

first case it was unbridled sexism and in the second unbridled racism.
There was plenty of Chinese actors or Chinese American actors to play
the parts. The only real star was Anna May Wong and she had to go to
Europe to make a decent film. There is no excuse and no debate about
this. You live in a racist and sexist culture and you've been so
indoctrinated that you're blind to the -- if I may -- obvious. But
justifying racism by using examples of sexism is pretty funny. You guys
break me up. Really. Sometimes this place is a hoot.

--------

The information/perspective you posted was entirely appreciated by
everyone present, I suspect. But nobody is "justifying racism" here.
At worst, I was wondering about its degree in this instance ...and I
don't think that your answering that sans general denigration (of me and
everybody) would've been an overly charitable stretch. If you have no
respect for the people you're addressing, why talk to them?

[wlah...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 8:42:52 AM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>
> The information/perspective you posted was entirely appreciated by
> everyone present, I suspect. But nobody is "justifying racism" here.
> At worst, I was wondering about its degree in this instance ...and I
> don't think that your answering that sans general denigration (of me and
> everybody) would've been an overly charitable stretch. If you have no
> respect for the people you're addressing, why talk to them?
>

Yes, you were justifying it and it's so typical of you to deny it. Just like when you misquoted Rita Hayworth and then said you didn't misquote her, you made the quote "better." Whether you intended to justify racism might be debatable because I can't speak to your intentions. Be that as it may, your aside did in fact justify the shortcomings of one society by an example of the shortcomings of another. For someone who creates the illusion of being a humorous person, you can't seem to find any humor in anything more complicated than a pun. The statement I made here is quite similar to the statement that I made in the Straight Outta Compton thread about how the conversation devolved into a discussion of "fuck" rather than deal with the issues of the film. This forum -- except, of course RichA -- utterly avoids any discussion about race even when it's on-topic and germane to the films being discussed and I find humor in that since it is so consistent. How can you miss the humor in that?

[trotsky]

On 9/5/15 8:15 AM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 8:42:52 AM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
>>
>> The information/perspective you posted was entirely appreciated by
>> everyone present, I suspect. But nobody is "justifying racism" here.
>> At worst, I was wondering about its degree in this instance ...and I
>> don't think that your answering that sans general denigration (of me and
>> everybody) would've been an overly charitable stretch. If you have no
>> respect for the people you're addressing, why talk to them?
>>
> Yes, you were justifying it and it's so typical of you to deny it.

Here we go again...