Did anyone else find this film racist? I thought the way Arabs where portrayed was bad enough in The Sheik. This is ten times worse. This film would be infamous if the Arabs had been African-Americans.
- This comment is most likely authentic and fairly close to what I intended to say -
I suppose it was, but you have to make allowances for the times, which
were appallingly racist. Before he became known Dorothy Gish suggested
Valentino for the romantic lead in Griffith's film Scarlet Days, but
Griffith declined, saying (this should be in the Hall of Fame for
film quotes) : "Women will never go for that swarthy type"!
That era was suffused with all kinds of stereotypes, mostly
uncomplimentary. In his first dozen films Rudy played criminals.
And his wife changed her name from Winifred Shaughnassy to
Natacha Rambova, because Russians were fashionable at the time
(right after the Revolution) and the Irish were not.
I'm not sure what you mean by "make allowances for the times" - this sort of statement gets made a lot when historical racism is brought up and it never makes sense to me. What are we *allowing* for? Why do we use that word specifically as opposed to a phrase like "put it in context" or something similar, which I think is closer to what you probably mean?
shareThese films are based on a series of novels written by E.M. Hull who was a British farmer's wife during WWI. You have to consider the time period in which these books were written as well as the intended audience. Consider these books the equivalents of the bodice rippers of the 1980's where Sheiks, Arabs and mysterious men of the desert were the heroes. Having the hero be Middle Eastern caused a great scandal at the time (that is why you later learn he is actually British and Spanish, not Arab). This film is no more racist than any other film where the 'bad guys' of a particular ethnic group are magnified to show their baser qualities.
Dolores
“I am begining to look more and more like my miserable imitators.” Rudolph Valentino
But is it not strange that people have problems with Birth of a Nation and not with this film?
- This comment is most likely authentic and fairly close to what I intended to say -
I guess it really has to do with the different types of movies. 'Birth of a Nation' is a serious movie with serious content that attracts scholarly attention and 'The Sheik/Son of the Sheik' is in modern terms a 'popcorn movie'. Most people completely dismiss 'Sheik' as a romance since it was the 'Titanic' of its day.
Dolores
“I am begining to look more and more like my miserable imitators.” Rudolph Valentino
No, that much I do not think is strange. The Sheik and Son of the Sheik are romantic films with some racist undertones. Most films that set out to romanticize and exoticize a foreign land fall into the trap of stereotyping. That was almost universally true in the 1920s, and it's largely still true today.
However, by contrast, Birth of a Nation is not a film with some racist content: Birth of a Nation itself is a racist manifesto. Racism is absolutely a central part of its propagandistic main point, and the racism in Nation is far more egregious and offensive than anything in The Sheik and its sequel. If one wanted to, one could attempt to explain away, or at least play down, the bigotry in The Sheiks, but there would be absolutely no way whatsoever to do that with Birth of a Nation.
ALOT more people have seen birth of nation, which means more people can see the racism. This film on the other hand is less famous. I get what you mean though and this film is kind of racist and unflattering towards Arabs.
shareIm still waiting to see this film and no 'allowances' shouldnt be made but we must accept it as history (and learn from it). There was a lot of (it seems odd now) racisim in early silent film. Like the fact that a 'mixed race' couple could never be on screen or mixed race actors were usually kept sepearte. So if you made a movie about Asians and cast a white man in the lead then an authentic Asian woman could not be his partner. Ask Anna Mae Wong.
Its truely tragic in retrospect. The great actors/actresses and films that COULD have been had these horrible and pointless 'rules' not been in place. And yes obviously the portrayls werent exactly flattering to a lot of races. Everyone who wasnt 'white' seemed to be a paraody and it wasnt just one ethnic group. Jews (The Jazz Singer), Asians particularly Chinese (Broken Blossoms, Mr. Wu), African Americans (Birth of a Nation), Germans (all the war movies), etc.
I think Arabic portrayls even in these days are a bit racist (show me a movie/TV show on now where an Arabic actor ISNT a racist). In the silents if the portrayls werent racist they were certainly odd. Such as the portrayl of Indians being 'Oriental' in 'The Young Rajah'.
Just my thoughts :p
I realize this thread if 4 years old, but since no one brought this up, I might as well.
Whether "racism" is intended or not, the negative portrayal didn't stop with the Arabs. You have the main character, who is of British and Spaniard descent, who kidnaps and rapes the woman he supposedly loves.
Well, since the movie takes place in the mideast, having an Irish and Dutch leading man wouldn't have made a whole lot of sense, would it? Is your point that showing [fill in the blank] ethnic background doing something naughty is racist? What are the acceptable races to show committing crimes?
The book is far more racist with an unsympathetic heroine, so this was infinitely better. Also, the exotic-zation and stereotypes portrayed here are not as malicious as the many we see of Arabs in present films.
share