MovieChat Forums > Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961) Discussion > Why as an Asian I have no problem with R...

Why as an Asian I have no problem with Rooney's character


First of all let me state right away that I am in fact Asian. Full-blodded Asian. I have lived in Europe for many years and then in the US. Yes I am completely familiar with stereotypes and distorted visions of Asians. Yes I have been victom of prejudices, mockery and other issues related with being the odd one out.

I have watched countless movies from the classical era of American cinema (of which I am a great fan) and yes I do bemoan the dirth of good complex Asian characters.

However I believe that most who feel offended at Rooney's characterization have little knowledge of the way Asians in general were portrayed in American movies up until the 1960s. Apart from the questionable Charlie Chan movies (which did portray one Asian positively), the field was largely empty.

Rooney's characterization while caricatural and slightly grotesque was not particularly unusual for its time. Perhaps one could argue that by the 1960s we should have "known better", but this was still the EARLY 1960s.

In fact if we compare Mr. Yunioshi to that of countless - no less caricatural - portrayals of Asians done today I would its only fault is to be a little bit exaggerated. Are there many Asian who are actually similar to Jackie Chan or as athletic as Lucy Liu? Have Asians have really gained much in depth of character in the past 45 years apart from a few notable exceptions?

The answer is sadly no. Most Asians in films are still seen as fodder for ridicule and seen as either hopelessly boring nerds, impish clowns or super human martial arts virtuosos.

Thus I believe the entire condemnation and targetting of Rooney's chaerstization as nothing less than hypocritical and holier than thou.

Rather than be shocked at this very minor bleep in an otherwise intersting movie one should instead ponder the many shocking and unusual ideas introduced by this movie. Among these:

- The fact that Holly was married at 14 to a man at least 30 years older than she.
- The fact that Holly was ready to marry purely for money in order to support a brother old enough to be in the army (and falls in love with a man who looks like her brother)
- The fact that Paul is essentially a gigolo
- The fact that shoplifting is seen as a source of entertainment

and a few other quite unorthodox and questionable issue which even today challenge our puritanical sense of morality.

This movie is not meant to be easy to watch or to make the viewer feel smug or comfortable. It rips away most of our assumptions about what "good american boys and girls" are supposed to be like.

In this sense Mr. Yunioshi may turn out to be the more understandable traditional character...

Food for thought.

reply

Rooneys scene is the worst part of the film, very offensive to just about anyone today (though not in 61), and detracts greatly from the overall story line.

reply

I agree with this. It ruins the movie for me. It doesn't matter that this was the reality in Hollywood back then. It's not the reality now. It was over done to the point of distraction. The buck teeth were particlarly disturbing.

reply

While I agree that it might be offensive to anyone today as you mentioned,it was thought of as simply funny (if a bit grotesque and of poor taste) in 1961.

I do not believe it detracts that much from the movie however. One is perfectly able to watch the entire movie and appreciate it while simply ignoring the sequences with Rooney. These sequences after all take no more than a minute or 2 in their totality out of movie which lasts 115 minutes.

Many more movies have been spoiled far more and mor extensively through needless stupidity.

reply

Well, whether one finds it offensive or not, it still doesn't make it correct, considering it was 1961 (and not the WWII era) and you had a slew of Asian actors working in Hollywood even if they weren't of Japanese decent. Keye Luke and Philip Ahn come to mind and both had been working in the industry for over 20 years (and later, the two of them would star in KUNG FU). You also had James Hong and Sammee Tong. Of course, there was Sessue Hayakawa, who himself had been nominated for an Oscar in BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI. And of course, Hollywood and elsewhere was now even brining in actors from Japan to star in their pictures. Among them was Kurosawa regular Toshiro Mifune, who in 1961 starred in a Mexican film, (AMINAS TURJANO) which would be his first international movie, among many others. Though Mifune was probably not right for this part, it certainly would have been interesting casting.

reply

I just find those scenes so unnecessary and stupid!

Seymour Skinner: You were right to be suspicious Edna. To the Crime lab!

reply

What a bunch of PC rubbish! In that case Mischa Auer's hilarious 'Russian' caricatures (Destry Rides Again etc.) must offend you too. Then the great screen Irish, Italian and other broad caricatures. While you are at it, why not Marjorie Main's 'insulting' portrayal of poor whites and hillbillies. And these are just off the top of my head.

reply

ROFLMAO...you don't seem to understand the PC movement...everything is a stereotype or in poor taste UNLESS it mocks someone of European descent. Here's a little rhyme to remember: if you're white, they can make fun of you all night.

reply

Oh, boo-hoo, you poor cracker. Must be tought seeing a movie and that every white character is a stereotype.

reply

Yeah, it's "tought." Cracker: offensive and derogatory to whites, and perfectly acceptable on here. Thanks for proving my point.

reply

"Very offensive to just about anyone today"? Really? As hard as I try, I can't bring myself to be offended by it, and I think as a young white person I'm pretty typical in this regard. I understand, of course, that it could be very offensive for people of Asian decent, but I don't understand why it should offend anyone else. Maybe I'm stupid. Maybe not.

reply

"Very offensive to just about anyone today"? Really? As hard as I try, I can't bring myself to be offended by it, and I think as a young white person I'm pretty typical in this regard.

You may think that, but you really are not typical if you think it is not offensive, you would be what most people- not everyone- today consider an outlier.

reply

I think you misunderstood me. If something's offensive toward a group I'm not part of then I'm not offended by it. I think that's normal. What I'm not saying is that it's not an offensive character, because it pretty clearly is. What I am saying is that there's a huge difference between "very offensive to just about anyone" and "very offensive".

reply

Maybe I did misunderstand your position.

But for me, if someone were to use racial or ethnic slurs, stereotypes or epithets for any group, not just my race, gender or ethnicity, I find it offensive.

Like King said, an injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere...people should stand up and say that certain behavior will not be accepted n a civilized society, no matter who the offensive conduct is aimed at.

reply

That might be the problem right here: the fact you've been conditioned to consider the act of making fun of someone an "injustice".

People have been ridiculed for stuff, both individuals and groups, ever since the mankind began. Making fun of the Japanese is likely no worse and no less common than making fun of gingers, or people who talk funny, or people with weird names, or homosexuals, or pretty much anybody else. It's been perfectly normal when I was growing up, and I'm definitely quite a bit younger than Breakfast at Tiffany's. Maybe, recent generations are simply more touchy than we used to be (softies! ). But honestly, I think it is silly. If we spend our life constantly being afraid of insulting somebody, we end up doing nothing at all.
The worst thing about today: When reprimanded by some self-appointed morality protector over some perceived "transgression", people these days actually apologize, even though the only proper response would be "Mind your own business, *beep* you very much!"  Case in point: Matt Taylor and his shirt. To this very day, I just don't understand why he didn't simply tell the worthless b*** to shut up and *beep* off.

reply

Offensive speech is offensive, and it is not making fun of someone , it is judging them on race, ethnicity, gender or some other non-material factor and shows the sign of a weak person and shallow mind.

Thanks for playing Champ.

reply

All stereotypes are founded in reality.

reply

people should stand up and say that certain behavior will not be accepted n a civilized society, no matter who the offensive conduct is aimed at.


Really? You're gonna get riled up that a movie made in 1961 isn't politically correct? Who're you going to stand up to? They're all dead.

While you're out there bravely battling (and defending) the dead, I'll be over here giving a hand to the living.

BBL

reply

The Rooney character is extremely racist and offensive, it would never be tolerated today but in 1961 it was a different time and era; and we learn from our past mistakes (or the smart ones among us do). It is best to note the issue, validate the offensivenss of it, and make sure it does not happen again. Anything else is just a person today being a Social Justice Warrior/Drama Queen. The use of racial slurs just in this thread proves how sensative an issue this is, and how some people never learn and are not above the Rooney character from 1961...55 years ago.

reply

It's offensive but it's not racist. I'm kinda tired of people using racist or racism where it doesn't apply.

reply

Who gives a rat's ass what's "typical"? To be an "outlier" is an honor, an indication of a superior IQ.

reply

I can't bring myself to be offended by it, and I think as a young white person

Enough said 

reply

Very well said.

The answers are out there... =Zee=

reply


The drift I'm getting, saying you are Asian and completely cool with it, is that it is just a lot of über-liberal 'White' Americans who feel the need to stick up for issues like that. It happens all the time.




"Don't let's ask for the moon-we have the stars"

reply

I am not actually casting any aspersions on any particular political tendencies with this.

I am simply stating that

1. I am able to put the entire issue into perspective and context and see the bigger picture (if you will pardon the expression) and appreciate a movie as a whole without being hampered by its minor flaws.

2. I am knowledgeable enough about classic movies made before the 1970s to understand that they must be judged from their own time frame and social context rather than using our 21st century sensitivities.

There is nothing "liberal" or "conservative" about appreciating a movie for its own merits and analyzing it as a whole. :)

Also as I stated in my post there are many issues and situations exposed in the movie that are far more problematic and controversial (both for conservatives or liberals) than Rooney's portrayal.

reply

Laurence, you're a breath of fresh air!

Interested in collaborating on a new type of film rating system? Contact me.

reply

I agree with the poster that your outlook is refreshing. These scenes DO take a little bit away from an otherwise iconic movie...but not that much. And, as you have noted, they don't do so as badly as scenes in many other movies. Your point about the other actions & behaviors in the film area also well-taken.

Anyway, to me the bizarre point that should make one scratch his/her head today is not so much Rooney's caraciture as the fact that it won him an Oscar! Obviously that type of humor WAS still considered totally acceptable in mainstream America in 1961.

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

I agree with Laurence Dang here. Can't judge a movie made in the 60's with a 21st century mind. Quite a shocking comment made by a non-Caucasian. Nevertheless, this is a classic movie with minor flaws and a most wonderful actress!

"The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

reply

THANK YOU LAURENCE!!

I like Breakfast at Tiffany's. And as a person of color, I do find Yunioshi offensive. But as a classic film lover, I too can put it in perspective and see it as a minor (maybe somewhat bigger that minor) flaw in an otherwise perfectly enjoyable film.

reply

This reply reeks of so much emotional immaturity I have nothing pertinent to say.

It is interesting to note however that whenever a non white person does not agree with the consensus prescribed by others on race issues, he is labelled a "sellout" or a "house negro", thus implying that a racial war is being waged.

This truly belittles the actual depth of human relationships which transcends racial barriers.

The second point I would make is that nowhere did I condone the performance of Rooney but simply put it into its proper historical and social context. If being able to appreciate a movie beyond minor flaws is "selling out" then perhaps we should simply eradicate every single movie made which does not correspond to our modern sensibilities.

Such excision would then include
- Gone with the Wind - a movie where numerous actual "house negroes" are depicted and one even wins an Oscar for her performance (I would label Prissy's portrayal as far more offensive to blacks than Rooney's even though the actress was genuinely black)

- Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom in which all indian characters are evil or ignorant

- Out of Africa - another movie filled with house negroes in love with white imperialism

- The Temptation of Christ - in which all Jews are bad people

- Duel in the Sun - in which Native American origin seems to be equated with moral depravity and overt racism and prejudice sems to be excused or even condoned.

- Charlie Chan movies - where the only acceptable asian character is the detective himself played of course by a non asian (while asian characters are portrayed as servile and stupid)

Essentially a host of otherwise good movies (save the chan movies) would be bnned for the crime of not matching our modern sensibilities. Again I am not condoning here the poor taste or prejudice inherent in these movies but putting the whole thing into perspective.

Some apparently have great difficulty with this.

reply

I dont think this should be justified, at all.

I think thats why its still considered "Ok" to make fun of asians these days. Its because we accept it. Well at least, causcasians think we're ok with it.

Damn, this would never be accepted by blacks or arabs. Im sorry to say it, but theres too many "asian house negroes". So sad

reply

This movie is not the origin of stereotypes in Asian movies by a long shot. Once again you are attributing modern feelings and issues out of CONTEXT with the movie itself.

The true origin of stereotypes affecting asians today as yesterday is not the movies themselves but the lack of exposure and understanding between individuals and groups in real life. The fact however is that since then (and even before then) many movies have indeed furthered this understanding and therefore movies which continue such stereoptypes TODAY are indeed the ones you should rightfully condemn.

Again social and historical context is KEY.

To dissociate a movie from such context is to profoundly misunderstand the true nature of movies, which is at its very best a snapshot of the society and times in which it was made, for good or for evil.

reply

I agree with the OP. If you ban this film, you'll have to ban a bunch of other films. It's not going to happen. And I doubt that a version without the Yunioshi scenes will ever be released for those of you who would be interested, so...?

~"Chris,...am I weird?"
~"Yeah, but so what? Everybody's weird."

reply

Laurence: Charlie Chan is presented as far and above the smartest and most perceptive character in the Chan films, his sons may bumble (as was the custom in movies at the time for the sons of distinguished fathers), however they are college educated, articulate and sharp witted, just a little wet behind the ears, that's all. Besides, all the villains are white! As to Charlie being played by a Caucasian, for me this adds a certain playfulness to the film a la Gilbert & Sullivan: they're murder mysteries, and therefore serious, yet the movies don't take themselves all that seriously. I find them delightful, urge you to give them another chance. There's a website devoted to just the Chan films, and it has a lively message board; most of the posters are white, with an occasional Asian dropping in now and again, also a black guy, and they all love Charlie and everything Chan. He's like the Lone Ranger of detectives, the Asian Sherlock Holmes. I see nothing demeaning in this.

reply

Yet he is played by a white person too! Meanwhile his sons who do seem a bit more inept than just "wet behind the ear" are played by Asians. Many Asian stereoptypes are also depicted in the series, and while they are meant perhaps in a more gentle way than Yunioshi, there are nonetheless stereotypes.

This being said, I do agree that Charlie Chan is an enjoyable series and certainly SHOULD be viewed in its own historical and social context as well!

This was simply mentioned as a comparison.

As I said, while I do find Roney's characterization in poor taste, I find the general outcry against it as completely disproportionate and excessive.

reply

[deleted]

-To Bordeaux Boy

Says the one with a French screen name and a French quote for signature :) (and yes I am also a French native).

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]

And I thought Mickey Rooney was channeling Truman Capote.

reply

Well well, aren't you the typical French chauvinist pig. I think it's a miracle that you actually know a little bit of English.

Who cares about stereotyping anyway? I'm half Asian and half white. What does that make me in your narrow mind?

OT: the fake-Jap (who actually reminded me more of a Chinaman than a Japanese guy)was extremely over the top, making the character an obvious joke. So what? The man is actually the owner of an apartment complex. How many Asian immigrants could say that in the sixties?

reply

[deleted]

Your post, while being more or less grammatically correct and intelligently phrased, has absolutely no logical merit. Let me understand you; you're saying that people should not be offended by the racist portrayal because everyone else was doing it?

That's called a "tu quoque" argument, and it's a logical fallacy. In law & in logic, you cannot excuse your crime by saying someone else did it, too. That would be like saying "Stalin killed Jews, too, so everybody should lighten up on that Hitler fella. Everyone was doing it!"

reply

Not by any means. I am simply saying it should be viewed in its proper historical and social context.

The outcry against this particular movie seems to me out of proportion with the context of movies which had come before it.

reply

Your description of the tu quoque fallacy is incorrect. And it's an informal fallacy, which isn't plagued by lack of logic but rather by making shaky assumptions. It's not necessarily incorrect, but simply unsound.

reply

has anyone ever seen the biopic "Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story"?

in one scene, Lee and his girlfriend (who is white) go out on a date, and decide to see Breakfast At Tiffany's. He is the only Asian person in the theatre. The entire audience is laughing their asses off at Rooney/Yunioshi. She looks over at Bruce, who is clearly very uncomfortable.

Food for thought.


2011 Academy Award for Best Picture:
How to Train Your Dragon

reply

Bruce Lee was Chinese. China still has not forgiven Japan for the horrors Japan inflicted on China in the 1930s. Why would Lee care how a Japanese was portrayed any more than an Englishman would care how a Frenchman was portrayed?

reply

is it ok for a black guy to fly on to the screen, chomping down on half a water melon? Running around screaming for fried chicken, and dressed as a pro basketball player.

i just find it odd how when the Media makes fun of asians, asian people just takes it and swallow their pride and accept the abuse, but all other races, genders, gays, straight, anyone, when they are mocked imediately there is a strong protest and strong reaction against it?

Are Asian people truly this weak and feeble minded?

reply

nogard64: i just find it odd how when the Media makes fun of sians, asian people just takes it and swallow their pride and accept the abuse, but all other races, genders, gays, straight, anyone, when there mocked imediately there is a strong protest and strong reaction against it?
This thread is about a movie filmed in 1960 and released in 1961. There's no way the Japanese photographer would have been played by a Caucasian actor with fake buck teeth today.

People in movies before our time were depicted in ways that would be offensive today. That's a reality of history that we can't do anything about. It should not be suppressed.

reply

I recently watched an episode of the show Gunsmoke, called "The Queue," in which Keye Luke (the hardest-working Chinese actor in Hollywood, in my opinion) plays a Chinese newcomer in Dodge. He's faced with prejudice, naturally. He starts out by saying things like, "Me good Chinese boy!" and "Me mean no trouble!"

Later, however, when he's alone with Doc and Marshal Dillon, he speaks English much better, and expresses himself in a normal fashion. The marshal asks him what happened to all that "Me good boy stuff," and he says "That's how you expect me to talk, isn't it?" And he goes on to explain that acting and talking that way helps him avoid trouble.

This episode aired in 1955 (check it out on YouTube, it's great), and Gunsmoke was an incredibly popular show. So I don't think you can say that audiences in 1961 "didn't know any better." Certainly some people didn't, but complex Asian characters played by actual Asians weren't nonexistent at that point.

http://ocdviewer.wordpress.com

reply

[deleted]

Interesting...that's exactly what happens in Steinbeck's novel East of Eden (1952) with the Chinese servant Lee, who speaks in pidgin with most people because it's expected of him, but privately speaks fluent English. I'm sure that influenced the episode, especially given the timeline.


________________________________________

I don't come from hell. I came from the forest.

reply

That's interesting. I didn't know that. I've read Of Mice and Men and The Red Pony, but not East of Eden. I'm pretty sure the story "The Queue" was originally a radio episode. They were literate, intelligent scripts, so I wouldn't be surprised if John Meston (or whoever wrote the episode) was a Steinbeck reader.

http://ocdviewer.wordpress.com

reply

I never said they were or that audiences did not know any better. I am saying that in the 1960s portrayal of Asians was still very sterotypical at best. Let us re-read what I actually said

However I believe that most who feel offended at Rooney's characterization have little knowledge of the way Asians in general were portrayed in American movies up until the 1960s.


Certainly there were notable exceptions and certainy series such as gunsmoke did pave the way to a greater understanding. But these were unfortunately the exception. Not the norm.

Perhaps you would be right in faulting a movie of the stature and respect of Breakfast at Tiffany for NOT breaking the mold in this respect.

In this you would be right. Such a well known movie perhaps SHOULD have tried harder at breaking the mold.

However I am suprised that no one was incensed or revolted at the way in which Italians and even Brazilians are portrayed. While Yunioshi is essentially a pesky neighbor, Holly's italian and Braxilian friands are "rats" and "super rats". While she does not take Yunioshi's raving and ranting too seriously, she is utterly emotionally and physically destroyed by her italian mobster "friends"

IMHO this type of stereotyping should be seen as worse.

reply

[deleted]

I think mojoman3061 is one of the few who understood what I have been trying to say here.

reply

Are Asian people truly this weak and feeble minded?


*beep* you

How's that for a strong protest and reaction?

reply