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

Just because it was ok at the time doesn't mean you have to shrug it off now. Do you laugh when seeing blackface in old movies?

reply

The majority of people who have their knickers in a knot over Rooney's character are most likely white women with graduate degrees, and their soy boy minions. Normal, rational people aren't worried about it.

reply

The OP made valid points about Holly and Paul, not being pillars of society. The OP glossed over that Holly is "party girl" (AKA call girl). These are not people to be admired.

Let's move on to Mr. Yunioshi . Any race Rooney played that charter he would be obnoxious and the worst part of the movie.

Like the OP said let's judge the movie in its entirety. When we do that, we accept, regardless of being a classic, it is not a good movie.

reply