If you expand "yellow face" to include Indians, there's Fisher Stevens in the Short Circuit movies and of course Cumberbatch in the most recent Star Trek.
To be fair, there was no yellowface involved in ST; they just didn't explain why a Sikh warrior was a white guy.
Original Trek didn't explain why a Sikh warrior was a Latino guy, of course, but the world was younger then.
I do think they could have lampshaded Cumberbatch; there are white Sikhs, after all, and a simple "his family came to India as colonialists and stayed as converts" would have done it.
Yes. But I think that would have been the lesser of two evils.
The whole business was dumb; why didn't they just write a new villain if they were so bound & determined to have Cumberbatch, or cast a South Asian actor if they were so bound & determined to have Khan? Ultimately they painted themselves into a stupid racist corner and then went "La la la la I can't hear you".
I was surprised they cast a White Brit as Khan but I do appreciate the quandary they probably found themselves in. Once the Race Card is played, every move you can make is wrong. To wit:
- Cast a White person as Khan? You're insulting South Asians by "whiting" them out. - Cast a South Asian actor as Khan? Now you're portraying South Asians as villains. - Cast a South Asian actor as the villain and add a heroic South Asian character to balance it out? That's obvious pandering. - Change Khan's last name to Smith so it makes sense cast a White European and no member of an ethnic minority is a villain? Now you're erasing the participation of other cultures from your story.
It's hard to parse out which of these is least bad. That said, I would have preferred the second one. At least it would have aligned with the existing backstory they used.
no subject
Date: 2013-08-21 03:33 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-08-21 04:45 pm (UTC)Original Trek didn't explain why a Sikh warrior was a Latino guy, of course, but the world was younger then.
I do think they could have lampshaded Cumberbatch; there are white Sikhs, after all, and a simple "his family came to India as colonialists and stayed as converts" would have done it.
no subject
Date: 2013-08-21 07:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-08-21 07:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-08-21 08:26 pm (UTC)The whole business was dumb; why didn't they just write a new villain if they were so bound & determined to have Cumberbatch, or cast a South Asian actor if they were so bound & determined to have Khan? Ultimately they painted themselves into a stupid racist corner and then went "La la la la I can't hear you".
no subject
Date: 2013-08-22 01:38 am (UTC)- Cast a White person as Khan? You're insulting South Asians by "whiting" them out.
- Cast a South Asian actor as Khan? Now you're portraying South Asians as villains.
- Cast a South Asian actor as the villain and add a heroic South Asian character to balance it out? That's obvious pandering.
- Change Khan's last name to Smith so it makes sense cast a White European and no member of an ethnic minority is a villain? Now you're erasing the participation of other cultures from your story.
It's hard to parse out which of these is least bad. That said, I would have preferred the second one. At least it would have aligned with the existing backstory they used.
no subject
Date: 2013-08-22 02:02 am (UTC)Is 'do an original story' completely off the board?
no subject
Date: 2013-08-22 02:13 am (UTC)Theoretically, no. As a practical matter, given how they've chosen to finance, operate, and market the franchise, yes.