or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Cloud Atlas - Page 9

post #241 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

How would you know? I thought you hadn't read the book...?

My extremely brief non-spoiler summary of the book vs. the movie: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1471720/cloud-atlas-blu-ray-official-avsforum-review/60#post_23440185

I'm sure there are extensive comparisons on-line; there are some sites that are all about book vs. movie.
post #242 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

How would you know? I thought you hadn't read the book...?

its called Google
post #243 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Pro tip; for many Asian cultures they would say NOTHING even if they were EXTREMELY offended. .

Hey look... another stereotype from you. I'm not going to call you racist, but you definitely seem to be a race "enthusiast". Pro tip indeed.
post #244 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

its called Google

Ah, sure. Somehow I figured you for a Cliff Notes kinda' guy.
post #245 of 301
My friend emailed me about this discussion and I decided to chip in.

I am a full blooded Korean and was born and raised in Seoul (Gangnam district when they used to have sector numbers) until my family immigrated to the States in my teens. I watched this movie and was not offended by the prosthetic. I thought the craftsmanship was very good. One thing bothered me was Hugo Weaving's Korean prosthetic because he looked so ugly. But that may have more to do with Hugo himself not having a good base palette to work with. biggrin.gif I was too busy trying to follow the storyline to be concerned with the superficial aspect of the movie.

Those who are all up in arms about it, they need to chill out.
post #246 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Give me a break. You experience racism in San Fran. Cry me a river. Tell that to Blacks in the South who had decades of Slavery and then Segregation. Tell that to Asian who were SENT TO PRISON and lost their business during WW2 just because they were Asian.

Doona Bae did not portrail a Black slave.

In fact no actor/actress was given makeup to look black. Why? Answer that question and then you will know why many are mad at the yellowface.

I suppose that your interpretation is different from mine. In the scene we are both talking about, Doona Bae was in the company of two other women taking tea. One of these women appeared to be White, but Doona Bae and the other woman had brown skin. I interpreted this as a portrayal of a white woman and two Domestic servants, and possibly Mulatto slaves. Was not Doona Bae's social station in life versus her upper-class White suitor the whole point of this 19th Century plot segment?

Yes, that is right - my interpretation of that scene is that Korean actress Doona Bae was made up to be a Black - or at least Mulatto - slave, complete with reddish kinky hair. I have not read the book either, but you can catch a glimpse of the scene I am talking about in the film trailer at about the 2-minute mark, right after the screen that says "Everything is Connected".

Is it nevertheless the case that you were ONLY offended by Hugo Weaving, a White actor, portraying an Asian character? That is all that you have protested about. Doona Bae as a Mulatto slave does not offend you? Doona Bae as a Mexican woman does not offend you?
post #247 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kilgore View Post

No, the reason is that the characters were who they were based on the book.None of the characters Tom Hanks or Hugo Weaving played were black.

Unless I'm mistaken, Hanks' character was supposed to be black (or at least mixed race) in the storyline where he's a gangster who throws a guy off the building.
post #248 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Unless I'm mistaken, Hanks' character was supposed to be black (or at least mixed race) in the storyline where he's a gangster who throws a guy off the building.

I didn't know that, either. I suppose, it's better to have a controversy about some things, than to be explicit.

Better for ticket and Blu-Ray sales, that is.
post #249 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFEer View Post

My friend emailed me about this discussion and I decided to chip in.

I am a full blooded Korean and was born and raised in Seoul (Gangnam district when they used to have sector numbers) until my family immigrated to the States in my teens. I watched this movie and was not offended by the prosthetic. I thought the craftsmanship was very good. One thing bothered me was Hugo Weaving's Korean prosthetic because he looked so ugly. But that may have more to do with Hugo himself not having a good base palette to work with. biggrin.gif I was too busy trying to follow the storyline to be concerned with the superficial aspect of the movie.

Those who are all up in arms about it, they need to chill out.

I'm glad you were not offended. But that does not mean ALL ASIANS should not be offended. It depends on your life experiences.
post #250 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

I suppose that your interpretation is different from mine. In the scene we are both talking about, Doona Bae was in the company of two other women taking tea. One of these women appeared to be White, but Doona Bae and the other woman had brown skin. I interpreted this as a portrayal of a white woman and two Domestic servants, and possibly Mulatto slaves. Was not Doona Bae's social station in life versus her upper-class White suitor the whole point of this 19th Century plot segment?

Yes, that is right - my interpretation of that scene is that Korean actress Doona Bae was made up to be a Black - or at least Mulatto - slave, complete with reddish kinky hair. I have not read the book either, but you can catch a glimpse of the scene I am talking about in the film trailer at about the 2-minute mark, right after the screen that says "Everything is Connected".

Is it nevertheless the case that you were ONLY offended by Hugo Weaving, a White actor, portraying an Asian character? That is all that you have protested about. Doona Bae as a Mulatto slave does not offend you? Doona Bae as a Mexican woman does not offend you?

Do you have a picture of Doona Bae as a black women from the movie? I must have missed that part.

I would support a Mexican person who thought Doona Bae's role as a mexican women was racists.
I'm not Mexican so I give them the benefit of the doubt.

i'm not saying to ban this movie or it should be destroyed. I'm just saying the directors should have been more aware about the sterotypes that used with Yellowface (slant eyes)
post #251 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

Yes, that is right - my interpretation of that scene is that Korean actress Doona Bae was made up to be a Black - or at least Mulatto - slave, complete with reddish kinky hair. I have not read the book either, but you can catch a glimpse of the scene I am talking about in the film trailer at about the 2-minute mark, right after the screen that says "Everything is Connected".

She is Tilda Ewing, Adam's wife, played by Jim Sturgess (does that sound like poor Jim is playing his character's wife? I get confused sometimes! wink.gif). Not a slave (and not black).

Once again sog, it was the filmmakers' decision to have the same actors in different parts, so the audience would see more clearly that everything is supposed to be "connected" between these characters. Doona Bae and Jim Sturgess were lovers in Neo-Seoul, they were also married in 1849.... Everything has been done in regards to the original story written by Mitchell, it's not a politically (in)correct statement. The story didn't call for an asian actor with a black makeup, that's all!

Well...guess my previous post wasn't the last one after all! wink.gif
post #252 of 301
Wow!
Way to completely derail the discussion of an already complicated film.
While all are encouraged to discuss and debate the many varied aspects of a movie in a thread about said movie.
I find it selfish and shallow to obstinately rehash one element of a film particularly when
No one else even remotely shares that viewpoint.
No ones mind is going to be changed by this,
No one is going to have a bright light moment
and declare them selves an unconscious racist because you didn't like the fact that Hugo weaving played an Asian person.
This movie is not about that.
I am African American and there are plenty of movies that we can take issue with, movies that foster stereotypes and use highly questionable judgement when it comes to telling the stories of minorities.
This is not that movie.
And in the future, if you are going to bring up the intent of the writer of the book vs the filmmaker? Read the damn book !!!

Carry on
post #253 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by jenkzy56 View Post

Wow!
Way to completely derail the discussion of an already complicated film.
While all are encouraged to discuss and debate the many varied aspects of a movie in a thread about said movie.
I find it selfish and shallow to obstinately rehash one element of a film particularly when
No one else even remotely shares that viewpoint.
No ones mind is going to be changed by this,
No one is going to have a bright light moment
and declare them selves an unconscious racist because you didn't like the fact that Hugo weaving played an Asian person.
This movie is not about that.
I am African American and there are plenty of movies that we can take issue with, movies that foster stereotypes and use highly questionable judgement when it comes to telling the stories of minorities.
This is not that movie.
And in the future, if you are going to bring up the intent of the writer of the book vs the filmmaker? Read the damn book !!!

Carry on

You are African American.
You are not offended by this movie.
Guess what?
There was no BlackFace in this movie.

They did not follow the book.
The slaves suppose to be Polynesian not Black.
Tom Hanks suppose to be black gangster in 2012 london.
post #254 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

She is Tilda Ewing, Adam's wife, played by Jim Sturgess (does that sound like poor Jim is playing his character's wife? I get confused sometimes! wink.gif). Not a slave (and not black).

Once again sog, it was the filmmakers' decision to have the same actors in different parts, so the audience would see more clearly that everything is supposed to be "connected" between these characters. Doona Bae and Jim Sturgess were lovers in Neo-Seoul, they were also married in 1849.... Everything has been done in regards to the original story written by Mitchell, it's not a politically (in)correct statement. The story didn't call for an asian actor with a black makeup, that's all!

Well...guess my previous post wasn't the last one after all! wink.gif

So why didn't we see Tom Hanks as Blackface in 2012 London if they as you said 'Everything has been done in regards to the original story'?

or why were the slaves Black and not Polynesian?

Face it. The directors knew they could not get away with BLACKFACE, but thought they could get away with YELLOWFACE.
post #255 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

I'm not Mexican so I give them the benefit of the doubt.
You are not a Korean living in Seoul so shouldn't you give them the benefit of the doubt?
Quote:
I'm just saying the directors should have been more aware about the sterotypes that used with Yellowface (slant eyes)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

They have not expressed in a PUBLIC FORUM. But its from my Asian friends. Many of them were disgusted with the movie and the yellowface. Will they go out and protest? No. But they were ANGRY.

I never said my view was the view of the world. It is not. Many people are not offended by the movie. But I know many Asians are. I've already linked about 10 articles of people who were offended. Many of my Asian/Black/Mexican friends were also offended.

Try ask any of YOUR Asian friends if they were offended by the movie.
Despite the example of well knows Asians posted last time, you continue to lump together Asians with yellowface and slant eyes. You need to cut that out.

images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQO3q0XAXb7fMs87LwzZp6W_prMMfJ2uRyuGlNfopZh9bQw3WHQ

090403_24casting1.jpg
post #256 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

You are African American.
You are not offended by this movie.
Guess what?
There was no BlackFace in this movie.

They did not follow the book.
The slaves suppose to be Polynesian not Black.
Tom Hanks suppose to be black gangster in 2012 london.

You didn't read the book so you don't get to site the book.
Period.
If Tom hanks was in blackface, as long as his portrayal was honest I would not have had one moment of discomfort with it.
Period.
I wasn't upset when Halle Berry portrayed a white woman or an Asian man, which she did.
None of my white or Asian friends seemed to be concerned either.
We have serious problems in this country and soap boxes sit idly waiting for champions to step up and be heard.
I say again, this film is a poor soapbox my friend.
post #257 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by jenkzy56 View Post

You didn't read the book so you don't get to site the book.
Period.
If Tom hanks was in blackface, as long as his portrayal was honest I would not have had one moment of discomfort with it.
Period.
I wasn't upset when Halle Berry portrayed a white woman or an Asian man, which she did.
None of my white or Asian friends seemed to be concerned either.
We have serious problems in this country and soap boxes sit idly waiting for champions to step up and be heard.
I say again, this film is a poor soapbox my friend.

your silly.

The book AND movie said the slaves were Maori. Yet they used black people instead of polynesian. The only reason why I bring this up is because people said they had to follow the BOOK EXACTLY.

Again, why wasn't there any Blackface? In fact name me the last last major US action/drama movie that used Blackface. Its been a looooooooooooooooong time. Because Blackface is offensive. So is yellowface.
post #258 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Give me a break. You experience racism in San Fran. Cry me a river. Tell that to Blacks in the South who had decades of Slavery and then Segregation. Tell that to Asian who were SENT TO PRISON and lost their business during WW2 just because they were Asian.

Doona Bae did not portrail a Black slave.

In fact no actor/actress was given makeup to look black. Why? Answer that question and then you will know why many are mad at the yellowface.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

I've already linked 10 articles that called out this movie. A ton of my Asian/Black/Mexican friends were offended. Korean community groups have boycotted.

What makes you the judge of what is offensive or not? It makes to laugh and cry when non-Asian people tell Asian people what should be offensive and what should not be.

AGAIN: Why was there no Blackface in the movie? Answer that question and you will see why we are made at Yellowface in CloudAtlas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

Do you have a picture of Doona Bae as a black women from the movie? I must have missed that part.

I would support a Mexican person who thought Doona Bae's role as a mexican women was racists.
I'm not Mexican so I give them the benefit of the doubt.

i'm not saying to ban this movie or it should be destroyed. I'm just saying the directors should have been more aware about the sterotypes that used with Yellowface (slant eyes)

Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

your silly.

The book AND movie said the slaves were Maori. Yet they used black people instead of polynesian. The only reason why I bring this up is because people said they had to follow the BOOK EXACTLY.

Again, why wasn't there any Blackface? In fact name me the last last major US action/drama movie that used Blackface. Its been a looooooooooooooooong time. Because Blackface is offensive. So is yellowface.

When reading and re-reading your posts, it seems to me that the one assumption that you and I do not have in common, is that you seem to think that only Whites can be racist. Everybody else in your world, it seems, is a Minority and thus is the victim of White racism and not racist themselves.

I do not have that same view. To me, anybody who notices the race of another person, who attributes thoughts and beliefs to that person because of their race - so-called "Racist Stereotypes" - is proving THEMSELVES to be a racist. When I postulate that as one of your beliefs, that is the only way I can make sense of your statements.

Believe me, I do not intend any offense when I say this. I am 61 years old and I have encountered plenty of genuine bigots and racists in my lifetime. I was born into a racist era and a racist USA, a place with bathrooms, drinking fountains, and restaurants labelled "Whites Only". I attended segregated schools in Louisiana and later in Northern Virginia only 25 miles from the Nation's Capital, fully six years after MLK's "I have a dream..." speech took place there.

Now I will say it: Neither me nor my White friends speak to each other disparagingly about other races. That kind of talk has been driven out of White conversation - at least in my circles - over the past few decades. In truth, I never felt comfortable with such attitudes, unlike my parents and grand-parents. The only time I even am exposed to racist remarks today, is from the Minorities I interact with. Those that I consider my friends, I can frankly discuss issues of race with, and I can mildly criticize their conversation when THEY express a racist attitude. As I am criticizing yours. As I would criticize anyone else, including my family, for such remarks. (With respect for you and for the rules of this Forum.)

I count the fact that this movie Cloud Atlas has shed light on this rarely-discussed topic to be a good thing. I think that YOU should carefully consider whether or not you agree with this assessment before you respond.
Edited by Gary McCoy - 6/25/13 at 12:57pm
post #259 of 301
For the LAST TIME someone explain:

Blackface is almost universally criticized.
So why isn't Yellowface treated the same way?
post #260 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

For the LAST TIME someone explain:

Blackface is almost universally criticized.
So why isn't Yellowface treated the same way?

Because their is no American tradition of travelling vaudeville shows where White comics wear Yellowface makeup. It is a part of American culture that few understand. Blackface can be Good (as in Holiday Inn), or Bad when used to belittle Blacks as in a vaudeville show.

But it's just makeup, in and of itself neither good nor bad.
post #261 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

Because their is no American tradition of travelling vaudeville shows where White comics wear Yellowface makeup. It is a part of American culture that few understand. Blackface can be Good (as in Holiday Inn), or Bad when used to belittle Blacks as in a vaudeville show.

But it's just makeup, in and of itself neither good nor bad.

yes there is a tradition in American with Yellowface that spans decades.

http://www.asianweek.com/top-25-yellow-face-performance-5to2/

2 | Breakfast at Tiffany’s (1961)
Mickey Rooney as Mr. Yunioshi

The Charlie Chan series (1931-1981)
Warner Oland, Sidney Toler, Roland Winters, Peter Ustinov as Charlie Chan

The Good Earth (1937)
Paul Muni as Wang, Luise Rainer as O-Lan

There is a LOOOOOOOOOOOOONG list of yellowface that is just as hurtful as blackface.
Often, these “yellow face” performances both reinforced and embodied all the negative stereotypes — funny accent, slanted eyes, buck teeth, and enough “Orientalism” to send the yellow fever meter through the roof.

Again I repeat:

Why is Blackface taboo yet Yellowface is perfectly fine?????
Edited by sog35 - 6/25/13 at 1:11pm
post #262 of 301
Then WHAT, please tell, is so offensive about Hugo Weaving's role in Cloud Atlas? Was it not a heroic role? (I'm not real sure as it has literally been months since I saw this film for the only time, but I thought he rescued the girl from the automated restaurant where she was a slave?)

Charlie Chan was done in Yellowface, and he was a clever detective, a mighty champion of law and order. Why was he offensive?
post #263 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

Then WHAT, please tell, is so offensive about Hugo Weaving's role in Cloud Atlas? Was it not a heroic role? (I'm not real sure as it has literally been months since I saw this film for the only time, but I thought he rescued the girl from the automated restaurant where she was a slave?)

Charlie Chan was done in Yellowface, and he was a clever detective, a mighty champion of law and order. Why was he offensive?

Hugo Weaving was the devil incarnate in Cloud Atlas.
But that's besides the point.

The whole point is Blackface is unacceptable today, even if the role is of a hero.
Why is yellowface acceptable?
post #264 of 301
As I have said many times today, Blackface in context is acceptable. As in the wonderful film Holiday Inn. As it was in Cloud Atlas for the Maori (or Mulatto) slaves, because it was not used to disparage another race.

If I mis-remembered the film, that helps me a bit with your attitude, but I still do not understand why makeup on a professional actor portraying another race is offensive. For the record, I was not offended by any actor in Cloud Atlas who portrayed a White character.

In truth, I hardly think about such things. Race does not matter.
post #265 of 301
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

As I have said many times today, Blackface in context is acceptable. As in the wonderful film Holiday Inn. As it was in Cloud Atlas for the Maori (or Mulatto) slaves, because it was not used to disparage another race.

If I mis-remembered the film, that helps me a bit with your attitude, but I still do not understand why makeup on a professional actor portraying another race is offensive. For the record, I was not offended by any actor in Cloud Atlas who portrayed a White character.

In truth, I hardly think about such things. Race does not matter.

Blackface is NOT Acceptable in 2013. The scene from Holiday Inn is censored out.

http://bingfan03.blogspot.com/2010/12/censoring-of-holiday-inn.html

Beginning in the 1980s, some broadcasts of the movie have cut out the "Abraham" musical number entirely, undoubtedly because of its depiction of a blackface minstrel show incorporating what is now considered by some to be offensively stereotyped mannerisms and dialect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holiday_Inn_%28film%29

This is NOT the 1940's. Blackface is not acceptable PERIOD.

Making a film with Blackface in 2012/2013 is Taboo.
So why is it okay to do Yellowface?
post #266 of 301
Heres a black man's view of Blackface.

Blackface is NEVER okay.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/14/sawyer.blackface/

The same should be with Yellowface.
post #267 of 301
Why is Blackface taboo yet Yellowface is perfectly fine?????[/quote

Because we have a better union than you?

Now that was silly

But seriously,
It's clear you are not going to get that question answered in this thread, far too many variables
And history to even attempt to give anything approaching a "satisfactory reply"
But if you really want an answer, ask Hollywood

Very few members of this forum are active producers of major motion picture content
( a fact I'm secretly grateful for)
While I am sorry that you appear to be insulted by the film, taking this thread hostage is not going to
fix the issue.
Reasonable folks have tried to share their point of view and you have summarily rejected just about every one of them.
Without calling you "silly" though at this point it's becoming more and more so.

I am the last person to defend Hollywoods sometimes poor judgement when it comes to portraying the lives of non Caucasians.
Creative folk sometimes get it wrong, sometimes go to far, consciously or unconsciously offend people.
I'm sure we have all seen examples of that.
In all seriousness, Cloud Atlas for all it's flaws, in my opinion, has not intentionally set out to do that.
I don't see it.

I think you have had the floor long enough, let the thread take its natural course now.

Peace
post #268 of 301
Move on! For the love of peanut butter and jelly, it's just a friggin' movie.
post #269 of 301
The best way not to get a reaction is to ignore the troll. Let's get back to discussion of the movie....
post #270 of 301
My warning was ignored. A couple thread bans and another suspension for somebody coming back and doing the same thing they got suspended for in the first place.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home