In class,
we have discussed how historical context can be used to elucidate underlying
meanings within film. Insignificant, silly movies can be significant when
messages and context are considered. In the 80s, Kurt Russell starred in the
movie Big Trouble in Little China. Is
it ridiculous? Yes. A villain dies by breathing so intensely that he literally
blows up. Is it a little racist? For sure. The Chinese character is amazing at
Kung Fu, but this is never actually addressed and is just assumed by the virtue
of his Asian heritage. In spite of all of this, Big Trouble in Little China makes important commentary on race
relations, the use of stereotypes, and how America viewed its role and how it
wanted its role portrayed in interfering with Asian countries who were under communist
rule. If you take the main character, a white over-the-road-trucker named Jack
Burton, and ask “why did he get mixed up with all that big trouble in Little
China?”, you can find the answer for “why did America get mixed up in global
problems that had nothing to do with them?”
So, as a concerned
citizen, you ask yourself: why should America get involved in global problems
that aren’t our problem? Well, Big
Trouble in Little China is here to tell you. First, you are going to get
paid, and you are going to be a hero.
This movie, like the world, revolves around money and respect. The main
driver of this movie is debt, both abstract and literal. One of the first lines
in the movie is “Leave Jack Burton alone, we are forever in his debt!” This is
not a monetary debt, but rather one of gratitude. Further, the only reason Jack
gets mixed up in all that trouble going on in Little China is because he is
trying to collect a debt owed to him that he won in a night of gambling. In the
end, after Jack helps save Little China, Jack is paid three times what he was
owed for the gambling debt because “he earned it.” Why did he earn it? Because
of his heroism in a situation that really wasn’t his problem. It all seems
silly, but consider that this movie was made roughly 10 years after the Vietnam
War ended. America was trying to spread freedom, and freedom comes with
capitalism. Communism was (and still is) huge in Asia. But, the more capitalist
these countries become, the more opportunity there is for foreign investment.
This isn’t just theory, this is a fact. America gets rich when other countries
become more capitalistic. Just consider the billions that are being made here
in The States as China becomes more capitalistic. So, if we get involved, we
get rich. We are speaking paper, so we are speaking America’s language. But
what about the morality of it all?
Big Trouble in Little China will
conveniently explain the morality of this intervention as well! It really is
the Swiss Army Knife of movies explaining global intervention. We should get
involved because there are people suffering from lack of freedom, and it is our
duty to free them. Jack is a hero in this movie. He frees captives locked
in the underbelly of Little China and he destroys an ancient evil. He was there
for the money, but he stayed because it was his duty to help those who couldn’t
help themselves. This is an interesting concept, because if you can convince
the American people that there are good people who are being oppressed, they
will probably support the intervention. But, why should the American people
care about people who live across the planet? Further, America doesn’t have the
best history with racism, so how can you convince Americans to look past their
racist tendencies? Big Trouble in Little
China tries to do this by using comedy to break down stereotypes and racial
barriers.
Racial
comedy is used extensively in this film. Every character is reduced to a
caricature of racial stereotypes, and this includes the white character. Jack
is a loud-mouthed moron. He is dressed like a redneck, and he drives a
semi-truck that has a naked woman decal on the grill. Chinese culture is
mystified extensively, and Asian women are highly sexualized. Every Asian
character is a master of martial arts. Many Asian characters are “sorcerers.”
Both Chinese and American culture is made fun of. While making fun of cultures
and race seems wrong and strange, it is actually a documented way to bring
people of different races together. In “Naturalizing Racial Differences Through
Comedy: Asian, Black, and White Views on Racial Stereotypes in Rush Hour 2,” it is stated that
in Rush Hour 2 “racial jokes in film
cross color lines, creating an impression that all races are subject to stereotypes.”
In other words, since all races are made
fun of in Rush Hour 2, it doesn’t
come across as offensive, and it causes everyone to take themselves less
seriously. It is theorized that this
causes racial barriers to be broken down as everyone’s guard is let down. In Big Trouble in Little Trouble, both
white and Asian characters are made fun of. The white character is absolutely
ridiculous, but if it weren’t for this portrayal of the white character, this
movie would probably be extremely offensive. By playing on both Asian and white stereotypes,
the film tries to get you to see past racial differences. While making fun of
racial stereotypes to move past stereotypes seems counter-intuitive, I think it
honestly makes sense. The only way to get through stereotypes is to address
them, comment on how ridiculous the stereotypes are, and then move on. Big Trouble in Little China addresses
stereotypes about race with comedy, and then throughout the movie uses common goals
between characters of different races to get the audience to look past race.
And, once the audience looks past race, it becomes obvious that it is our duty
to help the Asian community.
So,
back to the original question: why should we get involved in global conflicts
that have really nothing to do with us? It is easy, just consult Big Trouble in Little China. Everyone
deserves freedom and dignity. Even though those being oppressed look and act
different than us, they are still humans, and it is our duty to help them. And,
if the moral call to help the less fortunate isn’t enough for you, if we help,
we are going to get paid big time.
While this all seems silly (mostly because this is a silly movie), the debate
whether America should interfere globally remains an important issue to this
date, and it is a question that we all must address as citizens.
Citations:
Park, Ji Hoon et al. "Naturalizing Racial Differences Through Comedy: Asian Black, and White
Views on Racial Stereotypes in Rush Hour 2" Wiley Online Library, Journal of Communication,
10 Mar. 2006, onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.library.umkc.edu/doi/
Views on Racial Stereotypes in Rush Hour 2" Wiley Online Library, Journal of Communication,
10 Mar. 2006, onlinelibrary.wiley.com.proxy.library.umkc.edu/doi/
I liked that you noted how the film sort of addressed two important aspects of American politics that were relevant in the late 80's and are even more relevant today which are; the sort of altruistic front for the advocation of globalized democracy that the US government preaches heavily to the public. And the not so altruistic financial aspect of globalized democracy that usually sees the US government putting themselves and their need before anyone else's. Sometimes even to the determent of everyone else. I feel like this is a very interesting thing to have to mull over because as Americans we're obviously in the business of wanting to see the country we live in safe and prospering, but at what cost?
ReplyDelete-Kenneth
One of my favorite things that film can do, is take complex ideas or conversations and present them in a way that is unintimidating and palatable to the average Joe. Philosophy, science, points of view, etc. through the medium of film can be made wieldable to anyone and everyone. Albeit, this can be kinda dangerous if enough schmucks start strutting around as faux-intellectuals, (I fancy myself one of these now and again) But at least those guys are cognoscente of an issue or idea in which before either meant nothing or they had no clue.
ReplyDeleteYour write up here makes Big Trouble seem like a movie that is above all other things, honest. Its reduction of all race makes it inclusive (oddly), its ridiculousness makes one not take it too seriously so you can approach it on your own terms and above all else its dumbness makes it approachable in the first place. It doesn't posture itself to be more than what it is, it just is - and you can glean as much or as little meaning from it as you want. Call me crazy, but that's important.
The part of your blog that really stood out to me was your fourth paragraph in which you talked about the expression of multiple racial stereotypes in the film. It really made me think about the "claim" that as long as everyone's being stereotyped, it isn't as offensive. I might be following that wrong but that's sort of what I understood from the paragraph. Anyways, it really is an interesting topic but wonder if it's actually true. Obviously, not everyone will be able to put up with racially charged stereotypes against themselves even if their are equally harsh stereotypes against others. Do equal stereotypes against all races really cancel each other out and let audiences see past the racial stereotypes like you're saying or does it really just bring them even more to the forefront? I'm not sure. I think it's a tough question that not one person or one group of people can decide. It's really subjective.
ReplyDeleteJared Islas
I found your statements on stereotypes across different races to be really interesting. I never analyzed stereotypes to be accepted if they are equally humored. Not saying this is true but, I guess this makes sense because like you mentioned, individuals are more likely to let their guard down if they feel like they aren't the only target. However, films have to be careful with what they say and how the decide to culturally appropriate certain things because they might not be true.
ReplyDelete^ -Sam U
DeleteOn the question of should the U.S. be involved in the way other countries decide to govern themselves, the answer should be no. Unless it is obvious that the government is purposely attacking or hurting it's own citizens, the U.S. has no right to go into these countries because they are not doing what we would like. The U.S. has proved over the past 60 years that invading other countries and knocking down leaders, has only led to a rise in islamist extremist groups and a growing distrust in the United States.
ReplyDelete-Carter
Alex:
ReplyDeleteI have to side with Carter on this one. Unless there is an explicit and immediate humanitarian crisis, it is probably best to stay fairly removed. We don't really have a track record for getting involved for those reasons lately.
Otherwise, I enjoyed how you linked this film to broader geopolitical issues. It isn't something I would have thought of doing. There are certainly aspects of the film that seem to be fueled by American exceptionalism and imperialist policies. It is a rather comical, cringe worthy film that possesses some heavy undertones