|
Post by Rocky Raccoon on Apr 17, 2018 14:09:57 GMT -5
None of that means that Apu still doesn’t represent some troubling things, or that there still isn’t more work to be done. As a black man, I’m not comfortable with Lou and Carl being voiced by white actors either. I had a similar issue with Cleveland Brown from Family Guy. That never should have been okay in the first place. I won't speak on behalf of Indians regarding Apu, but bringing Lou, Carl and why not Dr. Hibbert and Drederick Tatum into this as well, leads us to a rabbit hole I'm not at all a fan of. And I say this as a black voice actor who gets half of his work from playing white characters. For 30 years, all of The Simpsons' major recurring adult males have been voiced by 3 guys and Phil Hartman. The industry was very different then and it didn't have known, highly versatile voice talents of color. I'm just not sure what else they were supposed to do back then. Regarding these black characters, I think the actors have done a great job while being very respectful. For the longest time, few even realized they weren't black. That voice cast is also the last of an era, as animation casting directors are extremely mindful of racial identity nowadays. As African-Americans, we have so many of our own new awesome productions and characters to represent us now. I would be very saddened and even offended if the entire structure of a classic show had to be torn apart to speficially accomodate new "designated ethnic-role-only actors". That may not be your particular solution, but I have seen several suggesting it. I would rather just see the show sputter out and end because I think it's a terribly-written shell of itself and steadily waning in relevance and popularity. Cleveland Brown, I didn't miiiiind so much at first as a non-stereotypical little side character being voiced by one of Seth's school friends, but it was absolutely less acceptable at that point in time. Giving him his own show was very agravating to me, though. Having the lead character cast like that was very tone-deaf and doomed to failure with its marketability. And notice how they recast both his son and his wife to black actors in the spinoff to try and make it more acceptable.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Apr 17, 2018 14:43:52 GMT -5
Like half the people you mentioned are IN the doc talkin bout their experiences and how it sucked for them though. When I was a kid people thought Canadians were like Bob and Doug McKenzie. Hockey lovin, beer drinking dummies. Maybe I should make a doc about how SCTV ruined my life. Not really seeing the comparison: if you were a Canadian in a foreign country and were being treated like you were a McKenzie that would indeed suck, but SCTV was also a show made in Canada in large part by Canadians, including Rick Moranis and Dave Thomas, the guys who created and played Bob and Doug, and was also primarily aired in Canada before getting a US broadcast later on. The terms of the discussion of Apu and the Simpsons would be a lot different if the show and/or character were created by Indians or Indian-Americans, or if The Simpsons were originally an Indian show. In addition there's a layer at play here involving treatment of people of color in Western society that doesn't really apply as much to the majority of Canadians; being stereotyped sucks no matter who you are, but it stings a lot more when the stereotyping is being done in the context of a larger culture that may not exactly treat you as a full equal. Indian-Americans haven't necessarily had things as rough as African-Americans, Latinos, and many Muslim ethnic groups, but they've certainly had to deal with their share of mistreatment.
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Apr 17, 2018 14:48:13 GMT -5
None of that means that Apu still doesn’t represent some troubling things, or that there still isn’t more work to be done. As a black man, I’m not comfortable with Lou and Carl being voiced by white actors either. I had a similar issue with Cleveland Brown from Family Guy. That never should have been okay in the first place. I won't speak on behalf of Indians regarding Apu, but bringing Lou, Carl and why not Dr. Hibbert and Drederick Tatum into this as well, leads us to a rabbit hole I'm not at all a fan of. And I say this as a black voice actor who gets half of his work from playing white characters. For 30 years, all of The Simpsons' major recurring adult males have been voiced by 3 guys and Phil Hartman. The industry was very different then and it didn't have known, highly versatile voice talents of color. I'm just not sure what else they were supposed to do back then. Regarding these black characters, I think the actors have done a great job while being very respectful. For the longest time, few even realized they weren't black. That voice cast is also the last of an era, as animation casting directors are extremely mindful of racial identity nowadays. As African-Americans, we have so many of our own new awesome productions and characters to represent us now. I would be very saddened and even offended if the entire structure of a classic show had to be torn apart to speficially accomodate new "designated ethnic-role-only actors". That may not be your particular solution, but I have seen several suggesting it. I would rather just see the show sputter out and end because I think it's a terribly-written shell of itself and steadily waning in relevance and popularity. Cleveland Brown, I didn't miiiiind so much at first as a non-stereotypical little side character being voiced by one of Seth's school friends, but it was absolutely less acceptable at that point in time. Giving him his own show was very agravating to me, though. Having the lead character cast like that was very tone-deaf and doomed to failure with its marketability. And notice how they recast both his son and his wife to black actors in the spinoff to try and make it more acceptable. You know, that's an interesting position that I might not have considered.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Apr 17, 2018 19:29:55 GMT -5
Like half the people you mentioned are IN the doc talkin bout their experiences and how it sucked for them though. When I was a kid people thought Canadians were like Bob and Doug McKenzie. Hockey lovin, beer drinking dummies. Maybe I should make a doc about how SCTV ruined my life. Ya could i suppose; but that isn't at all what I was sayin. You pointed out, correctly, that several of those actors have more opportunities etc. But you used that correct point to make the case that dude's documentary lacks relevance today. That falls apart really quickly when some of the same actors you name are featured in said doc.
|
|
|
Post by The Barber on Apr 17, 2018 19:32:29 GMT -5
Most voice work is done by various people of different races. Is it wrong for Phil Lamarr (black man) to voice Samaria Jack (Asian man)? What about all of the Asian actors voicing white people in China? Who cares?
Bill Mahar says it perfectly here
Rich white guy weighs in on racism, more at 11. He's not allowed to have an opinion? Maher I like on some things, not others. His views on medicine, at least in the past, have been woefully stupid. I agree. Him and Jenny McCarthy's views on medication are terrible. VACCINATE, PEOPLE!!!
|
|
Derk!
Hank Scorpio
Yeah, "looks like."
Posts: 5,087
|
Post by Derk! on Apr 17, 2018 19:43:38 GMT -5
I can't speak on behalf of Indian people, but as a Hispanic person whose sole representation is F'in Bumblebee Man, I'm more offended at the show being damn near unwatchable for the better part of 2 decades than the way a character is portrayed.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Apr 17, 2018 19:53:16 GMT -5
Rich white guy weighs in on racism, more at 11. He's not allowed to have an opinion? Well, the rich white guy opinion on racism is more often than not "What racism? What are you [insert race/ethnicity] talking about? I don't see any problems here."
|
|
|
Post by Savage Gambino on Apr 17, 2018 19:59:08 GMT -5
When I was a kid people thought Canadians were like Bob and Doug McKenzie. Hockey lovin, beer drinking dummies. Maybe I should make a doc about how SCTV ruined my life. Ya could i suppose; but that isn't at all what I was sayin. You pointed out, correctly, that several of those actors have more opportunities etc. But you used that correct point to make the case that dude's documentary lacks relevance today. That falls apart really quickly when some of the same actors you name are featured in said doc. Falls apart even faster when half of the Indian and South Asian talents in the documentary go on record about the kind of stereotypical roles they were forced into, as well as the history of white folks doing those stereotypical roles in brownface. Not unlike Apu. They even have a whole term for that kind of exaggerated South Asian accent; Sakina Jaffrey called it "patanking":
|
|
Fade
Patti Mayonnaise
Posts: 38,435
|
Post by Fade on Apr 17, 2018 21:10:29 GMT -5
I can't speak on behalf of Indian people, but as a Hispanic person whose sole representation is F'in Bumblebee Man, I'm more offended at the show being damn near unwatchable for the better part of 2 decades than the way a character is portrayed. For real tho. I'm offended. Someone cancel this shit already. It's as old as me.
|
|
Juice
El Dandy
Wrong? Oh he can tell ya about being wrong.
I'm the one who raised you from perdition.
Posts: 8,172
|
Post by Juice on Apr 17, 2018 22:16:44 GMT -5
Deadhorse beaten
|
|
|
Post by Gravedigger's Biscuits on Apr 17, 2018 23:39:33 GMT -5
Re: people of Indian/Asian descent being (rightly) offended and upset about being called Apu
I completely understand and sympathise with that, but even if Apu was a completely positive role model, didn't work at a convenience store, didn't speak with a stereotypical accent and wasn't voiced by a white guy etc....I don't see how that would have changed anything.
Those same ignorant racists would still call any Asian person 'Apu' because he's the only Indian character they know from one of the world's most famous television shows.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Apr 18, 2018 5:50:47 GMT -5
Re: people of Indian/Asian descent being (rightly) offended and upset about being called Apu I completely understand and sympathise with that, but even if Apu was a completely positive role model, didn't work at a convenience store, didn't speak with a stereotypical accent and wasn't voiced by a white guy etc....I don't see how that would have changed anything. Those same ignorant racists would still call any Asian person 'Apu' because he's the only Indian character they know from one of the world's most famous television shows. Naturally there'll always be ignorant bigots out there, but you couldn't then point toward the show and say that they provided, however unwittingly, fuel for that fire, the onus would simply be entirely on the person insulting someone over their ethnicity. It's not just being called "Apu" that probably got to a lot of people, it was that combined with the exaggerated accent and other issues.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 18, 2018 6:52:21 GMT -5
What bothers me about some peoples mentality over this. Is the idea that they're owed something by the Simpsons. It's up to the Simpsons to provide a really well rounded diverse character based on their concept of whats acceptable. The Simpsons are a private company, they have the right to write the show however they want. Their goal is to make a profit, not please every member of society.
You want more diverse characters on TV? Yes, that would be great. Write a show, produce it, put it on TV. Get better ratings than the Simpsons and other TV shows will follow your example.
While there are aspects of Apu that are stereotypical, the character has enough nuance, that it's still entertaining and hovers the line of whats acceptable among most people. If the character was "I'm Indian, I like Curry and I wear Turban". People would find this lame as a hell, no one would watch the show, no advertisers would sponsor it and it would go off the air. The market solves these problems.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 42,362
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Apr 18, 2018 6:58:27 GMT -5
He's not allowed to have an opinion? Well, the rich white guy opinion on racism is more often than not "What racism? What are you [insert race/ethnicity] talking about? I don't see any problems here." Which is never a point Maher has ever made. He’s also not anti vaccination, he is anti flu shot and has said so within the last month. I know you didn’t say that, but others have. The whole point of Bill’s monologue was summed up in the line in it “You are tolerating things right now that’ll make you cringe in 25 years”.
|
|
|
Post by Feargus McReddit on Apr 18, 2018 7:09:46 GMT -5
.You want more diverse characters on TV? Yes, that would be great. Write a show, produce it, put it on TV. Get better ratings than the Simpsons and other TV shows will follow your example. But it isn't that easy, though. If it was, it'd have happened years ago. The thing about The Simpsons is that it became, by default, the market leader in sitcoms, animated or otherwise. Major TV networks look to either the market leader or their own brand history for this stuff and if the market leader says that this is the sort of thing people relate to, the content that'll come from it is expected to do that. It's why Law and Order lead to CSI lead to NCIS lead to every other clone possible to have a broader version of it. And no, they're not expected to make every ethnic group look completely perfect but the biggest issue is the fact they aren't taking that consideration of criticism on board, instead blowing it off to "political correctness" or whatever nonsense they come up. Yes, there's better representation on television and film now than there was when Apu first came on TV but, like the documentary says, that came from a lot of work, work that still needs to be done today and even the shows that are on TV from almost all representations that aren't white suffer from corporate meddling to not annoy other audiences. Not to get too political but Google the difference between how Rosanne addressed issues to what happened when Black-ish, on the same network, tried to address an issue. Even when they HAVE that space and get there and get credible, there's always a barrier of not wanting to address things or be better that set things back.
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Apr 18, 2018 7:26:08 GMT -5
But it isn't that easy, though. If it was, it'd have happened years ago. The thing about The Simpsons is that it became, by default, the market leader in sitcoms, animated or otherwise. Major TV networks look to either the market leader or their own brand history for this stuff and if the market leader says that this is the sort of thing people relate to, the content that'll come from it is expected to do that. It's why Law and Order lead to CSI lead to NCIS lead to every other clone possible to have a broader version of it. And no, they're not expected to make every ethnic group look completely perfect but the biggest issue is the fact they aren't taking that consideration of criticism on board, instead blowing it off to "political correctness" or whatever nonsense they come up. Yes, there's better representation on television and film now than there was when Apu first came on TV but, like the documentary says, that came from a lot of work, work that still needs to be done today and even the shows that are on TV from almost all representations that aren't white suffer from corporate meddling to not annoy other audiences. Not to get too political but Google the difference between how Rosanne addressed issues to what happened when Black-ish, on the same network, tried to address an issue. Even when they HAVE that space and get there and get credible, there's always a barrier of not wanting to address things or be better that set things back. But then you have to ask the similar question: Would all this better representation for South Asian actors on TV have come WITHOUT Apu leading the way? Remember- the problem with The Simpsons has been Flanderization- heck, it's NAMED for The Simpsons for everyone being distilled into one note jokes. But, as that Flanderization happened, Apu was the one character who actually got more well-rounded and three-dimensional as the series went on. We saw Apu grow into a regular on the show, into a good friend of the Simpsons, saw more into his life and seeing him as not just "the guy at Kwik-E-Mart", but a hard worker who took incredible pride in his job even if it was a minimum wage job. We saw him marry, have kids, saw him get numerous character traits- and from his affair with the Squishee lady, both positive and negative new traits, without those new negative traits being stereotypical in any way. For better or worse, Apu was a stereotype that grew into a three-dimensional character, even as everyone else in Springfield were three-dimensional characters that devolved into stereotypes. With that happening on "The Simpsons", it's not likely we'd have the South Asian representation we DO have (many of which are more stereotypical than Apu now.)
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 42,362
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Apr 18, 2018 7:39:39 GMT -5
But it isn't that easy, though. If it was, it'd have happened years ago. The thing about The Simpsons is that it became, by default, the market leader in sitcoms, animated or otherwise. Major TV networks look to either the market leader or their own brand history for this stuff and if the market leader says that this is the sort of thing people relate to, the content that'll come from it is expected to do that. It's why Law and Order lead to CSI lead to NCIS lead to every other clone possible to have a broader version of it. And no, they're not expected to make every ethnic group look completely perfect but the biggest issue is the fact they aren't taking that consideration of criticism on board, instead blowing it off to "political correctness" or whatever nonsense they come up. Yes, there's better representation on television and film now than there was when Apu first came on TV but, like the documentary says, that came from a lot of work, work that still needs to be done today and even the shows that are on TV from almost all representations that aren't white suffer from corporate meddling to not annoy other audiences. Not to get too political but Google the difference between how Rosanne addressed issues to what happened when Black-ish, on the same network, tried to address an issue. Even when they HAVE that space and get there and get credible, there's always a barrier of not wanting to address things or be better that set things back. But then you have to ask the similar question: Would all this better representation for South Asian actors on TV have come WITHOUT Apu leading the way? Remember- the problem with The Simpsons has been Flanderization- heck, it's NAMED for The Simpsons for everyone being distilled into one note jokes. But, as that Flanderization happened, Apu was the one character who actually got more well-rounded and three-dimensional as the series went on. We saw Apu grow into a regular on the show, into a good friend of the Simpsons, saw more into his life and seeing him as not just "the guy at Kwik-E-Mart", but a hard worker who took incredible pride in his job even if it was a minimum wage job. We saw him marry, have kids, saw him get numerous character traits- and from his affair with the Squishee lady, both positive and negative new traits, without those new negative traits being stereotypical in any way. For better or worse, Apu was a stereotype that grew into a three-dimensional character, even as everyone else in Springfield were three-dimensional characters that devolved into stereotypes. With that happening on "The Simpsons", it's not likely we'd have the South Asian representation we DO have (many of which are more stereotypical than Apu now.) Apu being Indian wasn’t even part of his character. One of the jokes in the immigration episode is that Homer hasn’t even noticed Apu isn’t an immigrant. Ok, so he went to India with Apu previously, but the Simpsons has little to no continuity anyway.
|
|
Cranjis McBasketball
Crow T. Robot
Knew what the hell that thing was supposed to be
Peace Love and Nothing But
Posts: 42,362
|
Post by Cranjis McBasketball on Apr 18, 2018 7:40:12 GMT -5
But it isn't that easy, though. If it was, it'd have happened years ago. The thing about The Simpsons is that it became, by default, the market leader in sitcoms, animated or otherwise. Major TV networks look to either the market leader or their own brand history for this stuff and if the market leader says that this is the sort of thing people relate to, the content that'll come from it is expected to do that. It's why Law and Order lead to CSI lead to NCIS lead to every other clone possible to have a broader version of it. And no, they're not expected to make every ethnic group look completely perfect but the biggest issue is the fact they aren't taking that consideration of criticism on board, instead blowing it off to "political correctness" or whatever nonsense they come up. Yes, there's better representation on television and film now than there was when Apu first came on TV but, like the documentary says, that came from a lot of work, work that still needs to be done today and even the shows that are on TV from almost all representations that aren't white suffer from corporate meddling to not annoy other audiences. Not to get too political but Google the difference between how Rosanne addressed issues to what happened when Black-ish, on the same network, tried to address an issue. Even when they HAVE that space and get there and get credible, there's always a barrier of not wanting to address things or be better that set things back. But then you have to ask the similar question: Would all this better representation for South Asian actors on TV have come WITHOUT Apu leading the way? Remember- the problem with The Simpsons has been Flanderization- heck, it's NAMED for The Simpsons for everyone being distilled into one note jokes. But, as that Flanderization happened, Apu was the one character who actually got more well-rounded and three-dimensional as the series went on. We saw Apu grow into a regular on the show, into a good friend of the Simpsons, saw more into his life and seeing him as not just "the guy at Kwik-E-Mart", but a hard worker who took incredible pride in his job even if it was a minimum wage job. We saw him marry, have kids, saw him get numerous character traits- and from his affair with the Squishee lady, both positive and negative new traits, without those new negative traits being stereotypical in any way. For better or worse, Apu was a stereotype that grew into a three-dimensional character, even as everyone else in Springfield were three-dimensional characters that devolved into stereotypes. With that happening on "The Simpsons", it's not likely we'd have the South Asian representation we DO have (many of which are more stereotypical than Apu now.) Apu being Indian wasn’t even part of his character. One of the jokes in the immigration episode is that Homer hasn’t even noticed Apu isn an immigrant. Ok, so he went to India with Apu previously, but the Simpsons has little to no continuity anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Final Countdown Jones on Apr 18, 2018 7:52:18 GMT -5
The documentary about the subject, "The Problem With Apu" explains that time period, and also is central to this discussion. It also clearly has an agenda. And that's fine, I'm not saying their agenda is wrong, but it's not what I'm currently asking for. I'd just like to have a few forum members point me in the direction of what they remember, if they don't mind. I've read through this thread and there are a lot of posts I take issue with but I kept circling around to this one mentally so even if it's a few days old I'm gonna trudge it up again, because it ties into something important on a level more specific to the broad conversation, regardless of any motivation or lack thereof behind your words. Yes, it does have an agenda. That agenda is "We are people of Indian and South Asian descent, speaking about our experiences with this character and its effect on popular culture". It is literally people who feel slighted by something expressing their feelings and the things they have lived, and deciding not to listen to that and learn from what they have to say so that you can seek out "pure" sources and people who "don't have agendas" isn't a logical or neutral approach to an issue it's actively ignoring one side of things on the belief they are somehow an inherently biased party and that some other source of information will be inherently more pure. Someone who thinks it's just whining babies being offended by everything who might say that people should be grateful that Apu helped their careers through some weird, convoluted logic isn't unbiased or free from agenda, they just don't wear the issue on their sleeve because we live in a culture where the person complaining is wrong and flawed views that all issues have their solution in some theoretically unbiased neutral ground in the middle between two arguments. In many ways, the people in this thread who haven't given the documentary or its points the time of day or even peeking in to see what they say are the ones who shouldn't be trusted, because their agenda is one driven by the snap decision to take an opposing side without first hearing the argument being made that they've stood up in opposition to. The documentary was recommended to you because it explains that part in depth, researched and laid out in a format meant to teach. It is the best possible way to learn about what you're looking for, where some randos on an internet forum talking about their own personal recollections isn't even remotely a suitable replacement. The only way to learn about an issue is to listen to what people have to say about it. People with big, strong feelings about the issue. What you call an agenda, I consider to be conviction and experience. It's taking the idea that someone wants to accomplish something and saying that that desire is inherently untrustworthy, and not a position I can see any sort of logic or intellectual honesty in.
|
|
Kyn
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,623
|
Post by Kyn on Apr 18, 2018 8:19:26 GMT -5
I've read through this thread and there are a lot of posts I take issue with but I kept circling around to this one mentally so even if it's a few days old I'm gonna trudge it up again, because it ties into something important on a level more specific to the broad conversation, regardless of any motivation or lack thereof behind your words. Yes, it does have an agenda. That agenda is "We are people of Indian and South Asian descent, speaking about our experiences with this character and its effect on popular culture". It is literally people who feel slighted by something expressing their feelings and the things they have lived, and deciding not to listen to that and learn from what they have to say so that you can seek out "pure" sources and people who "don't have agendas" isn't a logical or neutral approach to an issue it's actively ignoring one side of things on the belief they are somehow an inherently biased party and that some other source of information will be inherently more pure. Someone who thinks it's just whining babies being offended by everything who might say that people should be grateful that Apu helped their careers through some weird, convoluted logic isn't unbiased or free from agenda, they just don't wear the issue on their sleeve because we live in a culture where the person complaining is wrong and flawed views that all issues have their solution in some theoretically unbiased neutral ground in the middle between two arguments. In many ways, the people in this thread who haven't given the documentary or its points the time of day or even peeking in to see what they say are the ones who shouldn't be trusted, because their agenda is one driven by the snap decision to take an opposing side without first hearing the argument being made that they've stood up in opposition to. The documentary was recommended to you because it explains that part in depth, researched and laid out in a format meant to teach. It is the best possible way to learn about what you're looking for, where some randos on an internet forum talking about their own personal recollections isn't even remotely a suitable replacement. The only way to learn about an issue is to listen to what people have to say about it. People with big, strong feelings about the issue. What you call an agenda, I consider to be conviction and experience. It's taking the idea that someone wants to accomplish something and saying that that desire is inherently untrustworthy, and not a position I can see any sort of logic or intellectual honesty in. I wasn't planning to post in this thread again since for some reason people keep telling me I've said things I haven't, but I need to address this. Your thoughts that I have decided to not watch the documentary, or to somehow ignore the thoughts of people of Indian or South Asian descent are just wrong. What I said was I didn't want to *start* with the documentary. This is why: I'm not dismissing the documentary. On the contrary, it's obviously raised issues I'd like to learn more about. I'm doing the opposite of dismissing it. What I'm expressing is that I'd like to see other media from the period and learn more generalised background knowledge before I move on to sources (like documentaries) that have a bias or agenda. It's not because I think souces with an agenda are inherently flawed. Or that sources using the voices of people directly affected are somehow invalid - I'm sorry, but that idea is nonsense. It's because I know that when people are ignorant about an issue, as I am here, the opinions they form are strongly influenced by whatever their first source of information about it is, and the views that source espouses. So I'm not writing the documentary off. As I said, it's like how I wouldn't recommend anyone who was interested in learning about obesity in America start by watching Super Size Me. By all means, watch it, just like I'll watch this documentary. Just don't start with it. If you don't agree with my reasoning, fine. Different people learn in different ways. But please don't put words in my mouth or accuse me of ignoring the voices of those affected, when that's plainly not what I've said.
|
|