Charlie Chan in Honolulu
Terms:
Race/ethnicity: Two concepts often linked. It is often thought that “race” deals with a “biological” idea and “ethnicity” with a “cultural” one, although in fact this is not quite true. “Race” is technically, a small inbreeding population with a species and the word “subspecies” or variety may be used in its place. Race is often thought to be a cultural categorization of people based on a perceived biological condition, whereas ethnicity is used for an affiliation or identity with a “cultural” non biological group.
Sex/gender: Similar in many ways to race/ethnicity in that Sex is often seen as biological and gender as identity.
Color blind casting: The concept of casting a play, film, opera without regard to the performers “race”.
Stereotyping: The idea that all people of a certain type behave in some “typical” way which may or may not accurately describe the situation.
Learned vs. innate: concepts have to do with whether people have acquired (learned) some trait, or whether it is “hard wired” into the system. Biological traits like hair color etc., are often commonly thought of as genetic, whereas behavior is generally held to be learned. This is often a hotly debated issue, and reflects upon the western pattern of conflict between “free will” and “determinism”. Similar problems exist with sex/gender and race/ethnicity above. Remember discussions from Bad Seed.
Before the Film
The Charlie Chan series is based on stories by Earl Derr Biggs, which in turn are based on the exploits of a real Chinese detective on the Honolulu Police Department named Chang Apana.
There are a number of other “Asian” characters like Fu Manchu who regularly turn up in the films of the 1930’s and 1940’s just prior to and during World War II who are generally the evil character in them. Chinese and Japanese, being hard for Americans to distinguish, were by actor interchangeable in films. During the war almost all Japanese in films were portrayed by Chinese or Chinese-American actors.
Charlie Chan was a notable exception to the rule of the “evil Asian”. An intellectually bright and highly logical detective, he was clearly a match for Sherlock Holmes in 45 movies made in the 18 years from 1931 to 1949. his brilliant investigative techniques were sought after by many police force, and in general, the police were often pleased to have him on the case. In some cases “buffoon police” showed obviously racial prejudice, but then – they were the buffoons.
Perversely though, with all the Chinese and Chinese-American actors around, none were used to play Charlie himself, but rather Warner Oland (a Swedish born actor who played not only Charlie Chan in 16 films from 1931-1937, but Fu Manchu and several other Asians). Sidney Toler took over and from 1938-1946 played the role in 22 films and Roland Winters played the role in 7 films from 1947-1949. All of these played the lead role, in what has come to be known as “Yellow Face” (a parallel to “Black Face”). In one later film, Peter Ustinov over a flurry of controversy was selected to play Charlie in his last incarnation. Two TV Charlies also existed, and were played by character actors J. Carroll Naish (who also played the title role an Life with Luigi about an Italian immigrant and his adventures in America) and Ross Martin (from Wild Wild West). All the supporting Chinese in the films were played by Chinese and Chinese Americans.
Mr. Moto, another Asian detective, albeit Japanese) was played by Peter Lorre and in fact, one proposed Chan film Charlie Chan at Ringside becameMr. Moto’s Gamble when Oland couldn’t handle the role because of a drinking problem. (Lorre had already played Mr. Moto in Thank You Mr. Moto).Mr. Moto became sufficiently popular that Lorre made five more Mr. Moto films (Mr. Moto Takes a Vacation (1939), Mr. Moto in Danger Island (1939), Mr. Moto's Last Warning (1939), Mysterious Mr. Moto (1938) and Mr. Moto Takes a Chance (1938)
Charlie Chan films were very popular and were made initially by Fox studios and later Monogram.
| The House Without a Key | George Kuwa | 1925 | Pathe |
| The Chinese Parrot | Sojin Kamayama | 1927 | Pathe |
| Behind that Curtain | E.L. Park | 1929 | Fox |
| Black Camel, The | Warner Oland | 1931 | Fox |
| Charlie Chan Carries On | Warner Oland | 1931 | Fox |
| Charlie Chan's Chance | Warner Oland | 1932 | Fox |
| Charlie Chan's Greatest Case | Warner Oland | 1933 | Fox |
| Charlie Chan in London | Warner Oland | 1933 | Fox |
| Charlie Chan's Courage | Warner Oland | 1934 | Fox |
| Charlie Chan in Egypt | Warner Oland | 1935 | Fox |
| Charlie Chan in Paris | Warner Oland | 1935 | Fox |
| Charlie Chan in Shanghai | Warner Oland | 1935 | Fox |
| Charlie Chan at the Circus | Warner Oland | 1936 | Fox |
| Charlie Chan at the Opera | Warner Oland | 1936 | Fox |
| Charlie Chan at the Race Track | Warner Oland | 1936 | Fox |
| Charlie Chan's Secret | Warner Oland | 1936 | Fox |
| Charlie Chan at Monte Carlo | Warner Oland | 1937 | Fox |
| Charlie Chan at the Olympics | Warner Oland | 1937 | Fox |
| Charlie Chan on Broadway | Warner Oland | 1937 | Fox |
| Charlie Chan in Honolulu | Sidney Toler | 1938 | |
| Charlie Chan at Treasure Island | Sidney Toler | 1939 | |
| Charlie Chan in City in Darkness | Sidney Toler | 1939 | |
| Charlie Chan in Reno | Sidney Toler | 1939 | |
| Charlie Chan at the Wax Museum | Sidney Toler | 1940 | |
| Charlie Chan in Panama | Sidney Toler | 1940 | |
| Charlie Chan's Murder Cruise | Sidney Toler | 1940 | |
| Murder Over New York | Sidney Toler | 1940 | |
| Charlie Chan in Rio | Sidney Toler | 1941 | |
| Dead Men Tell | Sidney Toler | 1941 | |
| Castle in the Desert | Sidney Toler | 1942 | |
| Charlie Chan in Black Magic (a.k.a Meeting at Midnight) | Sidney Toler | 1944 | |
| Charlie Chan in The Chinese Cat | Sidney Toler | 1944 | |
| Charlie Chan in the Secret Service | Sidney Toler | 1944 | |
| Jade Mask | Sidney Toler | 1945 | |
| Red Dragon | Sidney Toler | 1945 | |
| Scarlet Clue | Sidney Toler | 1945 | |
| Shanghai Cobra, The | Sidney Toler | 1945 | |
| Dangerous Money | Sidney Toler | 1946 | |
| Dark Alibi | Sidney Toler | 1946 | |
| Shadows Over Chinatown | Sidney Toler | 1946 | |
| Trap, The | Sidney Toler | 1946 | |
| Roland Winters | 1947 | ||
| Roland Winters | 1948 | ||
| Roland Winters | 1948 | ||
| Roland Winters | 1949 | ||
| Roland Winters | 1949 | ||
| Roland Winters | 1949 | ||
| Roland Winters | 1949 | ||
| Peter Ustinov | 1981 | ||
The question of a non-Asian playing an Asian in these films raises a number of issues discussed by the panel headed by George Takei (Sulu on the original Star Trek series.) which we will see after the film.
AFTER THE FILM
To really deal with the question of “Charlie Chan” we would need to see many more of the films with the character. To deal with the depiction of Asians in films, even more. For example, Keye Luke plays a surgeon in some of the Dr. Gillespie films (Dr. Gillespie's New Assistant and Dr. Gillespie's Criminal Case), where his “Asian-ness” is totally irrelevant to the plot. While this was not as common as it is now, the number of Asians in films was more limited and often restricted to maids, waiters, houseboys and the like. What is strange is that as the number of Asians have increased dramatically in the US and in the acting profession, the “supporting roles” like the surgeon in seem to have reduced in numbers of Asians, while increasing for African Americans and Hispanics.
The questions raised by the panel can be divided into two parts: one deals with the economic impact on Asian and Asian American actors of using non Asians to play Asian parts, the other with the abilities of actors.
The first basically asserts that Asians are not chosen for leads in films ostensibly because they don’t have a following and hence don’t draw a crowd (the early exception being Bruce Lee, later some Asian performers like Jackie Chan, Jet Li etc. have made an impact, although earlier Nancy Kwan and Anna May Wong had achieved some reputation). This was the underlying problem with Miss Shanghai. The idea was that there are Black and Hispanic version of Shakespeare and Hello Dolly etc., but not Asian ones.
The counter argument has been that Asians don’t support theater and film enough to risk major productions with Asian and Asian Americans in lead positions.
The second problems are much greater. If actors are only allowed to play the people they are then they aren’t actors. If they act, then they should be able to play anyone. The question is “Are actors really trained to do that”? Certainly not by the actor’s studio under Strasberg or his followers. But how much cultural training would it take - especially if the script is not written by someone very knowledgeable about the culture or from it? Are the three actors hampered by bad scripts, from which they can not escape no matter what? Could Keye Luke or Victor Sen Yung have played a “good” Charlie Chan with the dialog written the way it is?
If playing people from other cultures leads to stereotyping, do Chinese actors playing Japanese (or vice versa) have the same problems? Takei has himself done this in several “cartoon” shows
Yet another problem deals with the creative process and or vs. the interpretive one. The character is “created” first, by the author and then “interpreted” by the performer, who makes the character come alive. Nothing the actor does should contradict the character created by the author,
In terms of the creative process, it can be asked if a non Asian author create an genuinely Asian character? If this is NOT possible, then there is no need to worry about how the actor plays the role since it will lack “reality” anyway.
If it is possible, then it should be equally possible for an actor to produce a genuinely Asian performance, although it might take a great deal more time and effort (which of course was not possible with the cheap Charlie Chan movies). So we may in the case of these movies have a poorly written script with the main character portrayed by a poorly prepared actor.
Is there are problem with style. Many of the early films retained some aspects of silent film (broad and not so broad) styles of acting. These have almost stereotypic forms and gestures equivalent to black/white sartorial codes in cowboy hats! There are specific gestures and such for all different kinds of people from priests to cowboys to sailors (the way they walk, the way they hold their hands etc.) None are realistic, but expected for audience to identify character. Would an Asian actor conform to the acting style or would they play “out of style” to be realistic. The problem is quite complex. SEE Topsey Turvey where British performers have stereotypic gestures and then imitate real Japanese women.
The next question deals with the impact of these films on the real world and inter-ethnic relations. Do people (and apparently largely children from the experiences relayed by the panel) “believe” the character and make fun of them? Or are the people encouraged to meet Chinese and ask questions about the family. One panel member says that in “Honolulu” children did come to her as a child and ask about the “Chinese family”, but rather imitated Charlie’s “broken English”. Does this imply that if you do depict a real family at dinner (which it does and which the panelist agrees with and says she can identify with) no one in the audience cares about this anyway.
The panel discussions
Need to divide economic problem of Asian and Asian-American actors from content of film - i.e who can play whom from who gets hired, although the two are interconnected. That is if Asians are only hired to play specifically Asian characters, then there is a question about hiring non Asians to play Asians. If Asians were hired for parts that were not specifically any particular group or another, and if there were "all Asian" productions of plays like "Hello Dolly" there could be some difference to the answer of whether non Asians should be allowed to play Asians. One might also ask, could Asian-Americans play people who are specifically NOT Asian by using "white face"?
Holes in the film – do people wear sweaters and three piece suits in Honolulu. Unclear some photos from the time indicate suits were worn, but not sweaters. No one seems concerned however, how Charlie, who speaks broken English ever managed to pass a police exam and make it to detective! Another question about lies, deceits, goofs and so on.!
The panel comments on the fact that the children are criticized for being “American” which really criticizes their “becoming American” which the panel holds the dominant population feels they shouldn’t. Should we question whether it would have been better to have them acting “Chinese” and not acculturating and being made fun of for holding on to their culture rather than for giving it up? Is this a question of “reading in” as opposed to “reading out”. Are Chinese-American families the only families depicted in those days in which the children are comic characters? No. Almost as standard as it is now for children to be wiser than adults, Southern police to be “red necks” and so on.
Charlie Chan is criticized in this film by one of the panel members for not trying to speak real Chinese, but saying “ching chong”. Is there ANYWHERE in this film where Charlie says anything in any language other than English. (The other family members to speak Cantonese, a southern Chinese dialect, while the son in law is unintelligible, but he isn’t speaking Cantonese or Mandarin). In some movies Charlie has some lines in Chinese which are attempts at being accurate. But then again, Wes Studi (a Cherokee) in Geronimo An American Legend attempts to speak Apache with disastrous results – he learns the language phonetically and so Apache is delivered in abnormal “clumps” and with incorrect tones. He himself admitted he found the language impossibly difficult and the Apaches always laughed when they heard him speak! By the way, when was the last time you saw an Indian not playing an Indian????
“Morphing” – things changing from one thing to another is also raised by one panel member. Charlie he says in intelligent, but that can morph into cunning. So? Cunning can morph into clever. No matter what characteristics a character has they can always “morph” into the opposite – so what else is new? Do they in any of the films.
Stereotypes are problematical – good or bad – because there isn’t a range of people of that type that one sees on the screen. This is certainly true, but the question is how you decide which group is involved. The very idea of “grouping” is already a stereotype. It implies similarity of some sort. When the panel says “Chinese don’t behave like that” the implication is that there is some specific way that Chinese do behave. If we are only concerned about “typical” behavior movies are going to get very dull indeed.!
WHAT MAKES THE FILM GOOD OR BAD?
In terms of the text.
The writing: Chan is a “comic” detective unlike Sherlock Holmes or Philip Marlowe one of the hard boiled variety (which is more accurate a stereotype?). The “sayings” he sometimes uses and comments are meant to be funny, but on target “Chip masquerading as block” “Prepare for relapse”. Verbal playing is often associated with intelligence. Compare contemporary martial arts movies with “Zen sounding” phrases.
Standard mystery (formulaic) usually a group of people isolated in some way (on a ship, in a plane, at a house). All have motives for first murder. Most suspected in second victim. Usually a scene where detective is told something extraneous by character which turns out to be the important piece of the plot. Formulaic stories without developing the formula in some new direction are often not interesting. Asian (or any other atypical character) is used to try to add some dimension to the plot – odd language pattern, “Confucius sayings” etc.
Comment is made about Charlie’s “Asian-ness” being crucial to the film. Why not just anyone doing the investigation. Perhaps to show Chinese as something other than Fu Manchu. If the complaint is about single stereotype, why object to different characters.
Filmic characteristics
Lighting, pacing, does the camera assist in telling the story? How? Is it competent?
Is this indicative of the film being a “second rate film”
Some “minor” things:
Charlie Chan movies played in many parts of Asia including China and seem to have been well like by the Chinese.
Warner Oland may be part Mongol – an Asian – does this alter anything?