Summer Wheat
Footballguy
I agree, as I stated earlier even though his accent is spot on they should keep Apu and replace him with an actual actor from India.If Hank Azaria is uncomfortable with this well then I respect his act of conscience.
I agree, as I stated earlier even though his accent is spot on they should keep Apu and replace him with an actual actor from India.If Hank Azaria is uncomfortable with this well then I respect his act of conscience.
why? He is acting. Surely you wouldn't apply the same idea to Nancy Cartwright.I agree, as I stated earlier even though his accent is spot on they should keep Apu and replace him with an actual actor from India.
Why? Because he quit.why? He is acting. Surely you wouldn't apply the same idea to Nancy Cartwright.
I'm not sure if "The main characters lack a conscience, therefore it's okay to portray other characters as racist stereotypes" is a winning argument.Of course not. The show was built around 4 people that lack a conscience and portrayed accordingly.Should Seinfeld episodes with Babu be pulled from syndication?
sorry, I misunderstood. I was reading that as though he should simply be replaced, full stop-not taking into account that he left. My bad.Why? Because he quit.
Yes. That wasn't "Season 1" stuff. That's character rehabilitationd.Is it bad that I read this with the Apu voice in my head?
So because of this I did a little reading about the Apu character, thank you wikipedia:
Apu is actually a doctor, with a PHD in computer science. He was also first in his class (of 7 million) and can recite Pi to 40,000 decimal places.
As for the voice itself, Azaria won an Oscar in 1998 for it specifically, and has won two others since for various voice-overs including that of Apu.
Sorry, yes, Emmy (meant to type Emmy, fingers typed Oscar). Just meant to say he's won awards for the voice.Yes. That wasn't "Season 1" stuff. That's character rehabilitationd.
Also, Azaria hasn't won an Oscar, he got an Emmy for Apu, during the season that dealt with arranged marriage, and he was the only nominee in the category.
If your goal is conversation then I will politely ask this one time and one time only - please do not twist my words. Next time it won't be polite.I'm not sure if "The main characters lack a conscience, therefore it's okay to portray other characters as racist stereotypes" is a winning argument.
Not that I'm saying that Seinfeld was a bigoted show. I just think that it worked better when it exposed the ignorance of the main characters (e.g., when George was trying to make a "black friend" to prove he wasn't racist) than when it played up cheap stereotypes for laughs (e.g., Babu, the gay ribbon bullies).
The ignorance of the main characters does not justify the racist or bigoted stereotypes of other characters.If your goal is conversation then I will politely ask this one time and one time only - please do not twist my words. Next time it won't be polite.I'm not sure if "The main characters lack a conscience, therefore it's okay to portray other characters as racist stereotypes" is a winning argument.
Not that I'm saying that Seinfeld was a bigoted show. I just think that it worked better when it exposed the ignorance of the main characters (e.g., when George was trying to make a "black friend" to prove he wasn't racist) than when it played up cheap stereotypes for laughs (e.g., Babu, the gay ribbon bullies).
The actual quote - 'The show was built around 4 people that lack a conscience and portrayed accordingly.' As you went onto correctly say its roots are in their ignorance. What they unintentionally did to Babu Bhat first in the cafe and then in the visa is exactly that - their ignorance got him into avoidable binds and their lack of conscience allowed them to just move on with their lives as if nothing happened despite effectively ruining his American dream.
Just like with Apu, I think anyone who looks at that character and immediately thinks racist stereotype is just looking for a reason to be offended. It's the show. It's satire. It's mocking them; not Babu.
I'm not personally, either, but I'm not going to begrudge someone from the ethnic group that was being stereotyped for doing so. If they made a sequel to Breakfast at Tiffany's about Mr. Yunioshi in which his character was deftly and wonderfully handled in a beautiful story of immigration and community building, but kept the same physical attributes and voice, I'd imagine it would upset some Asian people. Same with Uncle Remus. Origins can be a big deal.Sorry, yes, Emmy (meant to type Emmy, fingers typed Oscar). Just meant to say he's won awards for the voice.
Season 1 they were just figuring out what this show was really going to be about. I'm not going to fault them for season 1 stuff now 30 years later.
What from the origins of Apu's character was even in the same ballpark of being as horrible as Mr. Yunioshi? I'm no Simpson's connoisseur or anything, but they didn't really get into any characters outside of the main family in the first season, did they? He was introduced as a minority store owner. We later find out that he was only working there to pay off student loans from earning his Ph.D., and being valedictorian doing it.I'm not personally, either, but I'm not going to begrudge someone from the ethnic group that was being stereotyped for doing so. If they made a sequel to Breakfast at Tiffany's about Mr. Yunioshi in which his character was deftly and wonderfully handled in a beautiful story of immigration and community building, but kept the same physical attributes and voice, I'd imagine it would upset some Asian people. Same with Uncle Remus. Origins can be a big deal.
Right. One of the things that makes The Simpsons so cool is the way that they gradually fleshed out so many side characters -- Apu, Skinner, Mrs. Krabappel, Flanders, Sideshow Bob, Krusty, Revered Lovejoy, and so on. They were all skeletal at best in at first, but by the time you get half a dozen seasons in all of those folks had had at least an episode or two that really belonged to them.What from the origins of Apu's character was even in the same ballpark of being as horrible as Mr. Yunioshi? I'm no Simpson's connoisseur or anything, but they didn't really get into any characters outside of the main family in the first season, did they?
I recommend watching "The Problem with Apu"What from the origins of Apu's character was even in the same ballpark of being as horrible as Mr. Yunioshi? I'm no Simpson's connoisseur or anything, but they didn't really get into any characters outside of the main family in the first season, did they? He was introduced as a minority store owner. We later find out that he was only working there to pay off student loans from earning his Ph.D., and being valedictorian doing it.
What was so "offensive" about Apu? The stereotype of working in a quick-e-mart? His voice? His mannerisms?
Was hoping you'd have an answer, rather than "go listen to that guys answer." I'll see if I can find and watch it.I recommend watching "The Problem with Apu"
Okay. To begin with:Was hoping you'd have an answer, rather than "go listen to that guys answer." I'll see if I can find and watch it.
I touched on #1 in my ETA post just above yours. That video goes on to show that guy asking people on the street if they knew that Apu's voice is done by a white guy, and they were shocked to hear it. Leads you to believe those people thought the voice was being done by a non-white guy, right? Doesn't that go completely against the point?Okay. To begin with:
1. It is intentionally a voice of a white guy ala shock radio in the 90s impersonating an Indian guy in "step n fetch" or "Charlie Chan" style. The Simpsons didn't hire an Indian actor or person even with a British or Indian accent to play the character, or even have a convincing British or Indian accent done, they hired a white man to do, basically, an impersonation of a white man doing an Indian accent. It's seen by many as a vocal version of brownface. Which is offensive.
2. He was intentionally given a job of Kwik-E-Mart owner/operator because it is a stereotypical job for an Indian immigrant at that time.
Slight tangent: there have been several prominent characters on The Simpsons who never got fleshed out (at least through the first ~20 years of the show) -- they never got a backstory, never got a dedicated plot, etc. I don't think it's a coincidence that the three most prominent African-American Springfieldians (Dr. Hibbert, Carl Carlson, and Lou the cop) were all on that list of undeveloped characters. IMO, there were two reasons for this: 1) because the show was staffed with primarily white writers and producers, they felt unqualified to write deeper storylines involving African-Americans; and 2) the producers and writers were sensitive to the possibility of offending black viewers, so they toned down those characters.Right. One of the things that makes The Simpsons so cool is the way that they gradually fleshed out so many side characters -- Apu, Skinner, Mrs. Krabappel, Flanders, Sideshow Bob, Krusty, Revered Lovejoy, and so on. They were all skeletal at best in at first, but by the time you get half a dozen seasons in all of those folks had had at least an episode or two that really belonged to them.What from the origins of Apu's character was even in the same ballpark of being as horrible as Mr. Yunioshi? I'm no Simpson's connoisseur or anything, but they didn't really get into any characters outside of the main family in the first season, did they?
I'll be happy to watch the video when I can and give you my thoughts on it. Are there any people in the video of Indian or East Asian descent who say they found the portrayal offensive?I touched on #1 in my ETA post just above yours. That video goes on to show that guy asking people on the street if they knew that Apu's voice is done by a white guy, and they were shocked to hear it. Leads you to believe those people thought the voice was being done by a non-white guy, right? Doesn't that go completely against the point?
#2 - is that offensive, for a convenience store owner/operator to be portrayed by an Asian? If so I guess we can't watch Pulp Fiction, Falling Down, American History X, Loaded Weapon, Fight Club, Rumble in the Bronx (starring Jackie Chan of all actors), Crash, Friday, Training Day, Gilmore Girls, How I met your mother, and many others. Just because it's a "stereotype" doesn't mean it's either wrong or offensive. You know that I'm an insurance agent. When I go to CE classes, it's a room full of white men. "Insurance agents", are accurately stereotyped as white guys, at least until these recent State Farm commercials with Aaron Rodgers - because more often than not, that's what they are.
I agree on all counts. Unfortunately, black characters appearing in a predominately "white" show are always going to be especially problematic because of our unique history, and I don't mind not having a prominent black character for that reason. I get it.Slight tangent: there have been several prominent characters on The Simpsons who never got fleshed out (at least through the first ~20 years of the show) -- they never got a backstory, never got a dedicated plot, etc. I don't think it's a coincidence that the three most prominent African-American Springfieldians (Dr. Hibbert, Carl Carlson, and Lou the cop) were all on that list of undeveloped characters. IMO, there were two reasons for this: 1) because the show was staffed with primarily white writers and producers, they felt unqualified to write deeper storylines involving African-Americans; and 2) the producers and writers were sensitive to the possibility of offending black viewers, so they toned down those characters.
In that context, I can understand why people might ask "Why didn't they do the same with Apu?"
Nonetheless, I'm glad they didn't relegate Apu to background status, because he turned into one of the top-5 non-Simpson characters on the show.
Ironically, no. Again, the video that I liked to is a PBS interview with the writer of “The problem with Apu”, not the film itself (which if I can find, and find the time for I’ll try and watch). His mother even joked with him after he showed her a clip of Apu on his phone that he looked like Apu a little bit. Then she was asked specifically about the voice being done by a white guy, and she called it “good.” So I’m not really sure where any offense is.I'll be happy to watch the video when I can and give you my thoughts on it. Are there any people in the video of Indian or East Asian descent who say they found the portrayal offensive?
You should see it. It’s not some one dimensional hit piece as you appear to think it is.Ironically, no. Again, the video that I liked to is a PBS interview with the writer of “The problem with Apu”, not the film itself (which if I can find, and find the time for I’ll try and watch). His mother even joked with him after he showed her a clip of Apu on his phone that he looked like Apu a little bit. Then she was asked specifically about the voice being done by a white guy, and she called it “good.” So I’m not really sure where any offense is.
Hari even said specifically that “there’s nothing wrong with being a convenience store owner” when talking about the character. That line kinda came out of nowhere in the interview, so it kinda caught me.
The only other people of Indian or East Asian decent in the video (aside from the interviewer) were a few folks about his age who he asks if they’d ever been called Apu or had that referenced towards them (very vague question) and they raised their hand. Later the Indian interviewer mentioned Apu’s “catchphrases” which another kid would apparently mockingly say to him, and to other Asian kids. Sounds like a case of an ahole kid and bullying rather than something I’d hold against the show.
Another thing that I had to chuckle at was Hari getting a bit of a response from the show (the clip with Lisa), and being more upset as a fan of the show for it rather than as an Indian-American. Seems odd that he’d be such a fan of the show to have said that after literally making a movie about (apparently) how offensive one of the characters is.
I haven't seen the documentary either, but my understanding is that he made it as a big fan of the show who was trying to reconcile his feelings for the show with his disappointment over the character of Apu.Ironically, no. Again, the video that I liked to is a PBS interview with the writer of “The problem with Apu”, not the film itself (which if I can find, and find the time for I’ll try and watch). His mother even joked with him after he showed her a clip of Apu on his phone that he looked like Apu a little bit. Then she was asked specifically about the voice being done by a white guy, and she called it “good.” So I’m not really sure where any offense is.
Hari even said specifically that “there’s nothing wrong with being a convenience store owner” when talking about the character. That line kinda came out of nowhere in the interview, so it kinda caught me.
The only other people of Indian or East Asian decent in the video (aside from the interviewer) were a few folks about his age who he asks if they’d ever been called Apu or had that referenced towards them (very vague question) and they raised their hand. Later the Indian interviewer mentioned Apu’s “catchphrases” which another kid would apparently mockingly say to him, and to other Asian kids. Sounds like a case of an ahole kid and bullying rather than something I’d hold against the show.
Another thing that I had to chuckle at was Hari getting a bit of a response from the show (the clip with Lisa), and being more upset as a fan of the show for it rather than as an Indian-American. Seems odd that he’d be such a fan of the show to have said that after literally making a movie about (apparently) how offensive one of the characters is.
Yes, that’s the response that he said he was more upset with an a fan than as an Indian American.Also, just from a purely aesthetic perspective, the Simpsons' response to the film was really lame. When I first heard about it, I thought maybe it was some kind of satirical reprise of the Itchy and Scratchy writers sticking Marge into an episode in "Itchy and Scratchy and Marge".
3.5 out of 10 on IMDB? Not having high hopes for this. Where can I see it? Not on Netflix or amazon.You should see it. It’s not some one dimensional hit piece as you appear to think it is.
Hulu.3.5 out of 10 on IMDB? Not having high hopes for this. Where can I see it? Not on Netflix or amazon.
Yasss.Also worth noting that when Apu's immigrant status is used for comic effect, it's usually to mock American xenophobia, not immigrants. (At least through the golden age of the show -- I have no idea what happened to this character after season 11 or 12 or so). In other words, Apu is mostly a "punching up" character.
I’ll go back to the example I cited earlier: Let’s say your Indian friend told you that he hated the character because he was bullied as a kid by people imitating Apu’s accent. Would you accuse him of looking for a reason to be offended?Just like with Apu, I think anyone who looks at that character and immediately thinks racist stereotype is just looking for a reason to be offended. It's the show. It's satire. It's mocking them; not Babu.
What you described would be a good teaching opportunity for bullies. Educating them on who Apu really is and how whatever they're doing to their Indian peer is laced in ignorance.I’ll go back to the example I cited earlier: Let’s say your Indian friend told you that he hated the character because he was bullied as a kid by people imitating Apu’s accent. Would you accuse him of looking for a reason to be offended?
And no, I’m not saying The Simpsons bears any responsibility for what bullies do. I’m saying there seems to be a sentiment running through this thread of people who don’t themselves find Apu offensive and therefore can’t imagine why anyone else would. And I think we should all have more empathy for the perspectives that other people may bring to a situation, particularly if they’re from a group whose viewpoints have historically been marginalized.
My point wasn’t about the bullies, it was about the person being bullied. In fact, leave the bullies aside for a second. What if your friend told you that, as an Indian immigrant, he found the character offensive. Would you tell him he was looking for a reason to be offended or would you understand that his background might give him a perspective on the issue that was different from yours?What you described would be a good teaching opportunity for bullies. Educating them on who Apu really is and how whatever they're doing to their Indian peer is laced in ignorance.
This is fine, but some people do choose to take offense for pretty sketchy reasons. If somebody wants to explain rationally why X is offensive, I'm completely willing to hear them out. But they need to make a case based on reason and logic. If the end result is something like "This frays my nerves for reasons that you could never understand," that's fine and all, but I'm not going to give that position any credence or lose any sleep over it.I’ll go back to the example I cited earlier: Let’s say your Indian friend told you that he hated the character because he was bullied as a kid by people imitating Apu’s accent. Would you accuse him of looking for a reason to be offended?
And no, I’m not saying The Simpsons bears any responsibility for what bullies do. I’m saying there seems to be a sentiment running through this thread of people who don’t themselves find Apu offensive and therefore can’t imagine why anyone else would. And I think we should all have more empathy for the perspectives that other people may bring to a situation, particularly if they’re from a group whose viewpoints have historically been marginalized.
As a non-Indian (who also hasn't seen the documentary), I can't give you a first-hand reason why they might find it offensive. In fact, as far as I can tell no one who's Indian has weighed in on this thread. And maybe the vast majority of Indians don't find it offensive; if that were the case, I'd respect that opinion as well.This is fine, but some people do choose to take offense for pretty sketchy reasons. If somebody wants to explain rationally why X is offensive, I'm completely willing to hear them out. But they need to make a case based on reason and logic. If the end result is something like "This frays my nerves for reasons that you could never understand," that's fine and all, but I'm not going to give that position any credence or lose any sleep over it.
From what I've gathered from this thread, the arguments for Apu being problematic are that he has an accent (as do all first-generation immigrants, and as do many other characters on the show), he's voiced by a non-Indian actor (not relevant for voice acting), and he works in a stereotypical occupation for immigrants (true, but pretty benign as far as stereotypes go). Weighing against this position is the fact that his overall portrayal in the show is overwhelmingly positive. I understand the argument, or at least I think I do. It's just a poor argument.
Butting in on this conversation to say that I'd take his position at face value, I wouldn't reference Apu in the future in his presence, and I'd still support Apu remaining part of the Simpsons universe.My point wasn’t about the bullies, it was about the person being bullied. In fact, leave the bullies aside for a second. What if your friend told you that, as an Indian immigrant, he found the character offensive. Would you tell him he was looking for a reason to be offended or would you understand that his background might give him a perspective on the issue that was different from yours?
That's fair. Like I said, my point wasn't to say that people have to agree with those who find it offensive, just that they owe them empathy and the presumption of good faith.Butting in on this conversation to say that I'd take his position at face value, I wouldn't reference Apu in the future in his presence, and I'd still support Apu remaining part of the Simpsons universe.
Holy crap I hadn't thought about that movie in years. I remember after seeing Cool World I gained even more appreciation for the brilliance of Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Because the former looked like they had hired a sixth grader to figure out how to stitch together the live-action and animated scenes.Jessica Rabbit or Holli Would?
I've been thinking about this some more, and here's my attempt at a Grand Unified Theory of Apu. I'm not saying this is definitely accurate, nor am I saying it compels any action one way or another with the character. It's just my best guess at what's going on, and how we got here.IvanKaramazov said:From what I've gathered from this thread, the arguments for Apu being problematic are that he has an accent (as do all first-generation immigrants, and as do many other characters on the show), he's voiced by a non-Indian actor (not relevant for voice acting), and he works in a stereotypical occupation for immigrants (true, but pretty benign as far as stereotypes go). Weighing against this position is the fact that his overall portrayal in the show is overwhelmingly positive. I understand the argument, or at least I think I do. It's just a poor argument.
Right, I don't blame anyone for how the character originally came about, but I do think if the show were launching now they would do it differently.When the show started they had no idea if it would hit or last. Like all producers under such circumstances they used the talent available to them to play multiple voice roles. The little known Hank Azaria voiced many characters. It was efficient.
As for that character, it was no more or less sharply drawn than numerous others, at least to my memory though I confess to not being an aficionado of the show as are some.
I thought he was the driving force behind the B-Sharps, others disagree.