Conclusion

I have never analyzed movies about immigration, or simply about culture, so deeply that I really understood their complete meaning, and surrounding context. Watching so many films that contain the theme of immigration has to make one understand more about the root of America culture, and American History. I also learned a great deal about my own family history, and the push and pull factors that led them to America. Seeing films such as Fiddler on the Roof made me realize that my family’s migration narrative shares many characteristics to many other Jewish migration narratives of the time. Films such as Chan is Missing made me appreciate my hometown of San Francisco for all of its Chinese and Asian immigrants, mainly because growing up most of my friends were asian. I can’t explain exactly why I feel a connection to Chinese culture, but I do, and I attribute it to my growing up in San Francisco. I never questioned my act of conforming into American culture until this class, until I realized that I really do understand how to act in various situations and places based on the dominant culture. It made me realize that when I was in Israel a few years ago, I tried to act just like all of the other Israeli boys; perhaps it is natural to want to conform (I also realize that total conformity is impossible because one’s initial culture is going to be stuck with them).

Studying so many films shows that all cultures are actually very similar, and that there are the same themes for every migration story. There are usually very definitive push and pull factors, whether it be from danger in one’s homeland to the appeal of the American dream, as well as forming communities once in America. Whiteness nearly always came into question with whatever film it was we watched simply because whiteness is a way of succeeding in society (definitely not a fair or moral way). What fascinated me was the shift of films over time; the difference from portraying only select immigrant classes to many more as new immigrants came to America — for example, the shift from blackface to yellowface, etc. The only demographic group that I don’t believe was mentioned were Indians (not Native Americans). On my own time, I watched Slumdog Millionaire which definitely throws a large amount of Indian stereotypes into it. A similar theme in this movie was the negative depiction of the “white man” — white supremacy — trying to manipulate Indian children.

It would be accurate of me to say that when I see a movie I now analyze the film and try to look deeper into what is trying to be portrayed and conveyed, and what are the reasons and backgrounds for these depictions. The idea that the viewer are the ones that give films and TV shows their meaning fascinates me; the writers do not have a say on how people will react to their content, thus, once in the public they are not in control of defining their stories. This coincides with another idea, the idea of “realism” essentially not existing simply because depictions will always be just that — depictions. Because everyone’s idea of “real” is imagined, there is no way that any film can be totally “authentic.” There can be attempts at making a film authentic by trying to use historical facts or other means of conveying realism, such as a rawer film style, but it will never succeed. Peoples biases and view on the world always determine the meaning of a piece of art. This makes me think on a broader level than just film, and think of society as a whole, and the government, and the question of what is the truth. I don’t think that there is a particular “truth,” so to speak, rather, an idea that everyone believes they are living under some sort of formal structure.

Never did I expect films to help me understand society on a broader level, but they truly have, and I am so glad that I now have this knowledge to help me understand more complicated parts of the world. They not only gave me the ability to rhetorically analyze films, and society, but also to just enjoy the vast range of societies depicted in the films. Watching them really made me happier — I’m not sure why, but watching a movie may be a solo process, but the imagination involved in putting yourself into the film makes it so much more fulfilling.

 

Main Themes of Reading

Yet another aspect of Celluloid Palimpsest fascinated me for a few reasons. This is the basic idea that stood out to me, and that I sort of believe in; the term is “liberal expectancy.” This is used to explain the idea that in the future, because of modernization, industrialization and communication, people will mature and grow out of their “artificial” ethnicity and more so into an “American” (a combination of many factors). This is essentially saying that ethnicity is not necessarily needed to define an individual. This idea would make assimilation much easier for people, and would lead to better lives. In the text there are various examples of different forms of ethnic identity, including that of the woman “locked in the chains of ambivalence,” who is a self-hating Jew; she could not come to terms with her ethnic identity. The Idea of liberal expectancy helped Jews gain success in America so quickly — coming to America with the mindset of abandoning their cultural values, and and adopting a complete American lifestyle. This is greatly reflected in films, depicting “American life,” which were largely dominated by Jewish directors and producers. They created the imagined communities of America, and of what America should look like, giving visual substance to the American Dream.

Class-Discussion

The day before Thanksgiving we watched part of The Godfather Part 2, by Francis Coppola — a film I had heard about, but had never seen. It focused on Italian immigrants in America, and the subsequent mobs that rose out of certain families. The film travels through different periods of time, starting from Italy, then America, focusing on one family who is led by Michael Corleone, the son of Vito Corleone who escaped the mob in Italy. Because this is the second installment of the Godfather, it is also the second generation of children in charge; they are more accustomed to American culture than their parents were. There is a funny scene where an Italian man asks the band to play a classic Italian piece, and gets mocked instantly. Despite their assimilation, they still all speak in both Italian and English. The film depicts Michael as a very calm but strong and assertive man, but still one with compassion in love; he shows his son so much compassion it is almost bizarre because of all the surrounding violence. However, the concept of family first makes a lot of sense in the movie.

The film then goes back to Vito Corleone during his initial migration to New York. It shows him as a very moral loyal man, as we discussed in class (when asked if he thought a performer was sexy, he said he only looks/values his wife and his child). It gets complicated, however, when he starts to get involved in crime, which is easy to see when he is given a package of guns to hide. This is the start of Vito breaking into crime — it shows how it is the only way to make a real living in such dire times. The depiction of the immigrant community may be accurate, with dirty streets, and crowds of people everywhere. The fact that the movie shows Vito getting into crime is a reality for many immigrants coming to America, especially when they cannot make a living doing jobs that don’t pay well enough. The saddest part about the immigrant community was that it was controlled by one of their own, the Black Hand, who was an Italian man corrupting the town and forcing people to “need” his protection. This involved giving a lot of money and goods to the Black Hand, which the Italian immigrants certainly didn’t like, but Vito saw the only way out as “beating” him at his own game. The contrast of this depiction of the Black Hand versus that of the first time we saw the “Black Hand” in class was very different — in The Godfather the Black Hand is a fat man with a lot of money and power, whereas in the first one he is a depicted as more dirty, and “immigrant” like.

The idea of assimilation is prevalent throughout the film, but the Italian characters always remain “Italian.” They are not considered to be “white” yet, but they aren’t exactly discriminated against either. No where in the film did I see an Italian man get persecuted for being Italian, maybe because the Italian community was portrayed as such a large one with extreme family ties.

Class-Discussion

Chan is Missing, a film by Wayne Wang, was by far my favorite film seen in class. It struck a chord so close to home with me that it essentially was a feel-good movie. I distinctly remember some people in class not enjoying the movie, and could not understand why. (I also believe we had a substitute this day…) The film takes place in San Francisco, and the entire cast is Asian, something of a rarity in cinema. The film depicts Chinese Americans that have assimilated into American society, and adds humor by having the second generation kids mock the older culture. Scenes of various foods are seen, and a chef even jokes that too many people order the “sweet and sour pork.” As an immigrant, he explains how he came to America to hold a better job,  but all what the white people want from him is his food. This is a reality for many people in America who cannot get jobs outside of selling their “ethnic” culture. In class we discussed the different types of characters there were, and the various American cultures they adopted. Interestingly, a little Chinese girl acts quite “ghetto,” and is somewhat African-Americanized. Similarly with the younger of the main duo, he has a lower-class, black accent. We discussed the significance of the film being one of Wayne Wang’s first, and its realistic style of filming, in contrast with that of Flower Drum Song. The realism in the film adds to its authenticity, making the viewer take what he is seeing at more than just face-value; it is attempting to depict in a serious manner a specific culture in a specific era (Chinese Americans in San Francisco).

Main Themes of Reading

In Homer’s Odyssey by A.O. Scott, the idea that shows change over time, and are nearly always directed to attract viewers, is shown with the example of The Simpsons, which has been the longest running sitcom on American television. I find that in the article itself there are some interesting complexes, namely the concept of moral judgement and moral depictions. Obviously shows must change over time to fit the consumers needs, and this fact may not sit well with people (brings to mind in the modern day Miley Cyrus — was her performance truly immoral or was it simply a smart marketing tactic?). Scott explains how the image of Homer Simpson changed over time, from the beginning as more of a “father” figure, who has empathy and emotions, and feels bad if he makes a mistake, to a more belligerent and stupid character that many find funny, but probably can’t relate with as much as the father figure. Scott says, “Whether or not the show has consistently lived up to these strictures, or to Brooks’s humanist emphasis on character and emotional truth, is a matter of argument, but the two men share a clear commitment to something that can only, and oddly, be called realism” (NY Times, 47). Scott is explaining how even though the Simpsons has to go to certain lengths of absurdity, they still attempt (and succeed) to depict the “peculiarities” of American culture. What makes the article interesting is the descriptions of The Simpsons workplace, and how it differs drastically from that of more corporate shows. It is freer and writers don’t feel like they are being manipulated; in other words, it is a fairer workplace. The emotional aspect of the show is something that can’t be ignored, and the writers do try and put in as much emotion as they can, while still being practical and funny. The episode we saw in class about the character Apu gives just a taste of emotion and makes the viewer compassionate, but steals it away with the humor and absurdness of Homer. I think that is what makes the show brilliant, however; its ability to explain so much about society in twenty minutes. The end of the article says that there will be much more emotional realms for The Simpsons to explore, and I do agree — but I think they are exploring it just fine right now. The show depicts American culture to its fullest, and I think that shows need to exaggerate characters quite a bit to get their point across.

Main Themes of Reading

One concept that stuck out to me was in Celluloid Palimpsets, by Lester Friedman, explaining what ethnicity is. Particularly, this definition made the most sense to me: “ethnic groups are not even natural biological divisions of humanity, but rather temporary alignments of people created by communication channels: ethnic groups simply disappear when people alter their consciousness or change their self-conceptions.” This definition is used to explain that ethnicity is something that humans create, and something that changes over time. This ties in with the concept of “whiteness,” with different ethnic groups becoming less and less “ethnic” and assimilating into white culture. Jews ethnicity has been a topic of debate, because it is not clear what the word entails — are they Jewish, or are they white? If one didn’t know they were Jewish today, they would most likely be thrown into the category of white, thus, their ethnicity changed by those viewing them. This is constant for nearly all white groups that assimilated into American culture; they lost their original “ethnic” image, and slowly became white. This can be a conscious act, of changing one’s ethnicity in order to fit in, or it could be an unconscious inevitability. Clashes between generations are a good representation of changing ethnicities, and the struggle to hold onto tradition. The child is ready to leave his tradition and adopt a new one, while his parents are keen on keeping their old tradition. In America where there are so many different cultures and “ethnicities”, there is really one giant subculture that I think is going to continue to prevail. People adopt different ethnicities that they can relate to (i.e. the little girl in Chan is Missing who speaks with a “black” accent). The more and more people mix races and cultures, the less there is a definitive name for ones ethnicity.

Main Themes of Reading

Portraits of Chinatown, by Elaine Kim, examines Chinese culture in America throughout history. The main point to notice is that of the “bachelor societies” which were prevalent in Chinese communities because of the large number of men in comparison to women. Most of the men were married and had wives in China, and were in America to make money then return to support their family back home; this idea is still prevalent in todays society. Kim mentions that many of the men regarded their stay in America as a “prison” term, because they were not allowed to be “chinese.” Their only purpose was to make money and return to China; unfortunately the only money they were allowed to make was working at laundromats and restaurants. They were discriminated very much, and it may be hard to believe because of the large number of Chinese and Asian Americans in America today. Many of these bachelors were depressed with their lives, so they resorted to gambling, drinking, and buying prostitutes. As the Chinese gained more and more rights in America, and more women were allowed into the country, they began to form families, and subsequently that is seen in many households in the United States today (although there are still Chinese ghettos that exist in America). I really understand the concept of the “bachelor society” because I can see remnants of it today; I see many Chinese that are living in a “bubble” that is sort of a little China in America. They work extremely hard in either laundromats or restaurants, and don’t speak English very well. Even though this aspect of society exists, as I mentioned, families exist as well — there are large numbers of Chinese Americans who have made stable and wealthy families in America. Many of them were able to live the “American Dream” over time, and that has always been the goal; to make money. Even if the parents are poor, it is their goal to raise their kids to be educated and get into a good school, and become a doctor, or any respectable profession. This is where all of the stereotypes about the Chinese being hard working, and having strict parents come from — it does have some validity, as do all stereotypes. Living in Chinatown as an immigrant was really rough for most people — very much so a ghetto, and dangerous. But through hard work and perseverance , the Chinese have made quite a good name for themselves in America. 

Main Themes of Reading

In Anna Camaiti’s Big Night, Small Days, the movie Big Night is analyzed as a film about Italian emigration, and the idea of authenticity being present, but skewed with intent. Camaiti explains how nearly all stereotypes are gone or skewed in the film for multiple reasons including the fact that Italian culture usually depicts women cooking, but this film revolves around three male cooks. The theme of authenticity is brought up many times in the article, because in the film it is difficult to distinguish what is really authentic, versus what is meant to be authentic. There is a scene in the movie where an American customer at the restaurant doesn’t understand what she had ordered, and asks for something else — the cook is outraged at the request, making it seem like the food they were cooking was true “Italian” food, however, their food is really a mix of different cultures of Italian cuisine. This raises the big question of what is the value of authenticity? as brought up by Camaiti. I think that maybe the film is trying to say that nothing is ever really authentic, “authenticity” is whatever we create. I say this because of a statement by Pascal, the “businessman”: “I am a businessman. I am anything I need to be at any time.” In the movie, no one really knows who they are; Camaiti suggests that the main characters are stuck in the past, and stuck in the future, giving the present no real context. However, the movie ends on a positive note, with the final dish of the timpano, which is a mix of different cultures foods, but comes together as one that everyone can share and enjoy. Camaiti suggests that this is a very powerful image, that can be seen as something that encourages everyone to discover who they are, by accepting and embracing people of other cultural backgrounds.

Main Themes of Reading Response

Mobile Metropolis: Urban Circulation, Modern Media, Moving Publics is a perfect explanation of the beginning of an era of individualism in America, and eventually the entire world. One quote in particular explains this quite well: “They have multiplied the opportunities of the individual man for contact and for association with his fellows, but they have made these contacts and associations more transitory and less stable” (35). This is expressing the idea that since the automobile, and trains were invented, human social behavior has changed drastically. People were now able to get glimpses of parts of cities they would never have seen before. It was as if they were watching from overhead the fast moving aspects of cities, seeing, but not being seen. Today, this is reality; people are generally invested with themselves, without regard to the people around them, because of various isolating techniques (cars, buses, trains, phones). We can now not only see more places, but also view more things, and cultures — the problem is, we are not regarding these cultures as reality, or we are not letting them affect us. We are simultaneously being provided more information, but separating ourselves from these depicted and real realities. In better words, “[city livers] live much as people do in some great hotel, meeting but not knowing one another” (35).  Cinema has the same effect, or at least I view it as the same effect. People can enjoy viewing on screen depictions of other cultures, but do not engage in them, and are separated from them. This is the root of the problem in American culture, I believe, because it makes everyone so individualistic that they become desensitized to the needs of people other than themselves. The article explains how different types of mobility exist — individual mobility and collective mobility. Both allow one to imagine the group they would fit into, and give them a definition of their new “self” identity, based on what they view. This reminds me of kids seeing a film, and then acting as if they were a character

Native American’s in Film Reading Response

Native Americans have been portrayed in film since the beginning of cinema, and their portrayal reflects the attitude and actions of Europeans who settled in America dating back to the 1400’s. Native Americans were referred to as “Indians” because Christopher Columbus believed he was in India, which he had been searching for. The “founding” of  America was one of discrimination and Eurocentrism, or the idea that everything on earth revolves around Europeans, more specifically Anglo Europeans. With this “eurocentrism” engraved in peoples minds, there were conflicts between the European settlers and the Native Americans. Stories about Native Americans were written in journals and novels, and led to even more stereotypes only used to discriminate against Indians (we’ll call them “Indians” for simplicity). The first depiction of Indians was that of the “bloodthirsty savage” (also seen in depictions of Asians) who is out to kill, rape, and pillage white settlers. These depictions always put the Indians as the aggressors, making the Europeans seem on the defensive when in reality, the white settlers were the instigators attacking the Indians. The other depiction described is that of the “noble savage;” this does not mean that the Indians were deemed worthy of being treated better, rather, it is used to describe their connection to nature, and their “purer instincts” about the world around them. Indians in this depiction were seen as acting on instinct rather than on complex thought.  

 

These stereotypes, along with many clashes between Indians and Whites, led to the creation of the Western, a film genre that involves cowboys, Indians, and lots of shootouts and fighting on horseback. Westerns evolved from “Actualities” which were short documentary-like films displaying foreign places and people. Westerns took characteristics of certain Indian tribes, and labeled them “Indian,” giving the term a definitive stereotype of what an Indian was. Characteristics such as holding a bow and arrow, wearing feathered headdresses, and living in a teepee were used as an “exotic appeal” to white audiences. For example, one of the most popular TV series of all time, Tonto and the Lone Ranger, attempts to portray the “noble savage” Tonto, who is suppose to be the white man’s sidekick. However, Tonto is extremely subservient to his partner, and is essentially powerless. Although this was still very discriminatory, perhaps it was a step in the right direction, especially in contrast to the Westerns portraying the “bloodthirsty savage.” Similarly to whites dressing up in “blackface,” they also dressed up in “red face” to portray Indian characters.

 

Despite these negative stereotypes of Indians in film, there began a movement of film that tried to depict issues of racism, and the struggles of Indians, called “adult Westerns.” During the 1960’s the American Indian Movement was founded, part of the counterculture of those times, and was a voice for equal rights for everyone, Indians included. Slowly but surely, Indians were getting a better light shone on them in cinema.

Westerns became outdated after the large number of Western films from previous decades, and in came the new “nobel Indian” films. One of the most famous Indian films is Smoke Signals, directed by Chris Eyre. This film was perhaps the first of its kind; it portrayed Indians in a modern day reservation, and examined the various conflicts that ensued. There is little nonsense in the film; it may be the only accurate portrayal of Indians out there. In regards to the two definitions of Western films, the two protagonists each holds their own as different types of Indians. One is the “noble Indian” while the other is the “savage Indian” — simply because he puts on a front of toughness in order to show white people that he is not afraid of them. It is an interesting complicated story that expresses the poverty Indians live in in America, and the need to seek out one’s true self identity. As with all films pertaining to immigration, Indian films tend to deal with the complex of assimilation versus keeping tradition. Whiteness is very seldom granted to Indians in films, and even when it is attempted, it still always has a “white” slant, with the Indian as the lesser human being.

In modern days, portrayal of Indians has taken an interesting turn, with films like Apocalypto which examines the various wars between Native American tribes themselves. Portrayal of Indians in film has been quite consistent through history, with false portrayals of Indian culture leading these films. Thus, it is difficult to understand what true Indian cultures were like, because cinema created a fantasy-like tale generalizing all Indians. The Indian narrative has been lost by rampant discrimination, and false reconstructions of cultures. They are perhaps the most discriminated group of people in all of America; they are negatively portrayed in films, are impoverished, and have no say in what happens to the land that belongs to them.