Rodrigo Lara Zendejas, Burghers of El Rayo
On HU
Featured Archive Post: Joy DeLyria on the reactionary perils of reboots.
Chris Gavaler and Carolyn Capps discuss their comics collaboration process.
I’m planning to do a longer blog project…not sure exactly what yet (Universal Horror Films? PKD novels? Twin Peaks?) So weigh in if you have a preference.
On Tim Burton’s Alice and colonialism.
Utilitarians Everywhere
At Random Nerds I wrote in praise of trying to like the mediocre Black Panther #1.
Also at Random Nerds: brief recommendation of a great Open Mike Eagle song.
At the Reader I reviewed a great art show by Rodrigo Lara Zendejas.
Phil Sandifer and I did a podcast about Wonder Woman: Earth One and other matters.
At Splice Today I wrote about how
—NPR’s gushing review of a novel about Thomas Jeffersona and Sally Hemings is awful.
—All the Presidents’ Men shows Hollywood loves conspiracies.
—the Dr. Strange trailer is a racist, boring piece of crap.
Other Links
Liberation Library is sending books to incarcerated children who requested them. You can
Ben Joravsky on how Rahm will blast teachers, but not police.
Lindsay Gibbs on the rape charges against Kobe Bryant.
Oh, come on. The Dr Strange trailer isn’t racist at all.
It’s Orientalist while erasing Asian people. I think that qualifies.
Every other “hot take” agrees that the trailer is either obnoxiously orientalist or a whitewash.
It’s depressing that the big special effects showpiece in the trailer is a straight-up retread of Inception’s upside down city. Looks like we’re in for another “oh hey Kirby’s Thor is visually fantastic let’s make Asgard look as boringly generic as possible” experience.
Many people believe that Ditko originally created Dr Strange as (generically) “Asian”, with the then-standard signifier of race in the form of “slanted eyes”.
(whoops — meant to add “or both” to “orientalist or a whitewash”.
And to qualify “many people” with “out of the people who’ve read the original and actually care enough about it to have an opinion”, which means at least six or seven people worldwide)
That Busiek piece is interesting. I hadn’t thought much about that in the original art, but he could easily be read as Asian in the art. Those things are a little slippery—Japanese people in manga don’t signify Japanese to us, usually, because of (often racist) iconographic traditions. Still, there’s definitely textual/visual basis for casting an Asian actor, if they’d wanted to.
If you compare his first couple of appearances with how Ditko was soon after drawing, or with Ditko’s other work at the time — or, for that matter, before or after — I think it’s hard not to read him as “Asian”.
You can read more about the proto-Strange, explicitly Asianified Dr Droom here: http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/2010/05/13/comic-book-legends-revealed-260/
The Asiatic look was only present in the first three Ditko episodes, though. Beginning with the fourth–the origin story–Ditko drew Strange to look like Ronald Colman, the star of Lost Horizon.
Yeah it’s odd that it’s not even a question of later artists making a different choice, it’s Ditko a couple of months later. I wonder what happened? We’ll never know – Ditko won’t tell, of course, and Lee, well…I don’t want to set you off, Robert, so let’s just say that his recollections of 50 years ago may not be completely reliable.
They blow away an old cliche by making the Ancient One a white European woman and that’s racist? But I guess everyone ‘knows’ that mystic ascended masters are inevitably Oriental, eh?
Plus, what do you mean by an “Äsian” actress? Asia’s a big continent, you know. I don’t see any difference between having the role of a Tibetan played by a Chinese actress and played by a Scotswoman.
And where in the trailer do you see an Asian manservant?
I don’t trust Lee’s recollections, either. I don’t recall him ever commenting on it, though.
However, indications are that Strange wasn’t originally intended as a regular feature. You have the first two episodes in Strange Tales #110 and 111. The third episode doesn’t appear until #114, and at the end of it, Lee writes, “Now that we have re-introduced our characters and set the stage, our series gets into high gear next issue!” Issue #115 is when the origin appears, and then the series is underway.
My guess is that when the decision was made to turn Dr. Strange into a regular feature, Ditko was asked to make the character less sinister-looking.
Badlanders, racism and sexism aren’t the same thing.
Asia is a big continent. “Asian” is an arbitrary construction, as all racial categories are. Nonetheless, somehow, despite all the arbitrariness, “white” people get all the major roles, even ones that were originally cast for people who come from that big place called Asia. Funny that.
Yes, but you aren’t diferenciating between Tibetans, Han Chinese, Vietnamese, Hmong, et al et al among the literally hundreds of nations in Asia. When you think about it, having a Chinese play the Ancient One is one of the worst insults you can devise, given China’s treatment of the Tibetan people. If ““Asian” is an arbitrary construction, as all racial categories are”, well, the one making that construction is you, Noah.
By the way, in the flick Baron Mordo is played by a Black actor. Wouldn’t you be contemptous at fans whining about how this is racism against European Caucasians?
What’s the name of the podcast, so I can listen on iTunes? Or, can you give a pocket summary of your opinion of Earth One. I thought it was pretty good in many ways, though there were some pretty egregious missteps. The bondage-ing of Af-Am Steve Trevor was the worst of those.
Baldanders, now you’re attempting to create false equivalence with racism and reverse racism. That’s not helpful.
There are Tibetan actors, you know. It would be possible to cast them.
Not sure of the name of the podcast, but click through the link and it should tell you. I thought Earth One was okay, though not great.
“If ““Asian” is an arbitrary construction, as all racial categories are”, well, the one making that construction is you, Noah.”
This is just idiotic. Race is constructed through social prejudice, mostly, and then through efforts to promote solidarity and resistance. I am not singlehandedly inventing the categoriy of “Asian,” as I’m pretty sure you realize. Pretending these categories don’t exist isn’t a brave way to fight racism; it’s a way to deflect the conversation, which is what is happening here.
the narrative in Dr. Strange was originally an Orientalist default. It still is, with the one difference that Asian people aren’t even provided with steroetypical representation, and so all the salaries go to white people. The trailer is boring, racist, and cowardly (inasmuch as the refusal to cast Tibetan actors is almost certainly linked to fear of Chinese disapproval and censorship.)
Argh, well, to elaborate a bit more…
There are two issues of racism raised by the trailer. The first is the fact that Strange’s origin is Orientalist; it uses stereotypical notions of a mystical east, as well as the racist trope that the white guy is better at Eastern culture than Eastern peoples are. The second issue (related to the first) is Hollywood’s reluctance to cast Asian people (of any nationality) in leading roles (especially an unwillingness to cast Asian men in leading roles.)
Again, these are problems in the original Dr. Strange comic, so they’d have to do some thinking to get around it…rework the origin, or be smarter about casting, or preferably both. They do none of those things, and instead keep the Orientalism without even giving a paycheck to any actual Asian actors. They say that the trailer and film are mind-expanding, but instead they just use tired stereotypes and timid casting. That’s gross, in my opinion.
Eric, re Earth One; it’s nice to see the series written by a fan of Marston/Peter, which doesn’t happen much. There were a couple of problems, including the decision to make WW’s father a man (Zeus, I think)…and the decision to put WW at odds with her mother and the other amazons.
Morrison’s not quite willing to embrace Marston’s BDSM feminist ideology, so there ends up being a bit of a condescending distance, and steps back towards more conventional narratives. I thought the art was nice, and there are many interesting touches, but ultimately you end up wondering why this is necessary when they could just reprint the better originals instead.
As I mentioned to Noah on Facebook, the pilot for the aborted Dr. Strange TV series in the 1970s managed to completely avoid the Orientalist tripe of the comics. The Far East trappings of the origin story were dropped. The Ancient One was reworked as Merlin. Wong was made into a Dr. Watson-type character. I’d hoped the upcoming film would also skirt the more unfortunate aspects of the comics, particularly after the casting of Swinton and Ejiofor was announced. But it clearly wasn’t to be.
On a more interesting note, your PC/Trump piece was really spot on (as, I think, most of your political commentary is). It reminds me of a lot of political commentary I have been watching by Jill Stein, Chris Hedges, and Ralph Nader recently, and each of them (and dozens of others I would need much more time to list) have basically argued that Trump supporters are revolting against the system through Trump’s proto-fascism because the left has not articulated a viable alternative to the oligarchic capitalism that they, the white-working class, hate and have been obviously suffering under. Essentially, these people, working from within the left, argue the left has to better articulate what socialism is, or else something like Trumpism (a racist, sexist, homophobic, almost nihilistically violent form of state capitalism) will take over. This wasn’t really going anywhere, I was just wondering as to your thoughts, Noah, and anybody else’s for that matter.
Robert, I think your guess is a plausible explanation.
Petar, I’m pretty skeptical of that argument, I think. Or at least, the argument that Trump is a response to growing inequality has to grapple with the fact that the Democrats are going to do better with poor people, as they always do, in no small part because people of color, who are disproportionately poor, hate Trump.
I think Trump is more a result of the GOP’s internal dynamics and of longstanding racism than of a crisis of capitalism per se…though in general I think the government should do (much) more to create social safety nets and specifically tax the wealthy.
Perhaps…I am much more sympathetic to the argument I outlined than most, and I think it is an accurate assessment of the current situation. But, as with anything and anyone, I could be reading too much into BLM and Occupy and various other movements. Although I will stick by the stance that capitalism is in crisis, and that Trump has somehow come out of that, either as a response or as a natural result of one/some of the mechanisms that got us here.
Well, I think the view is more specifically that “Trump is a response [among white people [in the US]] to growing inequality [among white people [in the US]]”
RE Trumpism,
I’m with Jones on this- it’s a both/and situation. And if we really wanted to do the math, we could probably just compare the raw number of Sanders supporters to Trump supporters. I’d wager that Sanders would come out ahead. Still, I wouldn’t give the economic left credit for this. It’s more likely that Trump is a very, very bad candidate.
Noah:
“This is just idiotic. Race is constructed through social prejudice, mostly, and then through efforts to promote solidarity and resistance. I am not singlehandedly inventing the categoriy of “Asian,” as I’m pretty sure you realize. Pretending these categories don’t exist isn’t a brave way to fight racism; it’s a way to deflect the conversation, which is what is happening here.”
No, it is not what is happening here. I apologise for being so rough — but, Noah, YOU are the one who invoked an “Asian” actress.
You didn’t give a damn whether she would be Japanese, Chinese, Mongolian or Hmong; for you, “Asia” is one undifferentiated mass of slant-eyed, interchangeable peoples;the fact that you aren’t the one who came up with this view doesn’t really excuse you from adopting it, you know?
Oh, and since you assert there aren’t any obstacles to casting Tibetans: can you name ONE SINGLE TIBETAN ACTRESS?
Besides, Disney/Marvel wouldn’t care if China disapproved of the casting; Dr Strange is already taboo in China for featuring supernatural elements.
If I sound harsh, well, reflect on the fact that you described the trailer as a “racist, boring piece of crap.” That’s asking for it, you know; it’s like last year, when you made a fool of yourself in two articles decribing Ant-Man as, respectively, racist (because the lead wasn’t cast as a Black man) even though the movie featured a Black Ant-Man, Garrett Morris; and as sexist, because Henry Pym didn’t recruit his daughter for the Ant role, even though it was made clear that she betrayed her father for power; and that, at the end of the movie, he gifts her with the Wasp costume and powers.
I as a rule shun the usage of ‘Politically correct’ or of ‘PC’ as dog-whistles to the far right. But damn, Noah, that’s your stock-in-trade; literally- it’s how you make money.
Think about it.
Badlanders, you’re ranting. And no, you don’t “shun” anti-PC nonsense. You return to it obsessively.
Dichen Lachman has been suggested for the role by several people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dichen_Lachman
“Ranting”, “idiotic”…wow, Noah, you sure know how to elevate the tone of the debate, don’t you?
I note that you don’t address any of the detailed criticisms I’ve made; But then, you can’t, can you — since they’re all true.
By casting Tilda Swinton as the Ancient One, Marvel destroyed an age-old hoary racist cliché: small thanks they got for it.
BTW, have you seen either of the two Thor movies, Where an Asian actor plays the role of the Caucasian Hogun the Grim? Nobody made any of a deal about it, which was quite right; I’m for color-blind casting.
Thus, Perry White, Miss Moneypenny, Felix Leiter, Johnny Storm are now portrayed by Black actors. Good.
” And no, you don’t “shun” anti-PC nonsense. You return to it obsessively.”
This is so patently untrue it is risible. Prove it.
As for Dichen Lachman…excuse me, but have you bothered to note that she already has a role in the MCU?
Aside from that, it is repulsive to think that an actor should be selected solely on the criterion of race, and insulting to the actor in question.
Yep, I know she has a role in the MCU.
Baldanders, I know quite well who you are, and that I’ve banned you. I’ve let you come back because you’ve been mostly civil. Don’t push it.
In his book Death of the Liberal Class, Hedges says that when liberal institutions become corrupt–which he thinks has happened with the corporate domination of the Democratic Party, the mainstream media, and higher education in recent decades–working-class people gravitate toward illiberalism and embrace fascists and demagogues. I’m not sure whether he’s right, but the book came out a few years ago and does seem pretty prescient via Trump.
I think the failure there is in thinking that there’s some point at which illiberalism and fasicsm don’t have an appeal.
Like, what is the moment when we are supposed to have been free of those things in American history? We’re way less fascist now than we’ve been through most of our history, if slavery and Jim Crow count as fascist, which I think they’d have to. Not to mention our current massive gulag.
Yeah, those are good points. Hedges does seem to be screwy in certain ways. I think he would call the New Deal era the high-water mark for America, but of course things were much more horrible back then in many ways.
It’s important to remember, too, that many Americans were pretty into the idea of fascism leading up to WWII. People who criticize FDR for overreach too often forget that he was getting plenty of encouragement to go farther.
Hey Noah,
Why is it necessary? Seems obvious. The Marston originals don’t sell these days, Morrison is relatively bankable, and WW is about to become a movie star. I guess I don’t mind the conflation of the dreidel origin (made out of clay!) and the “has a dad” origin. I see the objections to it, but what they do here isn’t totally illogical. I also thought the embrace of the BDSM stuff was relatively whole-hearted. It wasn’t awesome or anything, but they are going to keep churning out WW stories, and I’d rather they churn them out with a template that at least engages with Marston-weirdness than give WW a sword and a shield and ignore it altogether. Etta Candy was enjoyable, etc. I’d probably read another volume by him and see where it goes. I’m not sure there’s a plan for such a thing, but…
Oh sure; I understand the market logic. I meant aesthetically.
I think Hedges argument is different than that Jack. I have not read the book, but judging from the interviews he’s with Paul Jay on TheRealNews, is point is that major liberal institutions haven’t been corrupted, they’ve been outright destroyed (or at least, a sort of liberal political class has, mainly by McCarthyism). The reason that leads to a rise in fascism in the working class, according to Hedges, is because this liberal political class acts as a “safety-valve for capitalism” providing necessary tweaks to appease the working class so that they don’t revolt outright. That’s what Hedges thought the New Deal was, a capitulation to the masses by oligarchs who wanted to preserve their systems of power in the face of widespread anger against them. FDR is often quoted as saying his “greatest achievement was saving capitalism”. I think Hedges believes that the New Deal was a high water mark because of this capitulation, and the subsequent evisceration of the New Deal, which Hedges sees as a mark of stupidity and poor forethought on the part of oligarchs. That’s how I understand his argument. And of course, race relations might be better than back then, but PLENTY of people have argued that the situation today is as bad or worse for black people and other minorities than it was when Kind marched on Selma.
King*…obviously. My bad.
Hedges also refers to the prison-industrial complex as “neo-slavery” and he never argues that fascism is ever nonexistent in American society. He just argues that it becomes attractive to much broader segments of society when these liberal institutions are eviscerated and can’t let off political pressure through reform.
I have read the book, and I think your description is accurate, but I don’t see how it differs from mine apart from my saying “corrupted” instead of “destroyed.”
Hedges’s argument does seem questionable to me in some ways. If liberalism is a safety valve in the sense of FDR protecting capitalism from communism or socialism, then I don’t see why the destruction of liberal institutions would help the right instead of the left. His timeframes are also a little confusing–he describes WWI and Woodrow Wilson as representing a sea change that eviscerated the organized left, but then he describes the New Deal and even Nixon’s liberal policies as the system protecting itself from the left. At any rate, he makes some good points and I’m generally a fan.
I think your assessment of Hedges is pretty good Jack, and my history knowledge is a bit anemic to challenge or affirm you on any particular points (I guess I’ll just have to read his book, but Noah might disagree on that point ;) ).
At any rate, Hedges is a bit screwy. He thinks veganism is a moral imperative, which, as a member of a Slavic culture, I have a hard time accepting that. And he also describes sex work as “being raped for a living.” He even interviewed Rachel Moran, “about the violence and disempowerment inherent in prostitution.” For those who don’t know, Moran advocates for the criminalization of the consumption of sex services, if not the whole industry outright, and has been outed as a fraud by Scottish (or Irish, I forget) sex workers who work(ed) in the same area she claimed to work. Now, Hedges is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and war correspondent. He could’ve easily validated or debunked Moran’s claims about her experiences. But he has a sort of visceral moral disgust with sex work (and I think with sex in general, but who knows) that blinkered him in that and other cases.
That’s a bit of a digression, but if I were to make one major critique of Hedges, it would be on that issue, which I think really undermines his Marxist analysis, because he never talks about and (I think) doesn’t understand the interplay between work, bodies, and consent. I still like him in general, but just a thought…
He’s dreadful on sex work issues. I wrote about him here a while back.
I had forgotten about this piece, but I think this line is brilliant, “The main difference between Truthdig and the owner of that brothel is that the brothel owner presumably provided the women in the picture with a cut. Truthdig shows its higher morals by keeping all the money for itself.”
I don’t think he even realizes he’s doing it, which, especially for a self-styled Marxist, anti-imperialist revolutionary, makes it so much worse, not at all better.
I don’t know whether I agree with that essay, Noah. It reminded me of something you recently wrote about Crumb–you were sneering at him for being brave enough to commodify his racist masturbation fantasies. Crumb and Hedges are on the opposite sides of the puritanical divide, but I think they’re both trying to express themselves honestly rather than rake in the bucks. Bringing up issues of clickbait and commodification is the kind of cheap shot that superhero fans and Meghan Murphy-type feminists use on you.
Everybody commodifies what they’re art; Crumb doesn’t make many bones about it. There’s nothing innately wrong with it, but I don’t see why you should be given accolades for bravery for doing it.
My point about Hedges is not that he’s insincere. It’s that he isn’t paying attention to how the market, and his own implication in it works. He is in that essay using disgust at sex workers as a way to market his own ideas, and his own nobility. This happens to sex workers a lot. The point is that Hedges isn’t treating them like people; they’re object lessons in his crusade against something else. He doesn’t actually care about them. Watching who makes money, and how, is one way you see how that happens.
Well, I guess it’s hard to write about any group’s oppression without using the group as an object lesson or touting your own nobility, unless you’re a member of the group yourself. I mean, I’m annoyed with the way Hillary Clinton sucks up to Israel, but that doesn’t mean I have some deep, personal core of compassion for the Palestinians. Hedge’s book Empire of Illusion includes some pretty horrifying interviews with porn stars whom he seems to care about as people, but yeah, he definitely is using them as object lessons to some degree.
It’s not to some degree, and it’s not just the probelm you have talking about oppression of a group you don’t belong to. The whole point of his piece is that if we don’t watch out, we’re all going to end up as prostitutes. He doesn’t even really pretend he cares about exploitation of sex workers; it’s all about looking at them and feeling panic lest he end up like them.
He’s reacting almost entirely to the stigma, not to the human being. He’s talking about sex work because he knows it will make his readers recoil, and that’s a way to say, “capitalism is bad.” He barely makes a pretense that he cares what happens to the actual women he’s talking about.