The “other”.
A key phrase in the lecture on Orientalism defined as deviant, unnatural and
strange. In other words anything that exists outside of what is considered
normal (Western). And oh boy have I found an example for you. While I do love
this hideously 80s movie, I can’t even begin to defend its character, Long Duk
Dong…
Here
is a short clip of some of his scenes so you get the general idea of the way
the only Asian character in the movie is represented:
So basically
Long is an exchange student staying with the main character, Samantha’s
grandparents. It never mentions where he is actually from which brings up some
issues that I will be focusing on in this post. He seems to be Japanese based
on his accent and use of Japanese words (“Banzai!), but in this movie he seems
to be viewed as basically anyone from anywhere in Asia. For example while he
seems Japanese a gong chimes in the background whenever he comes onto the set.
While this is obviously racist anyway, it isn’t even from the right country as
gongs are Chinese. This pretty much sums up the amount of research the writers
bothered to do which we unfortunately see often on the big screen, like the
apparent (according to Hollywood) use of the same tools and clothing by every
Native American ever.
This
crossing of elements from numerous cultures serves to put those characters into
the category of the ‘other’. It doesn’t matter that Long Duk Dong speaks
Japanese words or that Japanese music plays as he sits at the dinner table and
then is introduced into every scene with the chime of a Chinese gong, what
matters is that we recognise these things as non-western and so categorise Long
into the ‘other’.
Putting Long
into this category serves no other purpose than entertainment. Humour is made
off of his failure to understand anything going on, his crasy behaviour and
the fact that for most of the movie he is just getting super drunk. As is
alcohol and women don’t exist in… Wherever he is from. His character literally
adds nothing to the plot, other than I guess he drives Samantha to a party at
one point. But that drive is also filled with humour based on his strangeness
such as him crashing the car, failing to understand a high-five and drink driving.
So basically
in Sixteen Candles, the character Long Duk Dong seems to fit the orientalism
lecture pretty well. His ‘Otherness’ is used as entertainment to the presumed
western audience who find humour in his strange behaviours and inability to fit
in to the boundaries of western society. He even seems to defy or act against some western
ideologies, for example his extreme promiscuity and drinking habits.
His character only seems to be there to create
a humorous conflict between the North American and Asian identities yet we
don’t even know where he is from. His actual nationality seems unimportant to
the writers, just the fact that he is different to the American characters.
Still an
awesome movie though…
Thanks for
reading.
Agreed, Long Duk Dong is a classic foreign buffoon trope example. He doesn't just fit into the "other" category, it is his *one and only character trait*. The fact that Western audiences can recognise all ensuing jokes on this basis alone shows just how significant the concept of "otherness" is for marking a person. But instead of lessening that gap, this sort of portrayal just drives a wedge in it...
ReplyDeleteYou may be interested in this interview with Long Duk Dong's actor from 2014 which directly addresses this - http://www.vulture.com/2014/05/gedde-watanabe-long-duk-dong-sixteen-candles-interview.html . His comments about the audition confirm your suspicion that the character was intended simply to be vaguely Asian and this was good enough for the filmmakers (and the audience). It's interesting that he has no regrets. He seems to justify the portrayal because there weren't many Asian screen roles at the time, and because the movie wasn't "mean" to Long Duk Dong. I'm not sure if I buy either of those explanations. If he felt compelled to take that film role because it was the only one available to him as an Asian, that just points to a wider problem. Namely, White domination of Hollywood and the economic power to decide who can be restricted to which roles based on race. As for his suggestion that the film was not mean to him, I'd say that the portrayal itself is pretty mean regardless of what actually happens to the character.