MovieChat Forums > Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961) Discussion > Why as an Asian I have no problem with R...

Why as an Asian I have no problem with Rooney's character

posted 14 years ago by laurence_dang
121 replies | jump to latest

First of all let me state right away that I am in fact Asian. Full-blodded Asian. I have lived in Europe for many years and then in the US. Yes I am completely familiar with stereotypes and distorted visions of Asians. Yes I have been victom of prejudices, mockery and other issues related with being the odd one out.

I have watched countless movies from the classical era of American cinema (of which I am a great fan) and yes I do bemoan the dirth of good complex Asian characters.

However I believe that most who feel offended at Rooney's characterization have little knowledge of the way Asians in general were portrayed in American movies up until the 1960s. Apart from the questionable Charlie Chan movies (which did portray one Asian positively), the field was largely empty.

Rooney's characterization while caricatural and slightly grotesque was not particularly unusual for its time. Perhaps one could argue that by the 1960s we should have "known better", but this was still the EARLY 1960s.

In fact if we compare Mr. Yunioshi to that of countless - no less caricatural - portrayals of Asians done today I would its only fault is to be a little bit exaggerated. Are there many Asian who are actually similar to Jackie Chan or as athletic as Lucy Liu? Have Asians have really gained much in depth of character in the past 45 years apart from a few notable exceptions?

The answer is sadly no. Most Asians in films are still seen as fodder for ridicule and seen as either hopelessly boring nerds, impish clowns or super human martial arts virtuosos.

Thus I believe the entire condemnation and targetting of Rooney's chaerstization as nothing less than hypocritical and holier than thou.

Rather than be shocked at this very minor bleep in an otherwise intersting movie one should instead ponder the many shocking and unusual ideas introduced by this movie. Among these:

- The fact that Holly was married at 14 to a man at least 30 years older than she.
- The fact that Holly was ready to marry purely for money in order to support a brother old enough to be in the army (and falls in love with a man who looks like her brother)
- The fact that Paul is essentially a gigolo
- The fact that shoplifting is seen as a source of entertainment

and a few other quite unorthodox and questionable issue which even today challenge our puritanical sense of morality.

This movie is not meant to be easy to watch or to make the viewer feel smug or comfortable. It rips away most of our assumptions about what "good american boys and girls" are supposed to be like.

In this sense Mr. Yunioshi may turn out to be the more understandable traditional character...

Food for thought.

[–] TheLittleSongbird 14 years ago

You are entitled to your opinion OP, but while I liked the movie overall, Rooney's character was what brought it down for me. I just found the character unneccessary and out-of-kilter and I felt Rooney overdid it in the role. Sorry.

"Life after death is as improbable as sex after marriage"- Madeline Kahn(CLUE, 1985)

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] idcook 14 years ago

While I appreciate your intent I cannot agree that the Rooney characterization is entirely dismissible. It’s over the top during a time when the nation was deeply involved with strengthening inroads toward heightened tolerance.

1- The movie isn’t a slapstick comedy. So, his characterization, beside seeming entirely out of place, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

2- The role is small enough for them to have used a real Asian who, even had he been as silly as Rooney, would at least have been Asian.

3- The character could’ve been anything other than Asian and served just as much purpose. i.e. — The role offers nothing to indicate or require it be Asian.

On the other hand, I agree that the limited screen time afforded the role goes a long way to help one to look past it and enjoy everything and everyone else in the film. After all, there are a few other 'stereotypes' available here: smarmy men, ditzy women, and such.

Despite all of these, it’s still a very beautiful and moving film, but a part of me always sort of wishes they’d deleted Rooney from the cast completely. I wager he came up with that silliness in a bid to make himself stand out more.

(I say this based on having been told, by some who worked with him, that he was extremely difficult to deal with for stage productions. Continually inserting lines not in the script and doing odd things to steal scenes that very often did, or threatened to, derail the story.)

Someone clearly dropped the ball by not reigning him in… or cutting him out.

“Your thinking is untidy, like most so-called thinking today.” (Murder, My Sweet)

[–] laurence_dang 14 years ago

You made some excellent points here idcook.

Point #1 : I do entirely agree here
Point #2: Certainly. However it still was not a very common occurence to cast asian actors at the time.
Point #3: Indeed no argument here

Despite all of these, it’s still a very beautiful and moving film, but a part of me always sort of wishes they’d deleted Rooney from the cast completely. I wager he came up with that silliness in a bid to make himself stand out more.

I do share these sentiments.

[–] dmh7-1 14 years ago

Although your assessment of the "climate of the times" in regards to depictions of Asian characters is mostly accurate, I must say that it does not excuse this one more example of that fault: a fault which threatens to capsize and otherwise eminently watchable film every time the Rooney character appears on the screen. And when you state "Thus I believe the entire condemnation and targeting of Rooney's characterization as nothing less than hypocritical and holier than thou" I must take offense, if only because you fail utterly to provide evidence for your argument. Simply saying "that's the way it was then, and there are as equally egregious examples" or that there are seemingly other "offensive" elements to the film is not relevant to the discussion. One can be offended by more than one aspect of a film, and you're the one who brought this one up for assay. And the other examples of "offensive" points you bring up are entirely different matters. Certainly some people may find themselves put off by frank depictions of "sophisticated sexual relationships" or by "casual crime" but these are not racial stereotypes, and are - in fact - intrinsic to the themes of the film itself. It would be like being disgusted by a depiction of a cold-blooded murder in a film about cold-blooded murder. This film however - while it does talk about modern urban behavior (behavior which actually exists), it is not about Asian character, and the depictions of said character do not exist in real world situations. So quite apart from any racial offense one will or will not take, there is an aesthetic offense, in that the Rooney role is a wildly exaggerated bit of rather dated "minstrelsy" so to speak, and only serves as cheap fodder for easy laughter, a laughter that comes harder with every passing year, and tends to drag the film down with its descent. Such depictions CAN indeed be used in film, if (as in Spike Lee's "Bamboozled") those stereotypes are used to underscore the film's themes. In "Tiffany's" such stuff is an uncomfortable bit of rather juvenile "humor" and demeans not only the Asian character, but the very nature of the film's reach for urbane and intelligent discussion of a modern situation.

[–] MrAwersome 14 years ago

It seems to me the general complaint is that a white man (Rooney) is playing an asian character. The complaint about the "buck teeth" is funny, because those were Rooney's actual teeth, he just had cotton stuffed in his cheeks to accentuate his teeth. BTW, has anyone seen Eddie Murphy's "Norbit"? It's not like this sort of thing doesn't still go on today, and Murphy was up for an academy award for that movie.

[–] ecarle 14 years ago

I may have missed it in this long thread, but one thing to keep in mind...is Blake Edwards as the director.

A few years after "Breakfast at Tiffany's," in "The Pink Panther," Edwards would introduce Peter Sellers as the bumbling French inspector Clouseau. Sellers mangled his French accent and (in later movies at least) said things like "Meenky" for "monkey."

In the second of the "Pink Panther" comedies, "A Shot in the Dark"(1964) Edwards introduced the charactor of "Kato," the "Oriental houseboy"(likely Chinese) who would karate-attack Clouseau in his bed and get the crap kicked out of him BY Clouseau. Unlike as with the Mickey Rooney casting, Edwards cast an actual Asian actor in the part(Burt Kwouk), and as I recall, that guy was willing to keep playing Kato into the late seventies(though Kato started beating up on Clouseau with equal winning capability.)

Came 1968, Blake Edwards introduced yet another "ethnic" comedy part for Peter Sellers to play...the Hindu Indian guy(very nice, but quite the slapstick bumbler) in "The Party."

I think that Edwards may have tried some comical Italian types in "What Did You Do in the War, Daddy?"(1966), but I honestly can't remember the film well enough.

---

In any event, it would seem that Blake Edwards, in developing some pretty funny slapstick characters "on general principles," insulted:

The Japanese
The French
The Indians
The Chinese

And only Clouseau(the Frenchman) was allowed to continue. Into the 00's, with Steve Martin mangling the French accent just like Peter Sellers used to.

[–] laurence_dang 14 years ago

A few years after "Breakfast at Tiffany's," in "The Pink Panther," Edwards would introduce Peter Sellers as the bumbling French inspector Clouseau. Sellers mangled his French accent and (in later movies at least) said things like "Meenky" for "monkey."

In the second of the "Pink Panther" comedies, "A Shot in the Dark"(1964) Edwards introduced the charactor of "Kato," the "Oriental houseboy"(likely Chinese) who would karate-attack Clouseau in his bed and get the crap kicked out of him BY Clouseau. Unlike as with the Mickey Rooney casting, Edwards cast an actual Asian actor in the part(Burt Kwouk), and as I recall, that guy was willing to keep playing Kato into the late seventies(though Kato started beating up on Clouseau with equal winning capability.)

Indeed!

And since I am also French I could also find offense with this movie. Yet, I cannot not help but laugh heartily whenever I watch The Pink Panther or its remakes! I must admit however, that it does help that both Peter Sellers and Steve Martin are far better comedians than Rooney was in Brakfast at Tiffany's.

[–] franzkabuki 9 years ago

One sincerely hopes the French and the Hindus aren't quite as excessively stuck-up and nuts as to take offence from Peter Seller's hilarious antics portraying characters of their ethnicity. Apparently though, and quite inexplicably, there do seem to be folks this day and age who consider an imitation of a French accent "offensive". It's as bad as that in this world gone to hell with over-the-top political correctness. People just can't take a joke anymore.

It probably is a bit different here with Rooney's Japanese though as I seem to be picking up a deliberately nasty, mocking undertone to the way he plays his character.

"facts are stupid things" - Ronald Reagan

[–] 9 years ago

[deleted]

[–] laurence_dang 14 years ago

This film however - while it does talk about modern urban behavior (behavior which actually exists), it is not about Asian character, and the depictions of said character do not exist in real world situations.

That is actually a fair point.

If you are saying that this characterization is unsupportive of the theme of the movie and detracts from its aesthetical nature I do agree.

I do believe however that too often people have taken an excessive hatred of this movie based solely on the portrayal of Yunioshi. To call for a ban of this movie because it contains one silly and poorly portrayed character is to me out of proportion with the offense.

So quite apart from any racial offense one will or will not take, there is an aesthetic offense, in that the Rooney role is a wildly exaggerated bit of rather dated "minstrelsy" so to speak, and only serves as cheap fodder for easy laughter, a laughter that comes harder with every passing year, and tends to drag the film down with its descent.

Agreed but one does not call for a ban on a movie for such a breach of aesthetics, would you agree?

[–] onepotato2 14 years ago

To Laurence Dang:

I think you are absolutely entitled to your opinion and that noone is forced to explain why, if they can articulate ideas as well as you. I appreciate complexity in people that fosters indivudalized reponses. But perhaps you've noticed... nothing horrifes Americans more than individuality.

Many people taking offense (and many taking offense at those taking offense) are simpletons who just adopt poses acceptable in their social sphere. If people in the US could think, we wouldn't be in the dire condition we're in.

[–] laurence_dang 14 years ago

Thank you onepotato3 for your kind and thoughtful remark! :)

I knew that my position would not be a popular one of course. But this is the "price" of freedom of speech I suppose. ;)

[–] laurence_dang 14 years ago

On a slightly related note, I was watching another interesting movie called Birthday Girl. This movie, made in 2001, portrays a group of Russian emigrés who swindle, abduct and relentlessly abuse an innocent English banker.

The portrayal is widely seen as hugely stereotypical against Russians, who are seen as crooked, violent and sexual deviants. These Russians are portrayed by a famous Australian actress and 2 well-respected French actors. These are great and eminent actors, yet any Russian or any person knowledgeable with the Russian culture can immediately denote, not just the difference in accent, but the differences in features of the French actors.

Yes this movie is made only 9 years ago and makes what can be viewed for Russians as offensively stereotypical portrayals. Should it be banned?

[–] KrustytheDude 14 years ago

Laurence I think the difference here compared to those other movies you referenced (Indiana Jones, Gone with the Wind, etc.) is this movie makes fun of the physical features of an entire ethnic group vs. the behavioral features of those other ethnic groups you compared. This movie had exaggerated depictions of an asian person with the eyes and skin and teeth and the accent and I don't know how offensive it is where you're from, but making fun of a person's looks is considered lower and cheaper and more debasing than how they behave, no matter what time period you're in and when you're doing it to describe an entire ethnic group, that's even more offensive.

I think most people realize that behavior is not unchangeable and not inherent to someone's race. Our physical features on the other hand, are not changeable (for the most part) and ARE inherent to a particular race (for the most part) which makes it more a part of who we are. When you are attacking that it's like you are attacking our very essence.

You ask most black or jewish people whether they care they're being represented as evil or greedy compared to seeing someone in black face with exaggerated lips or huge noses depicted for the sole purpose of derision and laughter and they'll tell you which one hits closer to home.

[–] laurence_dang 14 years ago

Krusty,

This is indeed a fair point. To this I would argue that I find Rooney's attempt at mocking the physical features of Asians as so far off the mark that I cannot possibly find any ressemblance to myself or any other Asian I know.

Certainly it is a cheap and base sort of mockery, but somehow I personally am more revolted when Japanese (or Chinese or Vietnamese) are unjustly depicted as barbarous, cruel or disingenous.

I cannot speak of course for blacks or jewish people, nor can I even pretend to speak for all asians (some of whom apparently violently disagree with me), but I find the inaccurate depiction of the character and behavior for an entire race far more offensive than a ridiculous depiction of facial or physical features which are closer to the domain of caricature.

Perhaps I am unique in this sentiment.

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] jcsthacker 14 years ago

Can this movie even be aired in America in 2010?

No matter how you look at it, there is an overtly racist portrayal of a significant portion of the populace within this film, it is far too risky to be shown on television.

[–] tsauden 14 years ago

This movie shouldn't be taken seriously for anything except the aesthetic (ironically it evokes profound feelings of Tokyo for me), not characters, not plot, and certainly not its ethic. We should all be sophisticated enough to see through these more superficial things.

[–] scott_uk88 14 years ago

I thought Mickey was great in this movie - when you consider what he was expected to do. People really need to relax about it. He probably only had the buck-teeth so as to make himself unrecognizeable, anyway. The way some people talk, you'd think his performance had caused them to have a nervous-breakdown.

[–] connected88 14 years ago

I'll echo the views of those who thought Rooney's scenes were unnecessary and distracting. How was his portrayal of a stereotypical Asian any different to a white person doing blackface?

[–] nvasil1 14 years ago

Honestly, I don't think it's worth getting too upset over Rooney's portrayal of Yunioshi. Blake Edwards admitted that he shouldn't have cast him in the role, but Yunioshi's character was simply a characture anyway. Comedians like Dave Chappelle and Sarah Silverman have made careers out of making fun of different ethnicities, including their own. How can Rooney's portrayal of Yunioshi be perceived in any lesser esteem? I have an Asian friend that gets a kick out of Yunioshi. Is it really wrong to laugh at ourselves every once in awhile?

[–] fede_4488 8 years ago

Because Rooney was not Asian and neither were the writers, dumbass! This is not self-deprecating humor