Stereotypes, Cultural Differences and Cultural Disrespect in Rush Hour and Rush Hour 2 - Essay Example

?Stereotypes, Cultural Differences and Cultural Disrespect in Rush Hour and Rush Hour 2 Introduction The movies Rush Hour and Rush Hour 2 are movies which are good old-fashioned “buddy” movies, in that they portray an unlikely friendship and partnership between two very different men from very different backgrounds. The two leads, played by Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan are very different, yet they have excellent chemistry with one another, and the movie plays upon this chemistry. The chemistry of the two leads, combined with the comedy of their cultural differences, and the action of the films, made these two films huge box office successes in the late 1990s, and the early 2000s. However, the two films also portrayed negative aspects of films, including the fact that they both perpetuate stereotypes of the two characters – Tucker's character is the stereotypical black man, and Chan's character is the stereotypical clueless foreigner. Another negative aspect is that the two films minimize Chinese culture, despite the fact that one of the leads is Chinese, and much of the action in both films takes place in Hong Kong. This paper will attempt to show scenes in which the stereotyping, the cultural differences, and the overall disrespect for Chinese culture are more pronounced. Analysis of the films The two movies are very similar in tone, but different at the same time. The biggest difference is that, in the first film, the two men become acquainted with one another. In the second film, there is not a need to build the relationship between the two men, as the relationship is already established. This is how the two movies differ in how they build tension. For instance, in the first movie, the tension at the start of the movie comes from the fact that the two men do not know one another, and that there are cultural differences between them (Min, 2011). The cultural differences, of course, changes between the first movie and the second movie, depending upon where the movie is set – Hong Kong or Los Angeles. In Hong Kong, Chan's character is “Michael,” while Tucker's character is “Tito.” In Los Angeles, Tucker's character is “Michael,” while Chan's character is “Tito” - in other words, in Hong Kong, Chan is the top dog, and Tucker is to follow his lead with the cultural differences. In Los Angeles, it is the opposite. This change in culture is apparent in two different scenes, one in the first movie, and one in the second movie. The two sequences that will be described are important, because they each show how culture, and not knowing the language and culture of the non-native country, can get people into trouble. The first sequence is in the first movie, and this is a sequence when Chan gets into trouble because he does not know colloquialisms or the customs of the African-American male in the United States. Specifically, Chan did not know the term “nigger,” and did not understand that this term is offensive, as Tucker used the term to identify people in the bar. Chan, just getting in to this country, knowing very little English and no slang, was just emulating Tucker when he casually goes to a bartender and refers to the bartender as “my nigger.” This, of course, leads to a fight. Why the term would not be offensive when Tucker uses it, but is offensive when Chan would use it, it is difference in culture, in and of itself. Naylor (1986) explains why. She states that the term is used amongst African-Americans as a term of approval, a term of endearment, or a term of disapproval. For instance, an African-American may state, approvingly, that a certain “nigger” worked so hard that he was able to put a down-payment on a house. Or another African-American may refer to her husband as “my nigger.” For the disapproval, an African-American may refer to somebody as a “trifling nigger.” Kennedy (1999/2000) agrees with this, stating that blacks in America use the term to simply identify other blacks, as a term of disapproval, or a term that refers to somebody who is the very embodiment of the black experience. This gives a brief explanation why, when Tucker entered the bar and referred to all the other blacks as “niggers,” this was ok. When Chan tried to do the same, innocently, not knowing the word, he caused a fight. The bartender who Chan referred to as “nigger” attacked him physically, which caused a fight with all the other blacks in the bar. This scene gave Chan a chance to show off his karate moves, but it shows the cultural sensitivities that are inherent when an outsider tries to co-opt the black experience. The other scene where cultural sensitivities are on display, but it is virtually in the reverse, is the scene in the second movie where Tucker tries to do karaoke in a nightclub in Hong Kong. As noted above, Chan informed that Tucker that Tucker was on Chan's turf now – just as Tucker should have advised Chan not to use the offensive term “nigger” in the bar in America, but it is culturally sensitive, Chan tells Tucker that he needs to make sure that he does not act the same way that he does in America. In other words, there are cultural sensitivities that Tucker might run up against, being an American, and, being a brash American, Tucker does not listen. So, he gets up and insults the audience, mainly because he knows very limited Chinese, and tells the audience that they need to sacrifice a goat. He then gets up and sings a song while gyrating his hips. The audience in Hong Kong do not understand his moves, and do not understand why he is acting the way that he is acting. It is clear through looking at the audience faces that they simply do not “get” him and what he is trying to do. However, the scene does not end as badly as Chan's scene in the bar when he is culturally offensive, because, inexplicably, the women in the audience end up turning around and liking Tucker's performance. However, from the faces of the men, it is clear that the cultural barriers are still in place, and his performance was not appreciated by the men in the audience. Another connection between these two scenes would be that they perpetuate racial stereotypes, which is, according to Park (2006), a theme in these movies. This is especially true of Tucker's character in both of these sequences. Tucker's use of the term “nigger” is part of the stereotype of the African-American male in America – this stereotype is perpetuated by rap culture and other vestiges of popular culture where African-American males use the term prodigiously (Ferguson). Moreover, in the scene in the Hong Kong nightclub, Tucker also perpetuates the racial stereotype, in that he does gyrating moves, which plays into the stereotype that all African-American men have rhythm, and he also plays into the stereotype of the loud American, who isn't concerned about cultural sensibilities – Park (2006) refers to his character as “high pitched, childish, irresponsible and hypersexual” (p. 161). Park (2006) argues that the stereotyping of the two characters – Tucker is stereotypical a ghetto black male, while Chan is a stereotype in that he is good at martial arts, and likes Chinese food, and speaks broken English – is partially responsible for the popularity of the films, as they give the audience something that they know and can readily identify with. In other words, the stereotyping is done in the movies, including this one, because they create a character that is instantly recognizable, gives quick information about the characters that the audience can understand, and the stereotypes give the audience a way to know what to expect from the film (Park, 2006). Therefore, in the bar – where Tucker uses the term “nigger,” this plays into the stereotype of his being African-American. When Chan uses the same word, it plays into the stereotype of the culturally ignorant foreigner. In the Hong Kong nightclub, Tucker's dancing plays into the stereotype of the African-American male, and there is not a similar stereotype on display for Chan's character, but that is really to be expected – Tucker's character is much more broadly stereotyped than is Chan's character throughout the films, although Chan is stereotyped as well. The stereotyping in these two scenes serve the purpose of giving the audience their familiar stereotypes and, Park (2006) might argue, ensures the success of the film by allowing these stereotypes to permeate these scenes. There are two other scenes which are significant in each of the films, because they show the American-centric way of portraying the Asian experience. Gan (2007) argues that Rush Hour 2, despite the fact that at least half of the movie takes place in Hong Kong, still displays the country as it exists through the lens of an American, stating that Hong Kong in the movie “tends to become marginalized in the film's imagining of global relations as US-centric” (p. 2). This is a source of tension, as well, as one of the characters is from Hong Kong, and one might imagine that his character would rightfully be appalled at the way that his culture is marginalized in the scenes in question. The first scene is in the first movie, and it comes towards the end. A British collector of priceless Chinese artifacts, dating back 5,000 years, has brought these artifacts to display in a large hotel. However, this scene is clearly Americanized, if for not other reason than the fact that these priceless artifacts, which are so much an integral part of Chinese culture, are used as mere props for what occurs in that hotel lobby. For a fight ensues between Chan and other Chinese men and women, and Chan comedically tries to preserve the artifacts while he is fighting off the bad guys. The various vases are constantly tipping over, to the point where they are going to fall and crash, and Chan always comes in and saves the vases, all the while fighting off bad guys. Most tragically is that a large vase is shot, and shattered, and this occurs after Chan desperately tried to save it from tipping over. It is difficult to imagine an American equivalent to this particular scene. It would have to be something that is precious to Americans, that is used as a prop, and as way to comedically show that the precious thing is constantly in danger. Then to show at least one of these precious things blown to smithereens. Perhaps the Golden Gate Bridge or the Statue of Liberty – but to destroy either one of these precious symbols of America would not be funny, it would be tragic. To callously treat Chinese artifacts that date back 5,000 years in such a manner in the movie shows that this is an American movie that he no regard for the cultural sensibilities of the Chinese. Another scene that also shows that the Chinese sensibilities are marginalized in these movies comes in the second movie, at the Red Dragon casino. This is supposed to be based upon Chinese culture, as is evidenced by the name, and the fact that the inside is designed in stereotypical Chinese decor, and the card dealers are all dressed in red Chinese clothing. Yet the casino, and the people in the casino, are crass, as only a Las Vegas casino can be. This is not a respectful representation of Chinese culture, but, rather, represents another way to exploit a theme. Much like the Luxor in Las Vegas imitates Egypt, the Venetian is inspired by Venice, and the Paris casino is based upon Paris, the theme for this particular casino was China. But any place in Las Vegas is going to be a pale imitation of the places upon which they are based, and the very notion upon which these casinos are built – to extract as much money as possible from as many unfortunate souls as possible – means that crassness is going to be built into these casinos. It is no different for the fictional Red Dragon casino portrayed in the film. It does not bring Chinese culture to America, so much as it subverts it, Las Vegas-style. The purpose of these two scenes would probably be that they bring a sense of China into the films, and show how Chinese culture is somewhat brought to America. However, as noted, the culture that they bring regarding the Chinese is not culturally sensitive to the Chinese. Bringing priceless artifacts might show that the Americans are trying to respect the Chinese, but using these same artifacts are props to the action, and breaking one of them, is culturally insensitive. Basing a casino, whose only job it is is to make money, upon Chinese culture is just as crass. While the scenes might ostensibly be put into the shows to bring Chinese culture into America, they do not succeed in this, as they only show that China is Americanized for the films, and that the films have the American point of view, not the Chinese point of view. Conclusion The two movies Rush Hour and Rush Hour 2 are similar movies in tone and substance. Both center upon the unlikely friendship between a quiet Asian man and a loud African-American man, and both center the action in Hong Kong and America. They also both permeate the stereotypes of both of these men, and their cultures, as shown in the two scenes that are described above – in the American bar and the Hong Kong nightclub. Both movies have scenes in which cultural sensitivities are a source of comedic tension. They also both have scenes in which the Amercanization and disrespect of Chinese culture are broadly shown. These movies were successful at the box office, because they were funny, and had good action and good chemistry in the two male leads. This is what makes the subtle racism of these films go down so much better with audiences around the world, and Park (2006) would argue that the stereotypes in the film makes the film easily understandable to the Western audience. References Ferguson, P. “Wuz’ Up Nigga, My Niggaz, You Nigger!” [Online] Available at: http://www.csun.edu/csbs/departments/pan_african_studies/pdf/wuz_up_nigga.pdf Gan, W. (2007). “The Hong Kong Local on Film: Re-Imagining the Global.” Jump Cut: A Review of Contemporary Media 49: 1-14. Kennedy, R. (1999-2000). “Who Can Say ‘Nigger?’ And Other Considerations.” The Journal of Blacks in Higher Education 26: 86-96. Min, L. (2011). “Righteousness in Chinese and Western Culture: Rush Hour and Romance of Three Kingdoms.” Cross-Cultural Communication 7.4: 63-65. Naylor, G. “Mommy, What Does 'Nigger' Mean?” [Online] Available at: http://teachers.lakesideschool.org/us/english/Aegerter/ documents/Naylor_Mommy_What_Does_Nigger_Mean_000.pdf Park, Ji Hoon, Gabbadon, N. & Chernin, A. (2006). “Naturalizing Racial Differences Through Comedy: Asian, Black and White Views on Racial Stereotypes in Rush Hour 2.” Journal of Communication 56: 157-177. Rush Hour. Dir. Brett Ratner. Perf. Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker. 1998. New Line Cinema, 1998. DVD. Rush Hour 2. Dir. Brett Ratner. Perf. Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker. 2001. New Line Cinema, 2001. DVD. Read More