Apatow and crew have demonstrated great comedic skill, but they're alienating a huge demographic with their denigrating portrayals of asians in their films and television shows. I'm asian, as are many of my friends and colleagues, and we all had a 'WTF?' feeling after watching 'Knocked Up'. Apatow's beginning to get that racist reputation that plagued HIlfiger in the nineties.

screenjock:

...Apatow's beginning to get that racist reputation that plagued HIlfiger in the nineties.

I don’t plan on seeing ‘Superbad’ based upon the theater trailers I’ve seen but sometimes I get that creepy sense which you write of regarding various stereotypes. I’m writing to suggest that it takes time for things to get better. Maybe there is a time lag between the give part and the take part in the give and take of the public forum. I caught ‘Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle’ on TV last week and am amused by the thought that it would never have been made in the 1980s when I was their age. Today as ever there are double standards and multiple standards regarding usage of stereotypes as some segments of society appropriate a stereotype for profit while others are publicly disgraced for the same antics. It may be a sign of acceptance that popular culture considers something (or someone) as worthy of ridicule (I don‘t take it that well personally), which may still be better than being totally excluded or ignored (I don‘t take that well either). Consider the quip that there is no such thing as bad publicity (its still better to be in the papers for an award than for a DUI though…). We have to take the bad with the good, sometimes even the ‘Superbad‘. There are a growing number of Asian Americans who are esteemed widely which helps to mitigate such slights which you found in Apatow and crew‘s work. With cable TV there are generally a few channels with Asian programming which reflects the values of those cultures represented and in the past few years I have seen a few art house films produced in Asia and have been better for the exposure to them. I was oblivious to the existence of the Hilfiger reputation which you referred to. Shoot, I’m wearing a pair of Hilfiger jeans right now that I got at a Las Vegas fashion outlet store. My bad, I thought I just had a fashion blind spot to go with my bald spot. Maybe others are also not that concerned with the many slights which are bandied about so freely. My brother-in-law the psychologist told me years ago to ‘lighten up’ and I’m still trying to figure out how to do it.

I assume you're referring to the anal Asian ob/gyn who delivers Alison's baby in 'Knocked Up' because you cite nothing in particular within the film as ths source of your offense. The Asian doctor in question is beyond tactless in his dealings with the parents, but I fail to see this as a characterization of Asians as tactless or unsympathetic.The situation itself reflects the uncertainties of the birthing process as the asian doctor was not their first choice. The doctor's insistence on using drugs for the birth is an emphasis on his realism and his knowledge of the birthing procedure; he's delivered a lot of babies and he knows that almost everyone woman who doesn't use the drugs is screaming bloody murder by the end. By the end of the sequence, the doctor in question cleans up his act towards Alison, but his dedication to bringing the baby out alive at all costs (which, I believe, is of paramount importance in his profession) is never once questioned by the script. You'll forgive me if I don't feel that characterizing one Asian as a frustrating but dedicated and skilled doctor is racist. The important thing here is that in birthing, things aren't under the control of the parents and sometimes the best laid plans need to be abandoned to keep the child alive - even if it means dealing with a less than friendly doctor. To focus on the fact that this stereotype of _doctor_ is Asian is to miss the point. If you're really fishing Judd Apatow & Company's movies for racially/ethnically charged content, you could do much worse than noting a comment or two made about Jews in Superbad. (The material's impact is softened a bit when one realizes that the two screenwriters, Rogen and Goldberg, are both Jewish)

Also assuming that you're referring to the Evil Asian Doctor of Knocked Up... I think you're putting Asian actors in an unfortunate catch-22.

It's quite hard for minority actors to get lead roles; this is due to the racism entrenched in the system. Meanwhile, there are minority actors out there looking for work. If we complain about a negative Asian character -- when there is no explicit relationship between the character's race and his negative qualities -- casting directors will be even more hesitant to give minority actors roles. Why risk backlash when you can just cast all the roles white? That character in Knocked Up could just as easily had been white, but the last thing films need is more white characters.

I appreciate that you have a legitimate gripe that the main characters -- the good guys -- are almost always white. But I think it's better to devote energy to getting Asians cast in a positive light without devoting energy to complaining about negative portrayal that, in all likelihood, was not cast for race.

My mom is Asian and I have to say that if we are going to sterotype that asian are tactless or unsympathetic. In other words they are known as cold.

Now I'm married to an Italian and just compare the two types of mothers. An Italian mom will kiss her child 1,000 times an hour! From an asian one is lucky to get a kiss unless you got all 'A' on your report card! And even than a hug is about it.

The Asian culture is known for being distant and not as touchy feelly as other cultures. But as other point out the asian is a doctor. With an Italian doctor the baby would of lost a foot or hand during birth!

What in Knocked up is racist? The doctor? Martin's girlfriend? I know that there were Asians in the movie but none of them fed into stereotypes. Seriously, is there some racist Asian pothead stereotype I don't know about? How can you call that racist when the whole move was filled with dopey potheads? And the doctor in the movie isn't portrayed in a way that plays on Asian stereotypes or denigrates Asian people. Yeah the doctor is eccentric and he isn't a particularly nice guy, but so what? the movie does nothing to indicate that those character traits have anything to do with being Asian. Can movies only use Asian actors if the characters they play are boring and nice? Seriously, that part was probably written without any race attached and the Asian actor was the funniest. If the part had been played by a white man would you have called Apatow racist against whites because the doctor isn't a nice guy? Your posting mystifies me, especially given the broad range of races represented in the Apatow films. You're nuts.

i agree that there is little basis for a criticism of Apatow's characterizations as stereotypes of asians. In fact, there's hardly a glimpse of anything remotely asian themed, let alone anything that would suggest an ethnic stereotype. Ethnic stereotypes that most here seem to be arguing against would include images of asians as passive, bookish nerds or argumentative, distanced parents; both of which you would find in the show 'Girlmore Girls'. All those qualities may be true to a degree that is distinct from other cultures. All that aside, what is being argued here is not that Apatow utilizes asian stereotypes in his films, but rather that his view of asians, as reflected in his choice casting of asian actors, suggests a limited expectation from casual relationships with asians. The repeated use of asian actors in suporting roles that portray consistently socially awkward characters of various dysfunction isn't at all stereotyping; but rather pigeonholing. How many characters, despisable by the protagonist and audience alike, must be cast with asians before a pattern can be claimed? Are there any scenes in 'Knocked Up' where the protagonist cultivates a valued relationship with any of the asian characters? The casual relationships in 'Knocked Up' involving asians can only create a skewed reference that may influence viewers in their own casual interactions with asians. If mainstream asian cinema was to regularly portray anglos as opportunistic liars, you'd bet asians, especially asian youth, would feel their modified expectations of casual relationships with anglos to be justified. Ethnocentric fare of the 'Knocked Up' sort that showcases the filmmakers' lack of multicultural concern will face significant challenges in the future as revenue from international distribution markets becomes more coveted than the "All-American" psyche and wallet. That Hollywood hasn't embraced minorities is clearly old news; that someone is now pointing a finger at Apatow and crew is news for the day.

So now movies are subject not only to affirmative action, but they're also required to provide interesting and multidimensional characters for minority actors?

• You've shifted arguments here. Your original argument that Apatow films feature "denigrating portrayals of asians" is miles apart from the assertion that he only features them in minor roles. It hardly seems a crime to not feature minority actors in star roles. Furthermore, your conclusion that Apatow has "a limited expectation from casual relationships with asians" simply isn't logically consistent with a mere absence of Asians from major roles, nor their scarce appearances in supporting roles.

• Where is the "The repeated use of asian actors in suporting [sic] roles that portray consistently socially awkward characters" in _Apatow's_ films? We have one dedicated Asian ob/gyn that just doesn't get people.
  

• I'm really not sure how one director in question here portraying one socially dysfunctional Asian is remotely comparable to the entirety of Asian cinema "regularly portraying Anglos as opportunistic liars". That you choose to counter a typical Asian stereotype (social dysfunction) with another (historically charged and anti-imperialistic) stereotype (white people are liars and thieves) is disturbing and hypocritical. Your case may have real beef with other parts of Hollywood, but you're picking a fight with the wrong director.
  

• One final question, how is it that 'Knocked Up' is "ethnocentric fare"? It's a movie about how one stoner who has to leave behind his immature and unproductive life behind in order to care for a child and a wife he never meant to have. Race doesn't enter the picture.

This isn't 'Who's Your Caddy' or 'Rush Hour 3'.

So now movies are subject not only to affirmative action, but they're also required to provide interesting and multidimensional characters for minority actors?…

You seem to be trying to steer the argument in terms of an absence of asian actors in major roles, which isn’t at all the issue. So, let me clearify that Apatow hasn’t refused to cast asian actors in interesting or major roles; the controlling doctor was engaging and funny. However, when Asians are cast on screen they are consistently only used for awkward roles on screen.

Furthermore, your conclusion that Apatow has "a limited expectation from casual relationships with asians" simply isn't logically consistent with a mere absence of Asians from major roles, nor their scarce appearances in supporting roles.

Again, I don’t really care that Apatow casts Asians in minor roles. The limited quote you’ve referenced is only one part of the argument I made that Apataow’s use of asian actors in consistently contemptible roles is a reflection of an expectation that Asians are such in reality. One asian in a despicable role, so what? Two or three or four Asians in so many contemptible roles?

Where is the "The repeated use of asian actors in suporting [sic] roles that portray consistently socially awkward characters" in _Apatow's_ films? We have one dedicated Asian ob/gyn that just doesn't get people.

Jodi, Martin’s asian girlfriend, never uttered a coherent sentence.

I'm really not sure how one director in question here portraying one socially dysfunctional Asian is remotely comparable to the entirety of Asian cinema "regularly portraying Anglos as opportunistic liars".

You’re correct that the two references are not comparable based on scope, however the cause and effect of both are similar. A pigeonholed use of an ethnicity to fill undesirable personas on screen has similar intent, whether done by one director or many.

That you choose to counter a typical Asian stereotype (social dysfunction) with another (historically charged and anti-imperialistic) stereotype (white people are liars and thieves) is disturbing and hypocritical. Your case may have real beef with other parts of Hollywood, but you're picking a fight with the wrong director.

Apatow doesn’t employ stereotypes, but rather choice casting to selectively place asian actors in unfavorable roles. Not all unfavorable roles were filled by Asians, but were there any favorable roles filled by Asians? Would there be less historical baggage if, instead of hypothetical asian cinema, we cited the works of early twentieth century American cinema that for a time consistently cast black actors as unseemly social deviants and vagrants?

One final question, how is it that 'Knocked Up' is "ethnocentric fare"? It's a movie about how one stoner...

Neither the plot nor the script is ethnocentric, it’s the casting that reproduces a representation of reality that assigns asian actors and the asian image a particular role. But, if that’s how Apatow insists the world he lives in to be, then let him face personal public judgement as all artists who personalize their work do.

This was interesting. I see good points being made by both posters here.

I feel it is a lot easier to determine when someone of a specific race is being made the but of jokes then it is when they are just another 'positive' character in a movie.

In other words if one wanted the role to have the 'feel' of a gangster one the 'easy out' would be to cast an Italian or black guy (or just use Al as in 'you want a price of this'!).

BUT if one is NOT looking to have a specific 'feel' and the character is just an 'everyday' type of person than what difference does it make WHO is cast? So maybe the issue here is that there are just not many well known Asian actors that a director can use to pay the everyday guy?

For example, Dencil Washington or Will Smith can play the everyday guy. YES they can play a 'black guy' sterotyped role but in most of their roles their race isn't WHY they were casted for the part. It was their acting or their ability to bring in fans (fans of all races).

I wouldn't bother to make the argument that American cinema is free from ethnic bias or ever was; it most certainly is. However, Judd Apatow is hardly a good example.

The Asian doctor is not awkward. On the contrary, he's very confident and professional. He's accustomed to running the show in the hospital and doesn't take well to someone questioning his professional opinion. It is clear the entire time that his greatest concern lies with the unborn child's health and his tactlessness is a result of his determination to do his job. Personally, I'd love for my ethnicity to be portrayed as skilled and competent in an extremely demanding job. The tactless, control-freak personality featured here is indeed a stereotype. It's a stereotype of a _doctor_.

Jodi never uttered a coherent sentence because she was blazed out of her mind on marijuana the entire time. Her only social dysfunction in this movie arises from frequent bong use. Jodi is not characterized as any more deficient or dysfunctional than any of the other pot smokers comrades, though perhaps she is even higher. Furthermore, she was the most minor of minor roles: she was the girlfriend of a character's whose only role in the movie was to grow a beard and be made fun of. Interestingly enough, casting an Asian as a pothead loser runs completely counter to the stereotypical hardworking, bookish, and socially incompetent Asian that you yourself describe in your first post. This stereotype of an incoherent, gibbering girl is a stereotype as well. A stereotype of a _stoner_.

A movie is ethnocentric because it features a largely white cast in a nation that is predominantly white? Is Asian cinema ethnocentric because its actors are predominately Asian? That's completely absurd. If we take a look back at Apatow's The 40 Year Old Virgin, one of the most hilarious and endearing characters is Black. These actors compete for these roles and the ones who do the best job get the parts.

"Not all unfavorable roles were filled by Asians, but were there any favorable roles filled by Asians?"

Must a screenwriter handwrite a favorable role for each minority in his movie in order to be politically correct? That would be deeply disturbing and shallow. Should Asian actors not compete for roles that don't showcase positive attributes of their culture? No, that would be ridiculous.

"Would there be less historical baggage if, instead of hypothetical asian cinema, we cited the works of early twentieth century American cinema that for a time consistently cast black actors as unseemly social deviants and vagrants?"

I suppose that really only furthers my point that your fight is not with Apatow but with other members of American cinema past and present.

The movie is awash with loathsome white characters. Alison's boss and the woman that is involved in their talks, for instance. Alison's mother who suggests she abort her child so she may have "a real baby" further down the line. Or what about Alison's ob/gyn of choice who promises that he "never goes on vacations" (with pictures of his family vacations in clear sight) and flies the coop when Alison needs him most?

By all means, judge screenwriters for the way they portray ethnicities. You're just pointing your finger at the wrong man. You need go no further than 'Grandma's Boy', which features an Asian bug tester who is so self-loathing that he frequently utters lines like "I'm a no good piece of s*** and I deserve to die" over his smallest shortcomings.

You seem to like 'Superbad' and Apatow way too much- selling the merits of the movie and deflecting any criticism away from Apatow or 'Superbad'. I'm guessing you're either a studio stooge or drink from the Apatow fountain of glory. You don't even seem to address the specific criticisms being written, instead deflecting and steering discussions away from the issues at hand. Apatow's and crew do funny stuff, but there are reasons to complain.

I appreciate the ad hominem attack and the failure to rebut anything I said in my last post. It's almost like throwing the argument.

Bottom line: the stereotypes you object to have nothing to do with the Asians playing those roles. Your assertion that Apatow's failure to present a positive view of Asians is proof of a negative view of Asians is logically invalid. Sure there is bias in American cinema, just whistle call on someone who actually deserves it. It is absurd to expect every director who casts an Asian to a role that isn't 100% lovable to write a charming and positive role for another Asian in the same movie.

The really interesting thing about this entire topic is that every objection you've had about an Asian role is from Knocked Up, not Superbad. Not only is this article about Superbad, but Apatow is the producer, not the director or the screenwriter. You're completely off the mark calling Apatow anti-Asian in a forum on Superbad.

Oooh....I'm posting in the wrong forum. Bad me. So, what if I want to discuss a controversial topic brought up by the release of a related movie in a forum that's timely and relevant. Let us stay on topic...

Your assertion that Apatow's failure to present a positive view of Asians is proof of a negative view of Asians is logically invalid.

How can I address what you say when you continue to steer the discussion and pervert what I'm saying. I keep saying there are no objectionable stereotypes, but rather it's selective casting that seems to only use asian actors in conspicuously unfavorable roles. An assertion that is inductive and logically valid.

Sure there is bias in American cinema, just whistle call on someone who actually deserves it.

Apatow and crew may share company in Hollywood with more obvious or frequent transgressors of multicultural insensitivity, but that is not to say Apatow has not exhibited bias, and I've been trying to argue, he has. You're saying leave Apatow alone because he's not the worst. I'm saying 'No'.

It is absurd to expect every director who casts an Asian to a role that isn't 100% lovable to write a charming and positive role for another Asian in the same movie.

I've said it earlier, one asian actor in an unfavorable role doesn't legitimate any concern. However several asian actors, all cast in unfavorable roles, with no asian actors cast in favorable roles in that same movie? That would suggest execution of a pattern.

Now, how are you going to respond to this? "Apatow's not the worst, so here's a director who you should be complaining about..." "Hollywood has always been biased, what you're saying doesn't have merit" or maybe "Apatow casts minorities all the time in his other works." This isn't about all minorities, just Apatow's use of asians.

screenjock:

... I keep saying there are no objectionable stereotypes, but rather it's selective casting that seems to only use asian actors in conspicuously unfavorable roles. An assertion that is inductive and logically valid...

I was the one who intially saw the words 'denigrating portrayals' and read them as 'stereotypes' which I generalized upon and tried to defang by suggesting that while not fair they are commonplace. I apologize if my generalization deflected your own intent to not let the producer off the hook for his casting choices by clouding the issue. I have learned something from your subtle observation regarding "[casting] several asian actors, all cast in unfavorable roles, with no asian actors cast in favorable roles in that same movie...". Where I saw a field of generalities you saw frequency distributions which are indeed more precise. I will try to be more aware myself of what is before my own eyes.