50 First Dates: Lazy Hawaiians and fun brain injuries

Set in picturesque Hawaii, 50 First Dates is just another unapologetic Adam Sandler movie. Even though I do enjoy a good parody, this film just explodes the stereotypes of native Hawaiians. In Michael Tsai's article "Pidgin Holed" from The Honolulu Advertiser, Tsai explains the all-to-familiar Hawaiian stereotypes occurring in this movie: " To varying degrees, these films demonstrate that Hollywood is more than willing to resort to familiar perceptions of the Islands as places of lush natural beauty, populated (sparsely) by large, lazy people who sing, dance, play and eat but, oddly, don't work very much."

These all-to-common stereotypes of native Hawaiians are nothing compared to the character Ula (pictured above: actor Rob Schneider). Ula is a pot-smoking, washed-up, Pidgin-speaking native. The caricature Ula is of course Sandler's scheming side kick in 50 First Dates (he needs one in every film). In Tsai's article, he mentions how several viewers felt that Schneider's Pidgin language was incredibly over-the-top because it did not resemble Hawaiian Pidgin in the least bit (contained elements of Spanish and Native American). Sandler (or Hollywood) obviously supports looking for as many cheap laughs as possible.

What surprised me most about this article was a comment by Kirk Uyezu, a Hawaiian native who saw the film. He felt the film was exaggerated, but he was not exactly offended as Hawaiian:

"'They seemed more like North Shore types,' he said. 'I could see them being like that.'

And Ula?

'I think he's more like what someone from the Mainland would think locals are like.'"

Instead of being offended, Uyezu assumed 50 First Dates was not making fun of him- but OTHER Hawaiians. So of course, this makes it OK? Funny for Uyezu- but not for the North Shore types he speaks of? Unfortunately, mainland Americans are not smart enough to think that Hollywood was only making fun of a specific group of Hawaiians- we assume ALL Hawaiians are like that. And I'm sure Hollywood wasn't making fun of just group of Hawaiians....

This brings me to the brain injury jokes in this movie. I saw this film before someone in my family had a brain injury. I did find parts of this movie insensitive (i.e. Ten Second Tom) but I did find the movie entertaining overall. I then saw the movie after someone in my family had a brain injury and I couldn't watch it all the way through. Uyezu's comment and my second viewing of the film made me realize that humans are only offended by things that we have personally experienced. As unfortunate as this is, I wish it wasn't true. And I have heard a friend of mine say "If f we can't make fun of that group of people nor that group of people- who can we make fun of?"

What is the best kind of comedy? I have a feeling it will always offend someone. I guess making fun of specific people who are inherently evil is OK- but I'm sure the rest of the world would quickly become bored.

Mad Men: Excuse for sexism and racism? Or reality?

I have recently become addicted to AMC's Mad Men. This drama is appealing to me because of its writing and historical documentation. Part of that historical documentation includes the racism and sexism that existed in 1960s. I have read several blogs (particularly HighJive's post on Racilicious) that express frustration with Mad Men because they believe this show is simply racist and sexist without any social commentary. Even though I do agree with these blogger's that this show is just about white America in the 1960s, I do NOT believe this show is racist and sexist only for entertainment purposes. I believe creator Matthew Weiner wants to factually depict the lives of these Advertising executives.

This television show does not go one episode without a racial slur or ass-grab. Int the third episode, the co-workers of the character Peter Campbell paid a Chinese family to surprise Campbell in his office. The family was wearing stereotypical Chinese clothing and had a chicken with them as well. Everyone in the office (all white) thought this was a great practical joke. As awful as this joke is, Mad Men has received wide praise because of its truthful account of racism and sexism in the 1960s. Jerry Della Femina worked as a copywriter during this era and founded his own agency. Wikipedia quotes Femina's reception of the show: "[Mad Men] 'accurately reflects what went on. The smoking, the prejudice and the bigotry.'"

Although 99% of the racism and sexism is met without any objection from any characters in the first season, the first episode of the second season foreshadows the social revolution soon to come in this era. In the picture above, the character Paul Kinsey is introducing his African-American girlfriend to his white, ex-girlfriend Joan Holloway. The scene ends with Joan upsetting Kinsey's current girlfriend by revealing her racism. Even though the scene ends with racism, Kinsey confronts Joan later in the episode and expresses his anger for her behavior.

The episode above definitely contains social commentary. It may not be as direct as some bloggers would like to see, but I believe that scenes speak for themselves without any direct commentary. Even in the first season when every instance of sexual harrassement and bigotry is met without objection or obvious commentary, it shows viewers how far we have socially progressed. This show has showed me a glimpse of what life was like in the 1960s without any censoring. I believe that showing viewers (particularly younger generations who did not live in this era) how things really were is more beneficial than ignoring the issue because it is too depressing. Even though racism and sexism will probably always exist, it teaches viewers why things are the way they are. And why people are still racist and sexist. If we can learn as much as we can about how life really was back then, it can help progressive people understand how to improve these social conditions that still exist.