Murder by Death (1976) coming from Shout

[bigbadwoppet]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

With respect to this "issue" there are two separate things to point out.

First, the character that Peter Sellers plays in the film is a parody of Charlie Chan who, traditionally in the old movies, was always played by a white actor while his various sons who assisted him were always played by authentic Asian actors. That aspect is also spoofed here with Richard Narita playing his son and jokes are made based on the fact that Wang is Chinese and his son is Japanese (until it's pointed out he is adopted).

Secondly, for many decades and at the time this film was made it was not seen as that big of a deal for white actors to play non-white characters. Peter Sellers did it often and, in fact, his very last movie had him playing Fu Manchu. Five years after Murder By Death, Peter Ustinov played Charlie Chan in Curse of the Dragon Queen.

I realize that by today's standards it's something that is frowned upon but back then people didn't consider it "racist" for a white actor to do that, it was simply an actor playing a character and wearing makeup to complete the look of the character. These portrayals were not comparable to early 20th century blackface that one would associate with minstrelsy so nobody associated them with the same sort of negative connotations.

At least white actors were made up to look ethnically accurate. Now the BBC is trying to convince us that there were black people in medioeval England! That'sincredibly patronizing (and by extension racist) but I don't see anybody complaining of "cultural appropriation".

[CinemaScope]

I hope we get The Cheap Detective before too long. A sort of sequel, with Pater Falk reprising his roll of private dick, Lou Peckinpaugh & set in the forties (a combination of Casablanca & The Maltese Falcon) . I prefer it to Murder By Death.

[Region_unlocked]

Originally Posted by RCRochester

With respect to this "issue" there are two separate things to point out.
[...]
I realize that by today's standards it's something that is frowned upon but back then people didn't consider it "racist" for a white actor to do that, it was simply an actor playing a character and wearing makeup to complete the look of the character. These portrayals were not comparable to early 20th century blackface that one would associate with minstrelsy so nobody associated them with the same sort of negative connotations.

I recognize that RC is currently banned and can't respond, but I gotta say I find the placement of these quotes quite condescending. It's a subtle way of implying there's no authenticity to the concerns being brought up.
Also I don't believe the last point to be true. Yes, yellowface isn't comparable to specifically minstrel shows, but it is reminiscent of the anti-Japanese propaganda of WWII. Not great to say the least. I believe that the statement 'back then a white actor wearing makeup to play a character of a different ethnicity wasn't seen as a big deal.' was true for white people. I'd bet a lot of money that a lot of Asian actors were probably bummed that white actors in makeup were being cast as characters like Charlie Chan instead of them.

[Aclea]

Originally Posted by bigbadwoppet

At least white actors were made up to look ethnically accurate. Now the BBC is trying to convince us that there were black people in medioeval England! That'sincredibly patronizing (and by extension racist) but I don't see anybody complaining of "cultural appropriation".

Except there were (and had been in the Roman era too): not in particularly large numbers and mostly in port cities, but by Elizabeth I's reign there were enough in London for her to complain about how many there were seeking refuge from Spain in 1601 and for plans to be made to deport some the following year (there's no surviving record of whether they were carried out). There was even the discovery of the remains of a black woman in a 10th-11th Century Anglo Saxon burial site in Gloucester. The remains of ten black people from 1190-1300 were unearthed in Ipswich. There's also a representation of a black man in the Domesday Abbreviato from 1241.

A more accurate BBC target might have been Troy: Fall of a City, which cast a black actor as Homer's 'golden Achilles,' yet conversely cast a white actor as his 'black-skinned' Odysseus, though that's more a case of giving with one hand and taking with the other.

[VeronicaSawyer]

Originally Posted by Region_unlocked

I believe that the statement 'back then a white actor wearing makeup to play a character of a different ethnicity wasn't seen as a big deal.' was true for white people. I'd bet a lot of money that a lot of Asian actors were probably bummed that white actors in makeup were being cast as characters like Charlie Chan instead of them.

I totally agree with this. I think we often think that issues like this were less of a big deal in the past, but that's probably because our society has used white attitudes towards issues like this as a baseline for ages, and of course white people didn't see it as an issue at the time. But it's pretty much guaranteed that there were actual Asian people who found this portrayal and those like it just as cringeworthy at the time as people do now.

That said, I love this film, and I'm not advocating for its erasure or suggesting that anyone should feel bad for enjoying it (obviously I enjoy it myself). But saying things were different in the past is only half-way acknowledging why concerns over portrayals like this are valid and always have been, even if they weren't voiced at the time.

[Muchi]

I'm thinking of buying this but want to know first how is the PQ? Did Shout do justice on this film? Haven't seen it in years.

[Sage00]

Originally Posted by Muchi

I'm thinking of buying this but want to know first how is the PQ? Did Shout do justice on this film? Haven't seen it in years.

Here’s the review from this website:

https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Murde.../48180/#Review

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by Muchi

I'm thinking of buying this but want to know first how is the PQ? Did Shout do justice on this film? Haven't seen it in years.

This is what I thought:
A decent transfer although the image is not free of age-related damage and the compression (especially in the scenes of fog) is a little suspect.

[Zillamon51]

I had no idea this was on Blu, from Shout none the less! My late mother really liked this movie. She was a mystery buff, and a fan of the various characters being parodied here. It's a shame she never got to see Knives Out, or the Branagh Poirot films.

As for the whitewashing, I don't get why anyone thinks it's a big deal in older movies. Obviously, that shouldn't be done now. But what's done is done; all media is a product of its time. If it prevents you from enjoying an older film, that's fine. But it's wrong to criticize an older work for doing what was acceptable and commonplace at the time, the fans of said work, or to call for something to be suppressed / pulled from circulation.

[Luke Dodge748]

Originally Posted by Zillamon51

I had no idea this was on Blu, from Shout none the less! My late mother really liked this movie. She was a mystery buff, and a fan of the various characters being parodied here. It's a shame she never got to see Knives Out, or the Branagh Poirot films.

As for the whitewashing, I don't get why anyone thinks it's a big deal in older movies. Obviously, that shouldn't be done now. But what's done is done; all media is a product of its time. If it prevents you from enjoying an older film, that's fine. But it's wrong to criticize an older work for doing what was acceptable and commonplace at the time, the fans of said work, or to call for something to be suppressed / pulled from circulation.

I agree with you. We learn from our mistakes and get on with our lives.

[classicmaterial]

Originally Posted by Zillamon51

As for the whitewashing, I don't get why anyone thinks it's a big deal in older movies. Obviously, that shouldn't be done now. But what's done is done; all media is a product of its time. If it prevents you from enjoying an older film, that's fine. But it's wrong to criticize an older work for doing what was acceptable and commonplace at the time, the fans of said work, or to call for something to be suppressed / pulled from circulation.

Agree with all of this except for "what was acceptable . . . at the time". It wasn't acceptable then either, it's just that no one in marginalized groups had enough agency to speak out and demand it not be done.

But as Luke Dodge said....we learn from our mistakes

[snipemonkey]

Originally Posted by classicmaterial

Agree with all of this except for "what was acceptable . . . at the time". It wasn't acceptable then either, it's just that no one in marginalized groups had enough agency to speak out and demand it not be done.

But as Luke Dodge said....we learn from our mistakes

Yup. The dominant (and/or "dominating") group always gets to set the terms of what is "acceptable" or not. This in itself is pretty much a guarantee that someone or other is going to get the short end of whatever stick that group feels like waving around. I agree we shouldn't try to erase the past but a lot of folks act like thoughtfully critiquing the past is the same thing (the all too common "You're harping on that again? Why can't you let it go?" routine). Which is just nonsense.

But anyway: I don't have an issue with something like Murder by Death because Peter Sellers' character is a walking parody/critique of the sort of ridiculous "yellow face" casting that went on in the movies it's making fun of. The fact that he's a white guy playing a pretty terrible caricature is part of the joke. But I can see how this might not land for anyone who doesn't have that meta-knowledge of old Charlie Chan movies going in. So, I dunno...

[ravenus]

Originally Posted by snipemonkey

But anyway: I don't have an issue with something like Murder by Death because Peter Sellers' character is a walking parody/critique of the sort of ridiculous "yellow face" casting that went on in the movies it's making fun of. The fact that he's a white guy playing a pretty terrible caricature is part of the joke. But I can see how this might not land for anyone who doesn't have that meta-knowledge of old Charlie Chan movies going in. So, I dunno...

The Charlie Chan books are far worse, considering there the character is not supposed to be a spoof/parody. Possibly the whitewashing was even necessary because I doubt any Asian actor that wasn't hard up for work have done such a character.

[snipemonkey]

Originally Posted by ravenus

The Charlie Chan books are far worse, considering there the character is not supposed to be a spoof/parody. Possibly the whitewashing was even necessary because I doubt any Asian actor that wasn't hard up for work have done such a character.

Yes, the strange prejudices of past times are quite shocking and puzzling to our modern, more enlightened sensibilities. Which is, of course, unambiguously a good thing. I’ve never read any Charlie Chan stuff but I was always a big fan of the adventure pulps like Doc Savage and The Shadow and there is some pretty heinous sh*t in those things from time to time. The casual thoughtlessness of the bigotry on display is the most jaw-dropping part. We’ve come a long way but we’ve still a long way to go.

[ravenus]

^On the other hand Charlie Chan, even with his eye-rolling metaphors, was at least a positive and intelligent character, and not just the sinister slit-eyed oriental that can only be trusted to lure you into a haze-filled opium den or slip a poisoned ornate dagger into you. So it was in a sense a step-up from previous prejudices.

[captainsolo]

Originally Posted by ravenus

The Charlie Chan books are far worse, considering there the character is not supposed to be a spoof/parody. Possibly the whitewashing was even necessary because I doubt any Asian actor that wasn't hard up for work have done such a character.

I’ve been going on a bit of a Chan deep dive. Now that I’ve seen all the films and read the first three novels I can say that isn’t the case at all. The Chan of the novels hasn’t ever quite been done onscreen. In the novels Charlie is even more of a brilliant detective, fighting crime as much as prejudice. He occasionally has the misplaced pronouns and slightly broken grammar-but he frequently explains English is not his first language (implied in the films with Oland’s performance) and that he continually makes efforts to improve his spoken English diction. In the second novel Chan goes undercover as a stereotypical racist caricature Chinese cook and performs in the way people expect to get under their noses. While he does this he complains bitterly to his friend when not having to keep up the act at the racial prejudices his people continue to endure.
The books stress this where possible which is remarkable for their era. The only downside I’ve found so far is some casual sexism here and there which is unfortunately typical of the period.

The films tried to get off the ground but struggled at first. Eventually by simplifying his character a bit and increasing the number of aphorisms we got the famous character played by Warner Oland. The aphorisms were hugely popular with audiences and made the character ironically become extremely popular in China at the time. Warner Oland perfectly captures the spirit of the book character even if things are simplified a bit. Outside of the casting a non-Chinese actor I find Chan to be a remarkable and heroic character and a landmark in terms of having a positive Asian character in popular culture. This however swings both ways and led to many becoming tired of the series cliches being taken as how Chinese culture was supposed to be and it seems this factor was the primary motivator in the outcries over Charlie Chan becoming reviled by some.
If some feel this way I completely understand just as I understand people having issues with non-Asian actors in the role. Ultimately I think people should see the films and read the books before passing judgement. The extras made for the Fox DVD sets do a really good job of covering the character and the reception from all angles. I highly recommend these for a better understanding of the character.

The films with Warner Oland are classics. He reputedly had some Chinese ancestry and tried to learn as much of the culture as possible. His performances are really spectacular giving Chan a real soul onscreen. The interactions between Chan and No. 1 son played by Keye Luke have genuine sincerity.
The Fox produced films are the best no question. Sidney Toler takes a little getting used to but had a charm of his own. The barbed putdowns of Chan’s sons and more gruff characterization is Toler’s Chan which otherwise is modeled directly on Oland. With Toler and Roland Winters the actor is obviously not Chinese at all but to their credit the films do not dwell on this with terrible makeup and simply continue on in the same manner. When you get to the Monogram films the quality drops dramatically but they do have the great comedic talents of Mantan Moreland to make up for them not being the Fox films.

What you see in Murder by Death is a hilarious parody of how Hollywood treated Asian characters on screen in the guise of being just a Chan parody. Every factor is magnified from the eye makeup to the teeth and red costume to further accentuate how these characters could be handled. Even the jokes at the son’s expense are magnified to be even more biting. Without knowledge of classic Hollywood some jokes don’t land such as the joke about the son being Japanese while the father is supposedly Chinese.

Before seeing Murder by Death I only knew of Charlie Chan as the stereotype character always played by non-Asian actors. After finding Seller’s performance howlingly funny and being fan of classic detective stories I decided to try the films. I thought and expected it might be problematic like what is made fun of in Murder by Death but to my surprise it wasn’t at all. Sure Chan in the films can seem like a mixture of cliches but to me he comes across as an honorable Chinese-American citizen with a remarkable wisdom frequently cutting prejudiced individuals to size.

At least that’s my two cents from watching and reading Charlie Chan. Not everyone will agree which is perfectly fine.

[captainsolo]

Originally Posted by Muchi

I'm thinking of buying this but want to know first how is the PQ? Did Shout do justice on this film? Haven't seen it in years.

It’s basically Sony’s hd master made for the dvd. It improves on the dvd by being in 1080p but is otherwise an underwhelming presentation. On your tv it will look far better than the old dvd upscaled, it has lossless audio, it restores the Charles Addams artwork (though the Laserdisc jacket is far better) and includes a commentary (though I wish it was a better track and was recorded better) plus a pretty good photo gallery with some production paperwork.

I’d say grab it on sale. I waited for ages even though I love the film. Shout prices releases like this too high and acts like they’re a new master when they’re not. They also didn’t include any of the cut scenes in the tv cut which should have been included. Those four bits are thankfully on YouTube.

I think I’ll pass on my dvd now but I will be keeping the LD for the art and the great liner notes which have info not found elsewhere.

[Hammerlover]

Amazing to think that ancient Estelle Winwood outlived both Peter Sellers and David Niven, and died just two months before Truman Capote in 1984.