As I read Park et al., I was challenged by the list of shows that perpetuate stereotypical images of Black men, like The Fresh Prince of Bel Air. I think its hilarious. Yet, Park refers to an author that calls it as "neominstrelsy" because of its self-depreciating humor (159-160). Park remarks that Chris Tucker is a man child, infantilized by his high-pitched voice, to which I immediately thought, "isn't that his normal voice?" (163) (I tried looking up videos of his voice to see if he speaks any differently in more natural settings and its less exaggerated in interviews). Connecting this point to the fact that comedians like Chris Tucker often play the same character in multiple productions, does typecasting confirm these stereotypes? When we see the same portrayals by the same set of actors, do we connect those behaviors to the actor himself or the group he represents?
Also, Ford references a previous finding from Olson that reciting disparaging humor increased the humorist's negative attitude towards the targeted group. What do you think the effects may be if the joke reciter is a member of the target group, like an actor?
One last thing: This weekend I discovered this website called Anti Joke. It plays off of the idea that unrelated scripts are the norms in jokes so much so that now consistent scripts can be funny. Here is an example: Why was six afraid of seven? It wasn't. Numbers are not sentient and thus incapable of fear. For more, check out anti-joke. com.
I think this relates to our discussion a few weeks ago about TV shows and how much responsibility the actors and television companies should have in casting actors based on their race. I think what's interesting about a comedian (compared to an actor) is that in one sketch, the comedian can switch from stereotypical portrayals to non-stereotypical portrayals pretty easily and quickly (see Margaret Cho and Russell Peters clips posted on the blog this week), while actors are usually locked into the role during the duration of the show or movie.
ReplyDeleteIn response to your question about whether we connect those behaviors to the actor/the group the actor represents, I think we could apply Ford's findings in that it would have a strong effect for individuals who already have high prejudice levels. But what's interesting to think about is: if we constantly see the same (non-stereotypical) portrayals by the same set of actors, would we also connect those behaviors with the group (in that stereotypes would be less prevalent in society)? Beyond just preventing the spread of stereotypes, would it actually help reverse any damage that has already been done?
In response to your question about whether typecasting confirms the stereotypes, I think that because there are few minority actors and if the actor constantly maintain stereotypical behavior, there would be no alternative representations of the minority group. Playing the same character would lead to strong stereotypes about the minority group in general especially if one has limited interactions with the minority group and relies on the media for information.
ReplyDeleteI think the line between an actor and the racial group that the actor belongs to sometimes gets blurred, especially when actors are portraying stereotypical characters. I also agree with the previous comment--we saw this exact thing in the Park et al. paper, where many of the Asian viewers of Rush Hour 2 were not offended by the representation of Lee in the movie, mainly because he was a good fighter, and at least an Asian man was portrayed as the main character rather than as a sidekick. Basically, Jackie Chan played an extreme stereotype, and this may have been offensive--some people may say that he shouldn't have taken the part. On the other hand, by taking the part, he was increasing the representation of Asian men in the media in large movie roles, which could be considered a positive thing.
ReplyDelete