Dimsum's Comments

Jack Tan
25 January 2001

Perhaps the most telling thing about Charlotte Raven's review of Crouching Tiger isn't in the review itself but in the one line preamble on the Guardian website. It states: "Crashing bore, wooden drama: Charlotte Raven dares to differ from the unanimous acclaim for Ang Lee's Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon". Can it be that the Guardian has allowed a closed-minded review through the editorial nets simply because it was different?

The review itself shows a non-understanding of Chinese culture and a refusal to engage with foreign cultural contexts. Comparing this Mandarin film with Star Wars, South Park, Tomb Raider and American Beauty is like comparing mashed potatoes with vanilla ice-cream. Also, to say that this film would sound "unforgivably banal" if translated into English is again to confuse two categories that should be kept separate. Surely Shakespeare translated into Chinese would sound equally ridiculous?

As a columnist Charlotte Raven is entitled to her opinions. In Britain, she is not the only one who belittles or refuses to engage with Chinese culture. But such racially insensitive opinion is not uncommon in the tabloid media. What is surprising is to find such offensive opinion in the Guardian. It is a review that shows no consideration for the feelings of the Chinese community and as such has done us a disservice.

Dimsum spoke to Ian Katz, the editor of G2, on 25 Jan 2001 and he defended Charlotte Raven's review saying that in no way was it meant to be racist. He said that Charlotte Raven was genuinely surprised that anyone could construe her review as being offensive. He accepted that the article caused offence but was waiting to see whether the offence was widespread enough to warrant acting on the complaints. It was obvious that Ian Katz thought that the complainers were over-reacting and unreasonable.

So, the non-understanding of Chinese culture and concerns spreads up a level. We started with a Guardian writer who refused to engage with a Chinese film on its own terms, and now we have an editor who is unwilling to see how it is possible and reasonable for Chinese people to be offended by the review. No doubt both writer and editor are well-intentioned and fair people. Nonetheless this is precisely how institutional racism operates; with influential people unwittingly working in such a way as to disregard the needs of, or their responsibility to, one or more ethnic minorities. Perhaps the Guardian, a great proponent of the Macpherson anti-racism stand, ought to turn its eye inwards to seek out the unwitting racism within its own ranks.

Ian Katz told Dimsum that he would review this matter next week and tell us his response. We hope by then, he will have been able to see this episode through our eyes.

 

Comments

Add New Search RSS

Tuan - The bloody Guardian Posted 22:47 on 11 December 2006 They think theyre untouchable, theyd never think of themselves as illiberal, they try and paint themselvs as lilberal as possible. They cant see the artistic beauty thats in Crouching Tiger. Theyd much rather see starving Chinese peasants working in a field, at least that way theyd get their 'realism.' It's pathetic, if its not war, or muslim coverage or some other outrageous predisposition to 'overtly sympathising' with minorities, then it must be 'banal.' The Guardian tries to be too clever for its own good. stick to wartorn reportage or black poverty issues in Hackney if its 'politically correct' realism you want. Reply | Quote

Write comment
Name:
Subject:
	-color-aquablackbluefuchsiagraygreenlimemaroonnavyolivepurpleredsilvertealwhiteyellow -size-tinysmallmediumlargehuge
	If you are unable to read the security code, please send your comment to This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it .
Security Code: Type the code in the image (helps prevent spam)