The video is only a minute long, but it’s an interesting side of Roger Ebert, who passed away a few days ago.
It’s an interesting video, and the audience reaction, and the reaction online to it, are interesting as well. People universally support Ebert.
But when I watched the video, I thought of gay Republicans. And black conservatives. And people who say, how dare we judge them, how dare we expect something of them politically because of their sexual orientation or their race. I’m curious what folks think, whether that’s the same thing as what happened in this video.
First some background on the video, via Movies.com:
One of the more infamous post-screening outbursts to occur at Sundance came back in 2002 directly following the third screening of a film called Better Luck Tomorrow, which introduced the film world to a director named Justin Lin. The crime drama (partly based off the real-life murder of a teenager from Orange County) was certainly unique in that it featured an all Asian-American cast full of characters who were slick, smart, disillusioned and up to no good. This didn’t sit well with some who thought Lin’s portrayal of Asian-Americans was shallow and disrespectful. One guy took his concerns a step further by grilling Lin and his cast following the film’s Sundance screening, to the point where critic Roger Ebert stood up and defended the hell out of it in a moment that proves there’s nothing quite like a spirited and passionate discussion of a movie with the audience and filmmakers immediately after it screens.
And here’s some of the transcript:
Audience Member #1: I’m really depressed from the film. Because, one it looks very good. Two, the actors are very good. You know how to make a movie. But why would you, with the talent up there, and yourself, make a film that is so empty, amoral for Asian-Americans and for Americans. I mean this is a cliché. We’ve seen it too many times at Sundance. Why don’t you challenge yourself to really look inside and see what matters to you and the writers.
Roger Ebert: I was on a panel today with Chris Eyre, the Native-American director. And he said, that for a long time, his people, American Indians, had always had to play some kind of a function, like they were the source of spirituality, or the source of great wisdom and they spoke to the trees and the wind and so forth. And he wanted to make a movie that allowed Native Americans to be people. People in some cases who are alcoholics or who are vigilantes, or in prison (music interrupts) And what I find very offensive and condescending about your statement, is nobody would say to a bunch of white filmmakers, “How could you do this to your people?” This film has the right to be about these people and Asian-American characters have the right to be whoever the hell they want to be. They do not have to “represent” their people.
I don’t know the film, so I don’t have a strong opinion about it or what this guy said. I can say that the argument sounds a lot like the argument gay Republicans use to justify harming our community – it’s also the argument that apathetic gay people, or any minority, uses to excuse not doing more to help their community.
And as for the argument as to white people and their community, that’s a red herring, IMHO. Of course no one asks white people about betraying “their community” because it would be racist of white people to push white pride. It’s not bigoted for a gay person to push gay pride.