Charlie Chan - Modern Interpretations and Criticism

Modern Interpretations and Criticism

The character of Charlie Chan has been the subject of much controversy. Some find the character to be a positive role model, while others argue that Chan is an offensive stereotype. Critic John Soister argues that Charlie Chan is both; when Biggers created the character, he offered a unique alternative to stereotypical evil Chinamen who was at the same time "sufficiently accommodating in personality... unthreatening in demeanor... and removed from his Asian homeland... to quell any underlying xenophobia."

Critic Michael Brodhead argues that "Biggers's sympathetic treatment of the Charlie Chan novels convinces the reader that their author consciously and forthrightly spoke out for the Chinese - a people to be not only accepted but admired. Biggers's sympathetic treatment of the Chinese both reflected and contributed to the greater acceptance of the Chinese in America in the first third of century." S. T. Karnick writes in the National Review that Chan is "a brilliant detective with understandably limited facility in the English language powers of observation, logic, and personal rectitude and humility made him an exemplary, entirely honorable character." Ellery Queen called Biggers's characterization of Charlie Chan "a service to humanity and to inter-racial relations." Dave Kehr of The New York Times said Chan "might have been a stereotype, but he was a stereotype on the side of the angels." Luke agreed; when asked if he thought that the character was demeaning to the race, he responded, "Demeaning to the race? My God! You've got a Chinese hero!" and "e were making the best damn murder mysteries in Hollywood."

Other critics, such as Yen Le Espiratu and Huang Guiyou, argue that Chan, while portrayed positively in some ways, is not on a par with white characters, but a "benevolent Other" who is "one-dimensional." The films' extensive use of white actors to portray Asian characters indicates the character's "absolute Oriental Otherness;" the films were only successful when they were "the domain of white actors who impersonated slant-eyed, heavily-accented masters of murder mysteries as well as purveyors of cryptic proverbs in what Eugene Wong calls a 'racist cosmetology.'" Chan's character "embodies the stereotypes and stigmas of Chinese Americans, particularly of males: smart, subservient, effeminate." Chan is representative of a model minority, the good stereotype that counters a bad stereotype: "Each stereotypical image is filled with contradictions: the bloodthirsty Indian is tempered with the image of the noble savage; the bandido exists along with the loyal sidekick; and Fu Manchu is offset by Charlie Chan." However, Fu Manchu's evil qualities are presented as inherently Chinese, while Charlie Chan's good qualities are exceptional; "Fu represents his race; his counterpart stands away from the other Asian Hawaiians."

Some argue that the character's popularity is dependent on its contrast with stereotypes of the Yellow Peril or the Japanese in particular. American opinion of China and Chinese Americans grew more positive in the 1920s and 30s in contrast to the Japanese, who were increasingly viewed with suspicion. Sheng-mei Ma argues that the character is a psychological overcompensation to "rampant paranoia over the racial other."

In June 2003, the Fox Movie Channel discontinued a planned Charlie Chan Festival, soon after beginning restoration for special cablecasting, after a special interest group protested. Fox reversed its decision two months later in August 2003, and on September 13, 2003, the first film in the festival was aired on Fox. The films, when broadcast on the Fox Movie Channel, were followed by round table discussions by prominent Asian-Americans in the entertainment industry, led by George Takei, most of whom were against the films. Collections such as Frank Chin's Aiiieeee! An Anthology of Asian-American Writers and Jessica Hagedorn's Charlie Chan is Dead are put forth as alternatives to the Charlie Chan stereotype and " cultural anger and exclusion as their animating force." Fox began releasing the restored versions on DVD in 2006; as of mid-2008, Fox has released all of the extant Warner Oland titles and has begun issuing the Sidney Toler series. The first six Monogram productions, all starring Sidney Toler, were released by MGM in 2004.

Some modern critics, particularly Asian-Americans, dismiss the Charlie Chan character as "bovine" and "asexual", allowing "white America ... securely indifferent about us as men." Charlie Chan's good qualities are the product of what Frank Chin and Jeffery Chan call "racist love", arguing that Chan is a model minority and "kissass". Fletcher Chan, however, argues that the Chan of Biggers's novels is not subservient to whites, citing The Chinese Parrot as an example; in this novel, Chan's eyes blaze with anger at racist remarks and in the end, after exposing the murderer, Chan remarks "Perhaps listening to a 'Chinaman' is no disgrace." In the films, both Charlie Chan in London (1934) and Charlie Chan in Paris (1935) "contain scenes in which Chan coolly and wittily dispatches other characters' racist remarks."