A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints A Guide to Recognizing Your Saints
Jul
16
2008

RED CLIFF Review

Posted by Todd Brown at 8:57pm.

Posted in Film & DVD Reviews , Martial Arts, Drama, Action, Asia.

[Many thanks to good friend Anita Wong - gone now on a lengthy sojourn to Taiwan - for passing along this review of John Woo’s Red Cliff.]

I grew up on a healthy diet of John Woo films, back in his heyday, when every film was a masterpiece. As a child, I used to think that Chow Yun Fat had surgically implanted a toothpick between his teeth, and that someone had sewed a pair of guns to his hands the way mothers sew mittons to coats. Whenever he was standing in a scene, I would have to tilt my head, because he just didnt seem right unless he was on his back or flying sideways through the air, guns ablazin’. My cousin and I would reinact all the scenes where Chow and [the other guy] would point guns at each other’s head while spouting calm, witty dialogue; sometimes we would spin in circles to emulate the camera moving round and round the pair.

I stopped watching John Woo films when he started working with the whities. I didn’t want to see the man who had introduced me to guns, machetes and the brotherhood (all before I reached puberty) embarass himself. And time and Hollywood proved me right. There was that unfortunate Jean-Claude van Damme debut, and then one too many films starring Nicholas Cage… So I’ve only heard the rumours of how bad the others were, and I’m quite glad to have closed my eyes on the last 15 years of John Woo’s career.

But when I heard about Red Cliff, I just couldn’t resist. Woo’s first foray into the ancient China genre, armed with a historical epic and a bloated budget? And no Nicholas Cage? Happy day! Come back, my prodigal son, come back to the motherland. Here, take a timeless classic, and go forth…

It’s 208AD, and the scheming Prime Minister Cao Cao is set to inherit the fading Han Empire. Having already conquered the North, Cao Cao sends his mighty army to the southlands of China, in an attempt to unify the entire kingdom under his control. As Cao Cao’s men march towards them, General Liu Bei’s military strategist Zhuge Liang organizes an alliance with Sun Quan, a neighbouring warlord. The two consolidate their armies, and Zhuge and Sun’s Viceroy Zhou Yu lead the allied forces to a minor victory against Cao Cao’s calvary, a precursor to the great battle still to be won at sea. With the enemy’s massive fleet on the opposite banks, Zhuge and Zhou cautiously plan their next military move against the powerful Cao Cao, in a battle of chess-like wit and cunning.

Woo’s casting woes prior to production were almost as dramatic as the film itself, with a revolving door of actors moving in and out of roles. Tony Leung Chiu-wai, turned down the role of Zhuge Liang (which was later taken up by Takeshi Kaneshiro), but came back to the production to replace Chow Yun-Fat as Zhou Yu, after Fat unexpectedly bowed out during the first week of shooting.

Kaneshiro is surprisingly good as the youthful and smart strategist, displaying a confidence of ease; a man whose strength is clearly more brains than brawn. His character plays counterpoint to Leung’s Viceroy; soft wisdom partnered with hard experience. Kaneshiro’s Zhuge is the sagacious strategist, while Zhou Yu is a man wisened by battle, the elder, more experienced of the two. Together, Zhuge and Zhou share duties as the brains of Liu Bei’s military operations.

Sadly, (and it really hurts to say this) Tony Leung’s performance is a little unconvincing. Leung gives Zhou Yu a sensitive touch that seems naggingly misplaced, and he can’t seem to hold down the commanding presence and brute smarts that his Zhou Yu’s character demands. This is partly the failure of the script too, as it doesn’t help that Lin Chi-ling has been cast as the superfluous pretty thing clasping his arm, dragging Zhou Yu’s strong silent machismo down with her.

Perhaps I can blame the voice actor for Leung’s failings. Apparently, Leung’s Mandarin is so egregious that Taiwanese audiences have never heard his real voice. Or perhaps I can blame the costume designer, who for some unknown reason has made Leung look exceptionally more ridiculous than his fellow actors. But beyond all this, Leung’s portrayal of the strong, hardened commander is simply… lacking. Leung’s performance leaves me wistfully thinking that Woo had it right the first time- Chow (or at least the Chow of old) would probably have been a much better fit for the character of Zhou Yu, and Leung would have made an appropriate Zhuge Liang.

Woo’s supporting cast provides a lively backdrop to the furrowed brows of military scheming. Some, like Lin Chi-ling, are merely cinematic window-dressing while others, Liu Bei’s brothers-in-arms in particular, evoke a sense of martial heroism that is trademark Woo. His themes of fraternal brotherhood from his good ol’ days (A Better Tomorrow, Hard-Boiled) shine in the context of warring ancient China. Woo manages to convey the age-old sentiments of chivalry and loyalty without appearing melodramatic, and the result is an emotionally-sweeping sense of brotherhood-in-battle bravado. Ba Sen Zha Bu delivers a particularly sharp performance as the fierce and legendary warrior, Guan Yu.

The strangest thing about Woo’s big-budget blockbuster- the most expensive Asian film ever made- is his visual style. When George Lucas brought back the Star Wars series, he used wipes and iris transitions between scenes- a self-reflexive, old school send-up to his earlier series. But I don’t know what John Woo’s excuse is. Red Cliff has none of the colourfully-saturated imagery of Zhang Yi-mou’s Hero, nor the gritty bleak look of Peter Chan’s The Warlords. It leaves me wondering where the hell all the money went. Battle sequences notwithstanding, there are parts of Red Cliff that could have come straight out of a kareoke video. It’s as if, not being able to cinematically date the film back to 200AD, Woo has settled for circa 1982.

[I want to believe that there is a logic to this. But the only justification I can think of is that, by using quick tracking close-ups remniscent of old school kung fu films, and Star Wars-esque wipes, John Woo is trying to be ironic and cheeky, paying playful homage to some of the greats- himself included (there’s a particularly familiar-looking baby-saving scene near the beginning of the film). Which seems incredibly wrong in this context, especially given that the story is an ancient classic; a historical text taught in schools, and the Chinese simply don’t poke fun at their classics, no sir.  If Peter Jackson had tried to pay homage to himself by including a zombie baby in Lord of the Rings, they would have put his head on a stick.]

Despite all this, Woo has the advantage of having one of the most entertaining and engrossing stories in Chinese history at his disposal. The Battle of Red Cliff is a dramatic tale of strategy and wit, and the film serves to fill in the complicated imaginary spaces of the book with vivid, awe-invoking visuals and stunning scenes of scale. Not only are the individual heroics of the characters in battle amazing, but Woo has made military strategy look sexy, in a big big way, especially in the film’s big battle finale.

Red Cliff has plenty of awesome action and a thoroughly engaging story, but Woo still looks groggy from his Hollywood daze. Hopefully he’ll have walked it off in time for the film’s finale.

Review by Anita Wong

  • Digg This
  • Stumble It!
  • Reddit
 

Reader Comments

  1. The Visitor 07/16/2008 @ 9:19pm

    “working with the whities”?

    Face/Off and Broken Arrow are great. anything after these two are debatable.

    and i feel it’s unfair at this stage to criticise Lin Chiling’s role, because this is only the first part. her role in the second part is meatier, and we’ll get to see what she can and cannot pull off.

  2. Dudley 07/16/2008 @ 10:05pm

    “working with the whities”?

    I’ve been visiting this site on a daily basis for years and this is the first time I’ve been offended. Replace “whities” with any other racial slur, would it still be ok? Accept one racial slur and you make others easier to accept. Before you jump to any conclusions my family comes from China.

  3. cpa314 07/16/2008 @ 11:26pm

    Just wanted to point out a few things

    “The strangest thing about Woo’s big-budget blockbuster- the most expensive Asian film ever made- is his visual style. When George Lucas brought back the Star Wars series, he used wipes and iris transitions between scenes- a self-reflexive, old school send-up to his earlier series. But I don’t know what John Woo’s excuse is.”

    The wipes are an homage to one of his favorite directors, Akira Kurosawa, who Lucas also took the wipes from.

    “Red Cliff has none of the colourfully-saturated imagery of Zhang Yi-mou’s Hero, nor the gritty bleak look of Peter Chan’s The Warlords. It leaves me wondering where the hell all the money went. Battle sequences notwithstanding, there are parts of Red Cliff that could have come straight out of a kareoke video. It’s as if, not being able to cinematically date the film back to 200AD, Woo has settled for circa 1982.”

    This is the first time I have heard any comment about the cinematography. From what I saw from the trailer, I thought it looked fine.

    “But when I heard about Red Cliff, I just couldn’t resist. Woo’s first foray into the ancient China genre, armed with a historical epic and a bloated budget?”

    Actually, thats wrong. Woo has already done a period martial arts piece before. He directed the Last Hurrah for Chivalry I believe.

    “I want to believe that there is a logic to this. But the only justification I can think of is that, by using quick tracking close-ups remniscent of old school kung fu films, and Star Wars-esque wipes, John Woo is trying to be ironic and cheeky, paying playful homage to some of the greats- himself included (there’s a particularly familiar-looking baby-saving scene near the beginning of the film). Which seems incredibly wrong in this context, especially given that the story is an ancient classic; a historical text taught in schools, and the Chinese simply don’t poke fun at their classics, no sir.”

    If you are referring to Zhao Zilong saving the baby Liu Chan then I see nothing wrong about it. It happened in the novel San Guo Zhi. In fact, Woo has said before that he was always a big fan of the Three Kingdoms and modelled the Chow Yun Fat character in many of his classics of the heroism displayed by Zhao Zhilong. The baby saving scene in Hardboiled was most likely inspired by Zhao Zhilong saving Liu Bei’s baby son Liu Chan. I dont think he is poking fun at the classics at all. He is a huge fan of the story. Maybe you should re-read the novel. Zhao Yun saving Liu Chan is definitely in there. Woo didnt put that scene in there because of Hardboiled.

  4. Rhythm-X 07/17/2008 @ 12:09am

    I almost posted the entire lyrics to James Kochalka Superstar’s “Don’t Trust Whitey” just for the hell of it, but I decided against it.  I’ll summarize; be careful around white people.  They might be up to something nefarious at any given moment.

    What does this have to do with RED CLIFF?  Not much.

  5. axleu 07/17/2008 @ 12:16am

    Hard target ain’t that bad (I hope that, one day, they’ll put the 120’ director’s cut on DVD/Blu-Ray/Whatever...). Face off is a masterpiece, I’m in love with Windtalkers (yes!), Mission impossible II is fun n’ dumb summer movie (better than the shitty third one by the way), Paycheck isn’t great (but OK for a DVD rental), Broken arrow is a fun n’ dumb summer movie, Once a thief and Blackjack are very bad TV movies.

    Great post, cpa314!!!!

  6. Ard Vijn 07/17/2008 @ 1:39am

    I enjoyed both the review and cpa314’s comments immensely, both are valuable for me to get an idea for this film. I can see how a baby-saving scene would seem suspicious.


    As for the ‘whitey’ remark, two things:

    1: At no time did I get the idea this was meant as a serious racial slur. It is a reference to the opinions of some VERY angry Chinese people who saw their favorite director move to the US to pursue a career that wasn’t catering to them, his oldest fans.

    2: Being white, I actually laughed when I read that. “Whitey” has been the cause of a great many problems throughout history, compared to which this one is so minor that it hardly feels worth mentioning.
    I thought it was rather witty actually, pulling the issue of John Woo going West completely out of proportion.

    About racism in general: I think the APM count (assholes-per-million) is roughly the same for all people, regardless of color, religion, sexual preference, nationality or historical context, so you can’t really use any of those to judge an individual.


    Anyway, about the novel: what is the best of the known English translations? I’m VERY interested in reading this!

  7. The Visitor 07/17/2008 @ 2:53am

    actually i was immediately reminded of the Sly & The Family Stone song, Don’t Call Me Nigger, Whitey.

  8. misteresh 07/17/2008 @ 3:02am

    Stopped reading at “I stopped watching John Woo films when he started working with the whities.”

  9. Ard Vijn 07/17/2008 @ 3:07am

    Remember, with her whitie remark Anita Wong also refers to a childhood memory, possibly during her teenage years, when people in general are anything but politicaly correct.

  10. ChevalierAguila 07/17/2008 @ 3:14am

    Instead of whities i would have just said “overpaid hollywood zombies” Van Damme, Cage, Travolta and the likes are just awful actors, regardless of their skin color.

  11. The Visitor 07/17/2008 @ 3:15am

    not looking to turn this into a debate about race, but Aardvark is right. being someone from the Chinese community, i can tell you that there are some racial terms here that are equal to or worse than “whitey”. “gwai loh” for example, is a widely used Cantonese term in Hong Kong and other Cantonese-speaking communities. “gwai” means “ghost” or “devil” or “demon.” but it has sort of become an affectionate term nowadays. some of my Caucasian friends even happily identify themselves as “gwai loh"s!

    but still, i admit i had to do a double take when i read that sentence in the review.

  12. fudduf 07/17/2008 @ 5:57am

    for christ’s sake this is a site which is into cult/exploitation films, if you can’t handle “whitey” why are you here in the first place?  chill out, people.

  13. Collin Armstrong 07/17/2008 @ 6:24am

    The whitey comment was in bad taste, but I didn’t take offense and didn’t think any was meant.

    Regarding Woo’s Hollywood output, HARD TARGET is a small bit of gonzo genius.  There’s some amazing stunt work and cinematography on display, and a decent performance from Van Damme (that’s *really* saying something).  Keep in mind the man was new to Hollywood and working in the English language for the first time.  I too would love to see the full director’s cut released so I can replace my uber-grainy boot.

    I’ve been pretty cool toward the rest of his Hollywood output, and stopped watching after MI 2.  I’m looking forward to RED CLIFF - thanks for the write-up!

  14. indiemaker0583 07/17/2008 @ 6:35am

    Enough with the “whitey” comments. Seriously, if you’re offendend by that, you are on the wrong site. It was a simple joke.

    Ok, so I’ll really bring out the hatred in the fan boys with this.... I think John Woo has always been a pretty terrible director. He’s one of the single most overrated “auteurs” in the history of cinema. outside of the realm of action, every single aspect of every single one of his films has always been pretty shitty.

    His sense of pacing and mise en scene has always been sloppy. When the bullets aren’t flying, his camerawork has always been awkward. The characters are always cliched, predictable, and boring.

    Watched Hard Boiled last night for the first time in years. The camerawork and editing of the shoot outs held up (although, I found most of it pretty laughable still) but otherwise, I was insanely bored. I watched with a group of friends who ere all die hard John Woo fans in high school, and we found ourselves fastforwarding through most of the movie to get to the shoot outs.

    John Woo IS NOT an artist, he’s a Ronny Ru, a gun for hire, someone who takes almost any job and is paid to deliver visercal, ballistic action. Bullet in the Head? Heard so many great things… What a laughably bad and stupid movie that was.. It acting and drama in that was on the same level of some bad Chinese soap opera. 

    My opinion has always been, so what? Hell, the action and shoot outs in Naked Killer, Bloody Brothers, and almost any other CAT III film from the late 80’s are pretty much on par with the Killer and Hard Boiled, and for the most part, those have stories that don’t take themselves nearly as seriously making it more fun.

    Apart from his festishistic treatment of guns and balls out action, why are John Woo films loved “SO MUCH?”.

  15. Collin Armstrong 07/17/2008 @ 7:07am

    Any time anyone lumps an entire filmmaker’s catalog into “bad” or “good” it’s tough to take what they say seriously.

    Are you familiar with Jean Pierre Melville?  He directed a series of amazing films focused on organized crime in the ‘50s and ‘60s that, for me, added a lot of perspective to Woo’s work after I saw them.  The beauty of film - all art, for that matter - is that there’s no strict definition about what makes it work.  For me - perhaps like you - I’ve always found Woo’s films lacking in their slower moments.  But, for me, there’s still an attitude, a tone brought to the work that sets it apart, like with Melville’s films.  The stories, characters are things we’ve seen before, but they exist in a world complete unto Woo’s vision - his films are whole, unique experiences completely separate from reality.

    Not all of his films work for me, but the ones that jell - like HARD BOILED, THE KILLER, A BETTER TOMORROW, even HARD TARGET and FACE OFF - have an aura that’s tough to beat.

  16. indiemaker0583 07/17/2008 @ 7:38am

    When a filmmaker’s entire catalog is like John Woo’s, it’s easy to lump everything together, since they’re all really the same.

    I’m very familiar with Melville. While I know Woo’s sited La Samurai as a major inspiration and has been trying to get a Le Cercle Rouge remaker made forever. (Who’s doing it now? It’s another hong kong director right?) I don’t see what perspective it gives.

    Melville was a minimilist. To some degree, I guess I can see that they’re both directors who do similar stories but are polar opposites stylistically. Although, I think Melville’s films have far more personality than Woo’s.

    I’ll admit though, I despised La Samurai on my first viewing and have grown to love it with repeated viewings.

    People love Chow Yun Fat in Woo’s films, but I’m left clueless once again. Fat has a great look, but I never thought he had much of any kind of chemistry or personality in any of Woo’s films. He’s just there to hold guns and grit his teeth or give a smirk.

    Woo knows how to construct and choreograph action and mayhem. But seriously, apart from people citing how cool Fat is with his guns, I’ve never heard anyone go into any kind of detail about what makes Woo’s films so great.

    You say the tone and attitude, an aura that’s tough to beat? What is that exactly? Hard Target is fun for me in the same way something like Delta Force or Death Wish is fun. They’re great movies to watch drunk and laugh at. I don’t even know who directed those, does anyone else here know?

    People talk about old Woo Vs new Woo with such a strong sense of nostalga. How he’s changed. I don’t see much of any change except for the amount of blood. He’s never been writer. He’s never been one to pick films based on story or themes. Ultimately, there’s not much that differienates Woo from someone like Michael Bay.

    Why is John Woo so celebrated? His films are like pornography. Unlike Sam Peckinpah, who’s films actually spark discussions not only about the extreme violence and action on display, but also the characters, their themes on society, masculinity, crime, the story, the symbology etc etc, everything in Woo’s films feel like an afterthought. Cop who goes after criminals, criminal looking for revenge and redemption, criminal who won’t stop.

    Hell, I can’t even recall any particular moments within the action of Woo’s films that stand out.

  17. Collin Armstrong 07/17/2008 @ 8:04am

    Well, Michael Winner directed DEATHWISH for starters, and I find it a gritty, well-made film.  Winner also did the excellent Turn of the Screw riff THE NIGHTCOMERS with Marlon Brando.  DELTA FORCE I have no idea.

    I see the correlation between Woo and Melville in their abilities to evoke something that’s hard to pin down, that tone and attitude mentioned before.  They make movies about tough men in tough worlds, and their films are possessed of an incredible energy - or aura - of what that world feels like.

    I keep getting the sense that there’s a very narrow definition of “art” at play here, which to me isn’t a good thing.  Film as art isn’t just Welles or Goddard or Bela Tarr or things that are so difficult to understand or comprehend there’s no other label for them - there’s beauty in Woo’s action (which you cite, but then say isn’t memorable???) and beauty in the way his films feel.  They’re like Wong Kar Wai movies, with bodycounts.  There’s art in that evocation.

  18. Dudley 07/17/2008 @ 8:18am

    “Enough with the “whitey” comments. Seriously, if you’re offendend by that, you are on the wrong site. It was a simple joke.”

    If the review had started with “Woo returns to making films with chinks” or “another Woo film without blackies” would these comments not have been offensive? Are we suppose to accept racial slurs because the site is focused on genre films? Some readers of this site may be fine with the use of terms like “whitie” and “chink”, but for others, racial slurs can be very powerful words. Its not always so simple as “Don’t like hatred of the Chinese? Don’t come to the U.S.” or “Don’t like white only bathrooms? Move”. Racism is wrong, no matter what the race… none of it should be acceptable because some people don’t mind being called “whitie”, blackie”, “chink” etc. The slur in this particular review adds nothing to the review, implies that such slurs are acceptable at Twitch and reaks of someone saying racism against certain races is ‘ok’… well I don’t trust someone’s racism for one race not to be turned again my race in the future. I understand this is a sensitive subject and many may think this is not the forum for it, but it was the review’s author that introduced it.

  19. . X . 07/17/2008 @ 8:26am

    Woo brings Chang Cheh’s themes to the modern, more or less. Heroic bloodshed fits because that heroism was present in HK Cinema before, under the guise of period films (Last Hurrah for Chivalry is so drenched in Chang Cheh atmosphere it’s crazy), he just took the swords off and replaced them with guns. Same code of values, same slightly corny melodrama, same boiling action.
    Personally? Not my cup of tea (hell, even Chang Cheh is not my cup of tea. I’m more the Chor Yuen type). But he’s got his merits. If you want to call someone’s work pornography, Mr. Jackie “I first shoot the action and then write the script” Chan should still be available. But hey… pornography’s not always bad. Chan’s films are fun. Just… take off the action and nothing remains.

  20. zombeaner 07/17/2008 @ 8:29am

    I’m still hopeful for the film.  Although I hold no hope for those who were actually offended by the review.  Do you really think that if Todd thought it was inappropriate, that he would’ve posted it?  Get a sense of humor.

  21. Todd Brown 07/17/2008 @ 8:51am

    I refer to myself as ‘whitey’, ‘gwai lo’, ‘gaijin’ etc all the time.  Whitey, to me, doesn’t carry the negative connotations any of the other labels listed here do simply because it’s never been used as a perjorative by one culture that is actively supressing another.  Plus, as anybody who has ever met Anita can tell you, the idea that she is in any way, shape or form racist is laughable in the extreme. 

    It’s a silly bit of alliteration that neatly sums up a period in Woo’s career.  Sure, she could have spent a paragraph talking about how he was remolded and reshaped by Hollywood to suit the demands of their dominantly white audience and how that altered - and damaged - his work, but frankly I think this does a much better job - much more quickly - of summing up the basic and pretty indisputable fact that there was a cultural divide with Woo in Hollywood and that through that entire period the western approach to film making absolutely always trumped Woo’s eastern origins.  People don’t get all upset when you talk about gay film or black film or urban film or any other sub grouping of film, so why get all worked up over the fact that someone’s pointed out, quite rightly, that Hollywood’s producers are interested almost exclusively in producing ‘white’ film and that anybody working within that system will be expected to conform to it regardless of their own origins?

    Now, if she’d said she started ignoring Woo when he started cooking with the crackers, then we’d have an issue ...

  22. Dudley 07/17/2008 @ 9:37am

    I have no problem with talking about anything “white”, “whities” is a whole other matter and brings with it a lot of history and yes, hatred. If in a review of a gay film, the genre was referred to as “fag films”, sure that might take on a different relevance if the author was gay or not, but I would still be offended.

    For those that live in an area where race plays little or no role in daily life, I’m happy for them. But there are some of us who are forced to deal with race and racism on a daily basis. We have to watch our children deal with racism. So racist terms are more powerful to us.

    I try to teach my children that judging by race, whether that race has been suppressed or not, is wrong. I do the same for Religion and sexual preference.

    Were I live, the use of racist terms, especially “whity”, is more often than not, based in hatred.

  23. ChevalierAguila 07/17/2008 @ 6:06pm

    You know what reminds me all this “whitey” debate here? That part in Ghost World where Enid brings the old fashioned “stereotype black guy” restaurant ad to her art class, and everyone gets “offended” because they have been taught to have a default reaction to “racist” things, not because they actually care about black people’s issues or something of the like. And i’m not saying some of you didn’t got offended for real, but your blowing this out of proportion. The reviews is quite poorly written anyway, whitey was the less offensive thing about it.

    Also, stop trying to defend Hard Target, it’s embarrasing to read people trying to defend such an awful film.

    As for Woo, yes, he was a gun for hire, but he used to be a good gun for hire, he’s an “all action/no brains” director, but he also used to be good at that. What we, the fans of his HK flicks lamment, is how he stopped being a good action director and just became like a sub-par copy of his former glory days.

  24. ChevalierAguila 07/17/2008 @ 6:07pm

    Ahem, i meant *you’re blowing* not your.

  25. Collin Armstrong 07/17/2008 @ 6:28pm

    I’ll defend HARD TARGET all night.  Love it in all it’s motorcycle surfing glory.

  26. The Visitor 07/17/2008 @ 6:34pm

    John Woo “all action/no brains”?

    all action/no brain is Zack Snyder’s 300. definitely not John Woo.

  27. joshtownsend 07/17/2008 @ 8:25pm

    “1: At no time did I get the idea this was meant as a serious racial slur. It is a reference to the opinions of some VERY angry Chinese people who saw their favorite director move to the US to pursue a career that wasn’t catering to them, his oldest fans.

    2: Being white, I actually laughed when I read that. “Whitey” has been the cause of a great many problems throughout history, compared to which this one is so minor that it hardly feels worth mentioning.”

    1.So racial slurs are OK in reviews as long as they aren’t serious and it’s OK because People of another race are “VERY mad” at John Woo. Like white people forced him to direct 5 shitty movies in a row, right.

    2.By whitie I take it you mean American or maybe just Hollywood. You know that black, asians and hispanics work in Hollywood right? What about Germans, Italians and Russians are they whities also? America’s Only been around for a few hundred years and

    I didn’t find the review racist at all but I found that defense very bigoted and borderline racist. By saying ignorant things like that you make continue making the white race sound racist to the point of self-hatred.

    I’m also saddened to hear that John Woo is failing no matter what race he makes movies with.

  28. zombeaner 07/17/2008 @ 9:28pm

    I’m fairly sensitive about real racism when I see it.  I piss some people off, actually, when I point out the sort of low key institutionalized racism that is often overlooked.  However, none of that is the case here.  It was a HUMOROUS off-handed comment.  I really wish we could just lock these comments or start over because this is getting ridiculous.

  29. Ard Vijn 07/18/2008 @ 1:56am

    To Joshtownsend,

    For your comments to make sense you have to make a lot of assumptions first, and I’m glad you listed them because otherwise I’d have been utterly baffled. I’ll get to them in a moment.
    But first you’ll get my opinion about racism in general.

    For starters, I have no illusions about me being racist or sexist. I am. I think everyone is to some extent. If you’re alone in a parking garage at night, unlocking your car door, you’ll have different thoughts when you’re suddenly approached by:

    1:/ a white man
    2:/ a black man
    3:/ a white woman
    4:/ a black woman

    First thing going through your mind might be the same ("Huh? Someone’s here?"), but after that it’ll be different.

    This is in everyone of us, put there by friends, family, and yes, media. I totally agree people should be careful about it, and the only way to deal with it is being aware of it all the time.

    I’ll go as far as saying that I absolutely do not trust it when people say they aren’t racist or sexist. Those are probably the worst offenders of that unconscious, underhanded, institutionalized discrimination that was mentioned a few posts ago.


    Back to your comments:

    1a/. NO, a racist comment is NOT OK when it’s just funny (a lot of stand-up comedians would disagree but shame on them), but a racist comment CAN BE OK when it gets the point across quicker. Ignoring racism is never going to make it disappear, but using it to steer the reader to your point can add an extra layer. In this case I thought it was properly used.

    1b/. NO, it’s NOT OK because “people of another race are mad at John Woo” but it IS OK to describe the general emotions going through the Chinese fanbase at the time. And YES, in my opinion this was a very general emotion going through that Chinese fanbase at that time.

    2/. “By whitie I take it you mean American or maybe just Hollywood.” NO, by whitie (in my comment, not the review) I mean the entire Caucasian race. Take that as you will.

    To Zombeaner:

    I agree it’s more fun talking about the movies, but on the other hand racism (implied or otherwise) is an important issue and I applaud any civil discussion on the subject.

    Therefore I am going to open a topic in the “General Discussion” part of the Twitch forum, and copy this entire discussion into it.


    People who want to discuss “Red Cliff” can do so in the comments here, people who want to discuss Anita’s whities remark, the comments on that, or racism in general please take it to the forum.

    I’ll be meeting you all there in a few minutes…

Post Your Comments

You must be a registered member to post comments.

If you have a Twitch account, click here to sign in.

If you don't have a Twitch account, click here to register. Don't worry, it's free!

Launch The Twitch Video Player

Stuff We Like

Shop at our affiliated sites and support Twitch while feeding your pop-culture addiction.

Our Latest Film & DVD Reviews

More Film & DVD Reviews...

Our Latest Interviews

More Interviews...

Recent Contests & Featured Content

Recent Comments