Offensive


I will grant you that this is a slick and fast-paced story with outstanding casting. Connery and Snipes have great screen chemistry, and Keitel is good as always as are others in the supporting cast.

However, it is also the case that in the first seven minutes it manages to collapse every facet of US-Japanese relations into cliche, often of the most xenophobic variety. The Japanese are portrayed as ants competing with the American ethos of individualism; we see their fascination with Americana and especially the mythology of the Old West and the freedom of the open range; the attraction of their men to American women; their quaint negotiating styles; their ascendency in high tech including high tech for industrial espionage; their "inscrutability" in both business and personal settings; and their contemporary economic power.

The image of the anthill as a metaphor of the frenetically productive Japanese would not have been so offensive had it not been followed by the image of it getting trampled underneath the hoof of the American cowboy's horse. It's an arrogant, coarse gesture meant to assure us that the culture of the Open Range will prevail.

The film works as a thriller, and as an indicator of the level of anxiety America experienced when Japan loomed as a more serious economic rival than it does today.

What it is not is any kind of fairminded or intriguing portrait of U.S.-Japanese relations.

reply

Well... don't forget the 80's under Reagan was the height of Japanese-American tensions... there were so many movies....... and though this movie came out a few years after that peak, Mr. Crichton's book is way more anti-Japanese then the movie. A lot can be told about our country as we look at the "villains" of movies over the years.

reply

[deleted]

Offensive maybe, but mostly accurate. I know a lot of people who've had dealings with Japanese corporations, and they really are pretty inscrutable and xenophobic. The younger generations arent nearly as bad though, and their fascination with Americana probably has to do with trying to find a different path than the sort of strange pseudo-feudalism their older bosses still practice.

reply

I would say the film treats both cultures as something of a joke. I have seen many Japanese women, but never one that looked even remotely like Tia Carrere. So, I looked it up, and lo an behold she is cited on her bio page as
"Heritage is "part Chinese, part Spanish, part Filipino".
To cast her as Japanese woman makes abouT as much sense as casting a black woman, and is simply lazy on the film makers part. Also, she speaks with no accent at all, which I have never heard a native speaker of Japanese pull off. If anything, I think this is the offensive part of the film, to group all asians together as a single stereotype.
Tia Carrere has a hard enough time pulling off a Chinese woman's appearance, but to cast her as a Japanese woman shows absolutely no knowledge of Japan or its culture, and presumes the audience will share that ignorance. Henceforth, the film disrespects its content, its characters and its viewer. It is the worst kind of propaganda, that teaches a false truth as if it were the reality.

reply

Tia Carrere is supposed to be half-Japanese, and half black in the movie.

Did you even watch it?

reply


If you thought Rising Sun was racist don't watch Collision Course. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0097081/

reply

You're correct. And, yet, that doesn't ultimately make the movie offensive. The Japanese do -- though things are opening up a bit now, slowly, in fits and starts, mostly among younger Japanese -- value an ethos of sublimated identity and hidebound traditional hierarchical roles, and they are, by and large, highly xenophobic (and, not to put too fine a point on it, racist.) No, it's not fair to paint every Japanese person with the same brush, but just because an observation about a culture is unpleasant, that doesn't necessarily mean it's not accurate.

reply

I agree with the op

reply