« Reihan: Healthcare and Family Values | Main | Reihan: To Exist or Not to Exist? »

Reihan: Defending Wes Anderson

10 Oct 2007 10:04 pm

As a part-time ethnic militant, let me just say that the anti-Anderson animus is nutso. Take Thea's remarks:

Like Pagoda, the cute little Indian man in the Royal Tenenbaums (who also appears in Bottle Rocket and Rushmore) who exists solely to do Royal’s bidding, and has an adorable lack of morality. Or the slew of characters of colour - the Brazilian David Bowie (played by Seu Jorge who actually has quite an illustrious film and recording career); Vikram Ray, whose character’s main feature is that he was “born on the Ganges”; the Filipino pirates - in The Life Aquatic.

Pagoda is my heroo: tough and loyal, yet quite willing to stab Royal in the belly when appropriate. He's nobody's fool. If you miss that about him, I have to wonder how closely you're paying attention. And as for The Darjeeling Limited, a movie I saw with my mom, a Muslim woman with a lot of "ethnic pride" who hates V.S. Naipaul for his unflattering depictions of India and Islam (unfairly, in my view), it portrays a lot of its Indian characters -- particularly the railway porters, one of whom is a turbaned Sikh who speaks flawless American English (strange that the ethno-police haven't picked up on that one) -- as cosmopolitan, intelligent, and more than a little disdainful of the goofball foreigners.

These characters are funny not because of their personalities or life situations - unlike Anderson’s white characters - but solely because they’re brown. It’s like Anderson is saying, “The pirates are Filipino! How hilarious is that??” Needless to say, I don’t get the joke.

Again, I have to ask: are we watching the same movies? Because I grew up in a "majority-minority" community and attended a high school that was about 50 percent Asian, I guess I don't have the same chip on my shoulder: white people strike me as amusing and a little exotic, which is not to say I don't think well of them as a group. Some of my best friends are white people. If anything, I actually think Wes Anderson movies are highly ethnic movies about highly distinctive white subcultures: in The Royal Tenenbaums, he "gets" the subculture of cerebral slightly Judeo-Hibernians. Once we give up on the idea that white people are the center of the universe, which we should, it makes sense to have a Tyler Perry of the white man. That's Wes Anderson.

I mean, do you see me writing essays about Tyler Perry's depictions of Banglo-Americans? Or R. Kelly's unflattering portrayal of a plump white Southern wife who two-times her husband with a midget (the midget who was, in a particularly memorable episode, revealed to be, "the baaaaaaby's daaaaaa-ddyyyyyyy")? I mean, no. Because it's absurd. Because these movies have a deeper meaning, and a certain degree of focus and specificity helps these movies realize their ambitions.

How about Wes Anderson's view of women? People: Wes Anderson's view of all women is strange. They are inscrutable by nature, they are highly vexatious, and they invariably lead their male admirers to do insanely stupid and self-destructive things.

This is what really breaks my heart: Wes’ track record with women of colour. Anderson just loves pairing women of colour up with dorky white dudes, shortly after dorky white dudes have been dumped or rejected by white ladies. Even though Rushmore’s Margaret Yang is the fullest of all of Wes’ colour characters, she is still paired up with the loveable/hateable Max after Ms Cross turns him down. It’s the same story with Inez, the lovely Latin American hotel cleaner in Bottle Rocket.

Whoa, this is reading into things in a spectacularly strange way. I'm afraid the sample size is a little small, romances do happen on post-heartbreak foreign adventures (one would hope so), not all of us travel on the basis of an elaborate color-coded map of the world, e.g., I was just dumped by a black woman, so I can only travel in nations that are populated primarily by people of African origin, Margaret Yang was not so much "Asian" as a human being who was brainy and misguided enough to date a pint-sized megalomaniac, etc. I mean, Margaret Yang is a perfect example: like it or not, I think her Asianness really was incidental to her character, and if anything it was a rare Anderson concession to realism: American high schools, even in otherworldly quasi-WASPtopia Texas, are multiracial. Sorry guys: this is of course highly inconvenient in the framework of racial correctness which apparently demands, again, that all rebound relationships must be between partners of the same ethnoracial group.

The interracial relationships in Anderson’s films are not radical. They simply reinforce racism’s most current and insidious form - they take cultural appropriation to the ultimate level by appropriating actual women of colour, a la Gwen Stefani.

*Cough*, "stick to your own tribe, Stefani"! The author doesn't see the irony in this: not only did Stefani "appropriate actual women of colour" (whatever that means: sounds insidious), but she also had long-term relationships with men of color, something that would have exercised the boundary-policers of another generation. She's also a native of Southern California, where Asian kids "appropriate" black and white and Latin styles and sensibilities all the time and are fortunately not aggressively prosecuted for racial copyright violations.

I realize that The Darjeeling Limited isn't getting the best notices, but you know what? It's a damn good movie about being in a twilight age. It takes place in a beautiful place, and it is affecting without being maudlin. Know why the Indian characters aren't at the heart of the movie? Because it's about three American brothers, and how "deeply" are Indian dudes and dudettes, who have jobs to do and lives to attend to, going to engage with them? I mean, if the brothers befriended some fascinatingly unconventional Indian fellow who defied all of our notions of what it means to be brown (this Indian guy hates chapatis and loves burritos!) over the course of three days, I'd find that implausible and frankly idiotic. To be sure, South Asia is, in my limited experience, a pretty verbal place, and plenty of people will talk your ear off. But oh no, that's another stereotype!

Thinking like this is a trap.

Jonah Weiner (Third World avenger!) has a related take in Slate. In truth, this is a really good commission: it is an unfamiliar interpretation of a touchstone for my generation. That doesn't mean it's right.

A few quick things: Kumar Pallana (Mr Pagoda, Mr Littlejeans, etc.) isn't just an "actor" Anderson hired. He's a friend of the Wilson brothers and Anderson from his days as proprietor of the Cosmic Cafe, which was a center of a lot of local artistic "happenings." There are Asian characters in Anderson's movies at least in part because ... there are Asian people in the world. Henry Sherman, the black financial advisor in The Royal Tenenbaums who married the Tenenbaum matriach at the close of the movie, represents ... um, legions of black financial advisors, some of whom are presumably kind of shy and awkward and into the color blue.

As for Rita, the railway steward who makes out with one of the Whitman brothers, um, would you rather she have fended off his amorous advances with an, "Oh no no no no no, sir! It would offend one of my many-headed gods! We are not so liberated like your Western hussies, sahib! Oh yes, bheri bheri good." before doing a little head-waggle, memorably described by Seth Stevenson:

To perform the head waggle, keep your shoulders perfectly still, hold your face completely expressionless, and tilt your head side-to-side, metronome style. Make it smooth—like you're a bobble-head doll. It's not easy. Believe me, I've been practicing.

I leave you on that note.

P.S.- Everyone, please read my friend Christian Lorentzen's essay on Wes Anderson and why hipsters should be shot (gently). I hadn't read it until a friend very kindly sent it my way.

But come on, Anderson and hipsters are too self-conscious, too postmodern, to be racist. Hipsters, though, they may be mostly white (and rich) welcome minorities to their ranks. In fact they get worried if there aren’t enough colors on the social palette; you could hear something genuinely troubling when the Moldy Peaches used to sing, “I’m running out of ethnic friends.” This all seems resonant with a theory I have heard spouted (though never read) by and about young people today—that growing up in “diverse communities” with friends of every color and creed, they are “postracial.” It follows that they make racist jokes without malice, as a way of rebelling against the tyranny of political correctness. Perhaps this is true, and maybe it’s not even such a bad thing: racism isn’t racism anymore it’s just breaking of taboo. We can poke a little fun at Filipinos and Sikhs and Arabs and Germans and people from Kentucky, and then all listen together to the ebony-skinned Brazilian man on the deck of the Belafonte singing “Ziggy Stardust” in Portuguese.

There's a lot of truth to this, though I don't quite share Lorentzen's disdain.

Share This

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://rossdouthat.theatlantic.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/16939

Comments (27)

"American high schools, even in otherworldly quasi-WASPtopia Texas, are multiracial."

Well, Texas might be very conservative and Republican and full of Protestants, but it is hardly WASPtopia. Especially not Houston, where Rushmore is set. I thought Margaret was an appropriate character because she is meant, in a way, to represent a Houston public school kid by virtue of her being non-white. (I realize, of course, that is sort of what you were saying.) The funny thing is that the private school where Max went before losing his scholarship is in fact St. John's Episcopal, one of the most exclusive (and whitest) private high schools in the city, located right in the middle of the most expensive neighborhood in the city--and it really is WASPtopia. The rest of Houston, not so much.

Anyway, good post. I'm not the biggest Wes Anderson fan in the world, but the current backlash against the guy seems all out of proportion with whatever aesthetic crimes he may have committed.

Fictional WASPtopia -- Rushmore is a highly stylized portrait of a world that doesn't exist. Sorry for not making that clearer!

Nicely said. I tried to engage Thea on her blog but she shut the comment thread down as soon as people who weren't fawning over how clever she was started posting. God knows there's racism everywhere-apparently the new favorite method of expressing one's nasty little inner selves is to display nooses. The world doesn't need hypersensitive liberals imagining racism where there isn't any-that's simply not helpful. Thank you for your well-reasoned and written essay.
-WD

re: St. John's -- drop the "Episcopal." It has no church affiliation. from what I know I second the WASPtopia designation though. god knows if I had grown up in Houston I wouldn't have gone there.

"It’s the same story with Inez, the lovely Latin American hotel cleaner in Bottle Rocket."

This isn't just merely a bizarre interpretation, it's simply incorrect. Anthony 1.) is never portrayed as a dorky white guy (he's not Dignan); and 2.) doesn't enter into a relationship with Inez after being dumped.

In short, this guy needs to pull his head out of his ass!

I'm a liberal Indian-American who often labels certain books and movies bigoted, such as "The Passion of the Christ" and "300." I couldn't finish reading "Around the World in 80 Days" because it pissed me off so much with its racism. With that said, I can't help but love Wes Anderson movies (but have not yet seen "The Darjeeling Limited"). Maybe this come from having gone to a New England prep school and having an admittedly hipster-style taste in music, but I think Lorentzen gets a lot of it right. Watching "The Royal Tenenbaums" or "Rushmore," I never thought to think of Anderson as racist. I didn't really see Margaret's Asian racial identity as a real issue for her character in part because it isn't that strange for me for a white guy and an Asian girl to be into each other. When you grow up among educated, rather cosmopolitan urbanites of a diverse racial background, you stop to notice this stuff in movies because it reflects how your life actually is. I have the same reaction to when conservatives complain that there are too many minorities in a movie and that makes it too PC: "hey, that's my life you're talking about!" What is actually bizarre, unlike Anderson, is something like "Gossip Girl," which Matthew Yglesias points out portrays Manhattan prep schools as much whiter than they are.

What a shame Thea can't just enjoy Anderson's wonderful films! If anything, Anderson idealizes "women of color" and interracial relationships of all kinds. Inez, for example, is portrayed as kind, giving, and, well, just plain normal and lovable--a contrast to Anderson's typically neurotic and downright strange white women. I don't think Anderson would have validated interracial relationships, as he did by portraying the deep and genuine love between Anthony (Luke Wilson) and Inez, if he were really racist.

The battle over Wes Anderson feels like a symptom of a greater cultural war going on right now against all things "hipster-centric." Hirschorn's hack article in the August Atlantic on "quirk," Time Out New York's cover story on "The Death of the Hipster," and n+1's creepy conservatism are together mounting a serious attack. To that end, it seems important to make a formal response; here I write a brief defense of Wes for my online magazine, getting into the value of Wes as an aesthetician. Best to avoid psycho-analysis, but there does seem to be a bit of those who 'get it,' and those who don't, and the older generations & the uber-middle class just don't seem to get it.

I think Reality Man really nailed this. There's something to be said for pushing back against negative ethnic stereotypes in popular culture, but I can't for the life of me understand the mindset that Thea brings to her critique of Wes Anderson. Has she not noticed that ALL the characters in Anderson's movies tend to be presented in an unflattering light? Are we really supposed to be upset that the gang of pirates on the Pacific Ocean in The Life Aquatic are Filipinos? Or that Anderson introduced thousands of people to the music of Seu Jorge, but didn't give his character a love interest or a heroic death scene?

I'm not a huge Anderson fan, but most of his films are set in a multicultural world with deeply flawed characters and exotic, slightly surreal elements of the fantastic. He could have set them in a lily-white world and achieved a similar effect... but would this really be an improvement? Would The Darjeeling Limited have been as rich and rewarding if it had been set in a rail tour of Western Europe?

I don't see what the point is in living in a multicultural society if we're expected to ignore the differences between cultures or walk on eggshells when trying to incorporate a representation of these differences into art.

I've always felt like Anderson's films highlight the people of color by showing that they have it all figured out. They know where they stand, they know how to behave, they know how to be happy. Whereas all the white folks are lost, lonely, and really, really screwed up. If anything it seems like Anderson's films are insulting white people by showing them how they think too much, emote too much, and let their angst overtake them. I've always envied Pagoda, Margaret Yang, and Pele dos Santos because they seem to be able to stand in the background and live their lives while the white people in the forefront can't seem to get past their own hang-ups.

Some of these defenses make me wonder how much some commenters have really thought about anti-oppression analysis. Idealizing or romanticizing people of colour is not beneficial to anyone-- that's a fairly pervasive kind of racism. It's equivalent to that idea some "sensitive" guys have about how women are beautiful, amazing, gentle, intuitive, mysterious creatures-- it makes all of us who don't pee flowers "unwomanly" failures. Perpetuating limiting ideas of people of colour as noble, generous, wise and exotic is a kind of racism.

BUT-- I don't think Wes Anderson is doing that! I think you have to be careful about underestimating the self-awareness of hipsters. OUR IRONY KNOWS NO BOUNDS. I haven't seen DL yet, but in his other movies I never get the impression that Anderson doesn't know exactly what he's doing. I think he's commenting on the perspectives of his white guy protagonists-- all the racist, colonial stuff happens in relation to the white protagonists. They think all latino people are from Mexico, they hire the United Colors of Benetton to staff their boat, they fetishize Native Americans, they put on racist plays, they marry island chiefs to deal with their daddy issues, they hire a sexy "research assistant" who doesn't speak English, and Wes Anderson shows how ridiculous they're being. It's meta-racism. It's *about* racism.

I am actually a fan of white people dealing with racism by unpacking the oppressive crap that white people do, rather than presuming to tell the stories of people of colour. Bonus if it comes in pretty colours with a soundtrack by The Kinks.

I am actually a fan of white people dealing with racism by unpacking the oppressive crap
that white people do, rather than presuming to tell the stories of people of colour. Bonus
if it comes in pretty colours with a soundtrack by The Kinks.

Ha, when I first read this, I thought you were being sarcastic.
(that last line sounded like that onion article)

Anderson movies aren't racist as much as they
are about lazy exoticism. They can't rise to
the level of offensive racism because they
are so deliberately inconsequential.
The reason race appears to be trivialized is
because the films are themselves trivial,
nothing much more than "pretty colours and a
Kinks soundtrack." BTW Shanghai Knights was AWESOME.

hmmm...


Rita, the railway steward who makes out with one of the Whitman brothers, um, would you rather she have fended off his amorous advances with an, "Oh no no no no no, sir! It would offend one of my many-headed gods! We are not so liberated like your Western hussies, sahib! Oh yes, bheri bheri good." before doing a little head-waggle, memorably described by Seth Stevenson:

The point here is not whether Rita is a "hussie" or not, its the privilege of "whiteness" Jason Schwartzman's character has. Unfortunately, none of Anderson's minority characters are capable of such actions simply because Anderson never saw it happen. Moreover, if you look at any of the minorities in Anderson's films, they are all asexual. Life Aquatic, the only one who is allowed to, or even considers making a move on Cate Blanchett's character is William Defoe.

In the Royal Tenebaums, Danny Glover's character did not have a sex drive or even a defined masculinity. You say he was ascribe a status of prestige or professionalism. But for the majority of the film, he is tyrannized by the unemployed white male, Royal.

I can continue on for quite sometime, i.e. using "the model minority" myth as a justification for Anderson's characters, but my point is this, if you really are, "Ethnic Militant" I don't know what institution you attended or from where you get your information, but it was bad pedagogy.

If you don't know who Lewis Gordon is, or even Judith Butler, then I suggest start reading, until then don't open your mouth. You have absolutely no theoretical background in Film or Ethnic studies to comment on such things. If you did, the first statement you would make, would be one I read in Fanon-EVERYONE is subconsciously racist. There is no way of dealing with it or addressing it, unless it is acknowledged, this might prevent it from happening in the future.

You probably loved Lord of the Rings, but I know you have not seen the Dutchman. You would probably argue, Peter Jackson is not racist, just like you argue Wes Anderson is not.

Finally, I can't believe you state, "movies have a deeper meaning, and a certain degree of focus and specificity helps these movies realize their ambitions."

Prior to that you wrote V.S. Naipaul depicts India "(unfairly, in my view)." I can't believe you are going to criticize him for being disenchanted with India. The argument was India's true identity was lost because of the imperial powers who invaded.

So this is exactly how ludicrous the charge of racism has become. Wes Anderson is When I was little, I lived in the south in America in the late 60's and 70's, not the birthplace of racism, but definitely a political furnace where racism could be forged to a razor steel edge. My father was a racist. He wasn't a member of the Klan, but he certainly felt no guilt about using the "N" word and he never appreciated the irony of a show like All in the Family. One thing he certainly could not abide was White people and other ethnicities, especially black, dating or God forbid, marrying and procreating. Good Decent White Folk just did not intermarry with other races.

Now here is Mr. Anderson, showing modern characters of different races in all forms of less than perfect relationships (maybe because, oh I don't know, flawed characters generate conflict and drive plot?) and so of course, he is a racist.
But wouldn't he also be a racist is he made a movie about only white guys seeing white women in white neighborhoods with all of their white friends? or If they went to India and only interacted with White people on an equal level and and were dismissive and rude to all the natives. And what if Mr. Anderson decided to make a film of only Indian or Black people, then he would be certainly guilty of suffering from white guilt, a lesser crime to be sure, but punishible nonetheless.

So instead of accusing him of racism, would someone please just describe to me what a Non-racist Wes Anderson film would look like? Because if his movie had played on my television in 1975, my dad would have called him all sorts of horrible names and turned off the TV and sent me to my room.

If he is the new racism, then great, times have changed. I welcome this silly misguided racism. It is so much preferable to the openly hostile form I grew up with. The kind that forced me to leave the Cub Scouts when they finally admitted the first black scout. The kind that cut a clean line through the real estate of my town. The kind that left me with almost no ability to talk directly to a black person until I was almost 20 years old. I am so happy times have changed.

My father has mellowed out too. I take great pride in pointing this out to my Japanese wife. Or am I just a racist for marrying her.

and P.S. Thea, you really misinterpreted Pagoda. Go back and read the Bhagavad-Gita again. You were a Liberal Arts Major, were you not?

"In the Royal Tenebaums, Danny Glover's character did not have a sex drive or even a defined masculinity. You say he was ascribe a status of prestige or professionalism. But for the majority of the film, he is tyrannized by the unemployed white male, Royal."

I didn't see it like that at all...Sure Royal was an annoyance throughout, but that's all he was. After all, his actions didn't actually change any of Henry Sherman's plans did they? Royal's actions reflect more on himself as he comes across as a small petty man. Sherman grows in our regards (OK, at least mine) as the film goes along. Initially sweet, but slightly wimpy, he is still able to defend himself and his new residence as well as any other new husband of a divorced woman.

"If you don't know who Lewis Gordon is, or even Judith Butler, then I suggest start reading, until then don't open your mouth. You have absolutely no theoretical background in Film or Ethnic studies to comment on such things."

I'm all for you bringing your deeper background to the conversation, but do you really need to counter the claims by using argument from authority? The validity of Reihan's claims should be related to his logic. By all means explain why a statement is wrong or why you disagree, but are we not to attempt to discuss these things without knowing the proper authors or theories?

"Prior to that you wrote V.S. Naipaul depicts India "(unfairly, in my view)." I can't believe you are going to criticize him for being disenchanted with India."

The fuller context of Reihan's parenthetical comment shows that the term 'unfairly' is used to describe his mother hate of V.S. Naipaul, not Naipaul's writing itself.

I find it hard to believe that Danny Glover, in this day and age, would play a role that was racist.

Danny Glover has made a career of playing
reserved second banana supporting characters
to wild and wacky white guys.

In SAW, he actually plays a lone black cop
working on a case, maybe he'll be the
hero this time... WHOOPS, he's dead! Say hello to Scatman Crothers from The Shining as you ascend to heaven.

Racist? Maybe not, but not exactly
blazing a trail for breaking black stereotypes
in film either.

Really, Wes Anderson movies are intellectually on par with
Adam Sandler movies; there's no point in scrutinizing
the race-politics of either. (Actually I take this back, Billy Madison was a cinematic masterpiece! But is Billy's "Black Mama" housekeeper a wry satire of early hollywood stereotypes, or a subtle reinforcement under the protective shield of irony? DISCUSS)

If that was indeed the context, I apologize to Reihan.

I am not here to edify. Those scholars were mentioned because I am attempting to argue race within artistic forms is not overt, but it is manifested within surreptitiously, and can only be recognized with the aid of discourse.

I am totally for a priori arguments, however, when concerning racism is not appropriate.

There is no doubt Wes Anderson has a talent, that is obvious, but the disposition of minorities is quite pernicious.

Hi Reihan - wow, it's pretty thrilling to make it onto the Atlantic Monthly blog! Though I suppose it would've been nice to be featured under "Smartest Person on the Internet" rather than "Misguided Politically Correct Trap Thinker." But you know, we take what we get.

I guess I can't help but feel a little misrepresented - though your criticism of my criticism of Anderson says that I'm misrepresenting Anderson - my post was not about Darjeeling Limited. It was about my experience with Anderson's body of work as a whole, and my decision to stop watching his movies because they've started to hurt my feelings. As such I have not actually seen Darjeeling Limited, made that very clear in my post, and was not specifically critiquing DL.

I enjoyed your post on the Olympics, but am confused by your identity as an ethnic militant (hardy har har). One thing that gave me pause about this post was your claim that because you and your momma, proud ethnic Muslim militants, didn't find DL or Anderson's movies in general offensive, therefore they aren't offensive.

The idea that just because a person of colour is person of colour, they're going to be anti-racist or be able to speak to what is racist and what isn't, is racist. As an ethnic militant, I'm sure you've had experiences where you've called someone on their racism, only to have them respond, "Well, my Chinese friend doesn't care when I say that so why should you?" That's a totally absurd argument. The fact that individual people of colour don't think something is racist is not definitive proof that it isn't.

In the same vein, I also feel that your personal biography (dating black ladies, growing up with white people, your personal opinions of white people) is not relevant at all to your analysis. Obviously it informs it, but it doesn't need to be mentioned. Mentioning it makes it seem like it's proof of your authenticity as an authority on what is and what isn't racist.

I didn't mention this fact about myself because it's not necessary information for people reading my thoughts on Anderson, but here's a shocker: I'm mixed race. I don't think people should stick to their tribes - despite the decades of cultural confusion and angst, I'm quite glad that my parents didn't stick to their tribes. Here's what I said in Feministing's comment forum: I don't believe that all interracial/multiracial relationships are a form of cultural appropriation. I'm the product of an interracial relationship - which is perhaps why representations of interracial sex/love distress me - more often than not those r'ships are trivialised and exoticised. My issue is more with representation of interraciality, especially by white non-anti-racist artists, than with the r'ships themselves.

Re Gwen Stefani: here I was referring to (and come on, any self-respecting ethnic militant will know about this...) Stefani's entourage of four Japanese girls who act as live accessories, and aren't allowed to speak English (or do anything remotely "American"): http://gwenihana.blogspot.com. That's what I meant by "appropriating women of colour."

Re: hipsters and post-racism - adding on to what your friend said, what drives me up the wall about racism and hipsterism is how hipsters (generalisation ahead) seem to think that because they have education, or can talk about complex semantics theories, or because they make art or culture that is "radical", they're not racist. Coming from a middle class education background or a family that votes liberal is not proof that you're not racist. There's no such thing as post-racism, for crying out loud!

One last whine: this post was originally posted on my home website, http://www.shamelessmag.com. Winston Delgado has suggested in several places on the internet that the Shameless blog shut down comments in response to a comment he made.
1) We did not shut down comments in response to a comment he made. It's a little presumptuous of him to say so - and somewhat surprising because a quick browse of the thread will show comments far more hostile and offensive than his. We shut down comments because we were having to delete more and more entries on the basis of the use of racial slurs. The conversation was getting out of control and it just so happened that we decided to close it shortly after he made a comment.
2) Shameless Magazine prides itself on presenting a diverse viewpoint. We also had by far the most diverse discussion (read: we had the most people who disagreed with me and said I was stupid - in fact, I think the people who "fawned over me and said I was clever" were in the minority) compared to any of the other websites that posted my Anderson analysis.

Come on now, you can call me trivial, uptight and politically correct (I won't weep...too much), but don't go saying mean things about Shameless Magazine. That, I will just not stand for.

People are trying to kill this film with their negative, neurotic arm-chair over-analysis. It's funny, as it seems fitting.

Miss Thea lost me at "Feministing." Next time save your credibility and omit that.

The comment that hipsters can't be racist -s a little silly. Anyone can be racist, even if it's naive racism or well-meaning racism it's still - rracism. As a black guy who's been around a good bit of hipsters I've found that none of them would ever consider themselves racist, unless it was some comment to make them seem less racist. This line of thinking means I'm not racist because I'm cooler than those stupid republican hicks. I like minorities just because they don't. It's like liking a band or a filmmaker (Anderson) just because they're not well known, or popular with the mainstream. I'm not saying that all hipsters are racist, but being a hipster certainly doesn't excuse you from elitism, quite the opposite actually(stereotypically speaking).

In order to be racist, you have to care.
Hipsters don't care.
Therefore Hipsters can't be racist.
They are just douchebags.

When hipsters do or say racist things,
they literally don't mean it, because
they don't mean anything. They are incapable
of meaning.

When a white supremacist burns a cross
he is stating a specific racist intent and ideology.
When a hipster burns a cross,
he is at burning man, being a hipster douchebag.
One is threatening and hateful, the other is simple trivial douchebaggery. Which is Wes Anderson?

You barely started this before you wrote "....I have to wonder how closely you're paying attention," which takes the maturity levels down a decade or two and makes this nothing but one of ten billion personal attacks written on the Internet. Is it just on the Internet that people find it easiest to insult the person who doesn't agree with him? It seems so.

buy cheap generic viagra

Wes anderson achieves more in race talks in film with his archetype character who may not even speak in the film than do spike lee or tarantino. Why is this imp? Bc these archetypes are the creation of colonialism not anderson. His use of them merely reminds white people ab their sordid past. The guilty ones rush 2 defend their position by labeling anderson. As 4 being an ethnic militant- wat does that mean wen you shout it out of the usa!

If this was a dinner party I would want to slit my wrists.

Post a comment

By using this service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Atlantic does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.


Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.