What also has to be considered were laws forbidding interracial marriage, otherwise known as miscegenation laws, that prevented on screen interracial romances from ever coming into fruition (Chan, 60). Hayakawa’s roles were frequently described as “villainous,” but what was typically meant was that he was a threat to violate the miscegenation laws that were heavily enforced by certain states. As a result of these miscegenation laws, the success and “masculinity” of the characters Hayakawa portrayed on-film were capped, as his many roles as the “exotic lover” primarily revolved around him in love affairs with Caucasian women (Miyao, 2). At the time, what was considered the most “masculine” course of action for an Asian character in Hollywood was essentially sacrificing himself for the betterment of a white person. Of course, this metaphorically represented the adherement of the racial hierarchy, where the desires of white Americans were placed above every other ethnic group. More specifically, Hayakawa’s onscreen roles propagated the offscreen role of Asians as a “model minority,” subservient to white Americans.
For instance, referring back to An Arabian Knight (1920), Hayakawa’s character Ahmed becomes a “hero” for saving a white couple (192). In The Call of the East (1917), Hayakawa's character, Takada, falls in love with a white woman, Sheila, who initially reciprocates his love until she realizes that she should not, because of the aforementioned miscegenation laws (Miyao, 122). Sheila’s brother, Alan, however, has been “fooling around” with Takada’s sister. Takada initially plots revenge against Alan, but ultimately decides against it, dropping his “villainous” ideas of revenge for once again, the betterment of the two main white characters (Miyao, 122).
Essentially, despite not “getting the girl,” or whatever the typical white protagonist would achieve in Hollywood films, Hayakawa’s characters expressed “masculinity,” in a different form. Of course, that frame was rigged, for he was considered to be “masculine” in the frame established by whites, for the betterment of whites. While the motivations of his casting in films, as well as the results of his on-screen roles were obviously used to further Hollywood’s propaganda, he uplifted the image of Asians living in the United States by unprecedentedly shattered the stereotype of the asexual, emasculated, impoverished, laboring Asian immigrant. Once a star amongst the sky with Douglas Fairbanks and Charlie Chaplin, his name is now largely unknown or in better terms, erased.
Although Hayakawa’s roles primarily sought to encourage the assimilation of Asians into American culture, his performance in many leading roles as a capable, masculine Asian man were monumental improvements of the images for Asian Americans men in America. However, that's not to say he was perfect. In essence, he was the personification of the “heightening of [his] characters racial and cultural status beyond that of other nonwhites to the middle-ground position, but not necessarily to equal that of white American characters” (15). He changed the perception of Asians from unskilled laborers, coolies - ruthless savages to essentially a watered-down version of what we would call today as “model minority,” a “better” stereotype. While that is in the bigger picture still immensely flawed as it merely shifted the stereotype for reinforcement of the rigid white power structure in Hollywood, Hayakawa’s presence was ultimately a net-positive for Asians in the United States. Belive me brothers, no stereotypes against Asian men are for your own good. Survival was what Asians living in the United States wanted at the time, and with Hayakawa's ascent, they live to fight another day. The battle still rages on, but Hayakwaka's tale serves as a reminder to the Asian American community, looking to break down their self-limiting mentalities that their supposed “inferiority” is nothing but a lie wrapped by white fragility.
No comments:
Post a Comment