|
||
How Beijing Butchered Sean Penn's "Commie, Homo-Loving" Oscar Speech
In recent days, journalists around the globe have reported on the efforts of Asian governments to censor speech and images in support of gay rights from the broadcast of last Sunday's Oscars. According to the AP, the Hong Kong-based, Murdoch-owned STAR network, reaching more than 300 million viewers in 53 countries, muted any mention of "gay" or "lesbian" during its tape-delayed, English-language re-broadcast of the Oscars. Sean Penn and Dustin Lance Black, who both won Oscars for their work on the film Milk, used their time at the podium to voice support for same-sex marriage and equal rights for gays and lesbians.
In mainland China, where the Academy awards was broadcast with Chinese subtitles on state-run China Central Television (CCTV), censors did not mute out material deemed sensitive, but rather, and even more shamefully, omitted or mistranslated all language and images dealing with homosexuality. According to a Monday post on the China-based blog Shanghaiist, the CCTV broadcast cut out two gay kisses shown during the broadcast and completely eliminated Dustin Lance Black's acceptance speech after he won for best original screenplay.
Black, who is openly gay, invoked Harvey Milk in his speech and promised equal rights "very soon" to the nation's gay youth. "If Harvey had not been taken from us 30 years ago," Black said, "I think he'd want me to say to all of the gay and lesbian kids out there tonight who have been told that they are less than by their churches or by the government or by their families that you are beautiful, wonderful creatures of value." While Black's speech was widely considered one of the more moving and memorable moments from this year's Oscars, for viewers in Hong Kong, Singapore, Malaysia, India, Taiwan and Thailand, the speech was heavily censored, while those in mainland China didn't hear a word of it.
For anyone who missed it, here's Dustin Lance Black's speech:
But the award for the most creative method of censorship goes to the CCTV censors for their work during Sean Penn's acceptance speech. Penn, who won for best male lead, began his speech by saying, "you commie, homo-loving sons of guns." The politically active actor then spoke passionately to those who voted to ban gay marriage in California. "For those who saw the signs of hatred as our cars drove in tonight," said Penn, "I think it's a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect on their great shame and their shame in their grandchildren's eyes if they continue that support."
Here's Penn's speech in its entirety:
Instead of simply omitting Penn's acceptance speech, as they did for Dustin Lance Black, China's censors decided to mistranslate Penn's words so that his speech appeared to make no mention of gays. According to the China blog Black and White Cat, CCTV subtitled Penn's line, "You commie, homo-loving sons of guns," with "你们可真够宽容的." The rough translation of these characters is, "You really are so generous." So, to non-English-speaking Chinese viewers reading the subtitles, Penn never uttered the word "commie" or "homo," or Mao forbid, a sentence incorporating both.
Here's a clip of Sean Penn's speech from CCTV-6 so you get an idea of how viewers in China saw the speech:
Shanghaiist also notes that the part of Penn's speech that calls for shame of Prop 8 supporters was mistranslated to "每个人都有平等权利," which, in English, means "everyone has equal rights." Nothing about shame or gay marriage -- hardly a faithful representation of Penn's words.
While we've come to expect this type of censorship from Beijing -- in fact, CCTV censored clips from Brokeback Mountain at the 2006 Oscars -- the widespread omission of gay rights speech throughout Asia demonstrates the extent to which Asian broadcasters are still remarkably homophobic. In a comment to the AP, a rep from STAR said that the company had "a responsibility to take the sensitivities and guidelines of all our markets into consideration."
But perhaps the greater responsibility of networks like STAR and CCTV is to present the Academy Awards truthfully to their viewers and give them an honest view, in this case, through the lens of Hollywood, of the issues -- gay or otherwise -- affecting America and the rest of the world.
CCTV says no to commie homo-loving sons of guns - Shanghaiist ...
Gay Asian Oscar viewers outraged at telecast censorship
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I just saw the movie and I suggest anyone who voted for Prop. 8 to see it! Just see it!
People seem to think that it's about America trying to impose its ideals or it's about China trying to hold on to their culture. It's not. It's just about one guy recognizing that he has the power to reach millions with his words. As an asian lesbian, I am thankful that those weren't words of hate. In a region where lgbtq themselves have the tendency to agree with the majority and think that they are second class citizens, where we are still concerned with being discriminated at work and other public places (forget about fighting for equal benefits or gay marriage. we're not even there yet), messages like Sean Penn's are golden. They educate and empower and maybe inspire us to get organized.
Sure, every country has the right to uphold its culture and tradition. But they also have the duty to evolve especially if the current one they have clearly steps on the basic human rights of some of their citizens.
You'd think commies would like everybody to know they are loved in Hollywood. I'm glad we have the freedom from our government censoring public comments. Now that we've regained the kind of government that doesn't censor scientific documents, we'll really be ahead of the communist thought police.
oh, didn't you know? there are 'no' gay people in China the way there are 'no' gay people in Iran.
That's a laugh. I predicted about 25 years ago that , due to the one child policy, the next generation, i.e., the generation coming of age now would have an immense gay population. Since we know that, in reaction to the one child policy, the vast majority wanted sons, therefore abortion or infanticide of girls became common. Well, it's obvious that would lead to a major inbalance between the sexes in this generation. When there are not enough women to go around, I suppose many, many men (we are talking millions and millions) would opt for the alternatives. I suppose there are similar inbalances (but in the opposite direction) in post-war situations - such as the Soviet Union or Germany after World Wars I and II. With so many men killed in the war, there would be a major excess of women. However, that might just have lead to a paradise for Don Juan's. I suppose the same could apply in China would female Don Juan's.
Actually, China's one child policy should lead to a decrease in male homosexuality. As it turns out, a male's chances of being gay increase by exactly 33% with each older brother he has. This study has been replicated with thousands of men in multiple countries, all with the exact same result. (Interesting, eh?)
However, there is a difference between sexual orientation and situational homosexuality. If you're denied access to women because of your circumstances (i.e. prison,) you tend to make do with what you have. But that doesn't mean you're gay, it just means you have hormones and you're desperate.
Wonder why they bothered? You'd think they'd want their citizens to hear what kind of people the decadent westerners were....
Hmm..."homophobia" seems to be seen as the ultimate sin, such that ethnocentrism is just fine as long as its intention is to spread acceptance of homosexuality. This might come as a shock, but other countries and cultures DO have a right to protect themselves (their own citizenry) from external cultural influences (including those coming from Grand, Glorious America) that they deem to be negative or undesirable. I'm sure most of the readers here consider these Asians' opinions to be hopelessly backward. Fine. But if you have a low opinion of their traditional culture, why can't they have a low opinion of American culture? An argument in the Asians' favor is that their cultures have thrived for hundreds, even thousands of years; America changes its cultural norms and standards every decade or so, so who knows where our social experimentation will lead. In other words, why not just let other cultures be as they are, rather than expecting them all to conform to our standards and become little culturally-colonized client-states of the US?
"This might come as a shock, but other countries and cultures DO have a right to protect themselves (their own citizenry) from external cultural influences (including those coming from Grand, Glorious America) that they deem to be negative or undesirable."
The choice is pretty simple: broadcast the Oscars or don't broadcast the Oscars.
But, don't choose to broadcast the Oscars, then intercept the material, interfere with it, tamper with its content and pervert its meaning. Have it - or don't have it, but don't make Sean Penn appear to say something here clearly did not.
I was with ya in the first sentence but then you stated the opposite of your point.
So, no, we have no right to impose our culture and/or laws on another country BUT god forbid you alter the Oscars. You have to show it as is or not at all. Hey, it's the American way.
Ya lost me in the point you were trying to make.
Abd-ul-Latif, you are right that other cultures have a right to distance themselves from Western or American cultures, but there is a difference between "external cultural influences" and human rights. Homosexuality is a fact of human life, and even if "...their cultures have thrived for hundreds, even thousands of years..." while repressing homosexuals, that doesn't mean it's ethically acceptable. You could extend your train of logic to say that slavery in antebellum America was a part of the country's "traditional culture" and argue "why not just let other cultures be as they are, rather than expecting them all to conform to our standards..." I am not saying that oppression of homosexuals is as dire as slavery, but by your logic, both practices could be justified as simple "cultural differences."
"...little culturally-colonized client-states of the US?"
Puh-leeze! There are plenty of countries out there who have modernized quite thoroughly while maintaining a lively, inventive culture that is unmistakably NOT North American. I'm thinking of Japan, Brazil, Turkey, Viet Nam, even Mexico -- which has a whole lot of influence over our culture here in Phoenix. Perhaps more than the USA has over its culture.
I've lived in India, and it is in no danger of losing its cultural uniqueness any time soon; it will modernize, and extend civil rights to groups who up til recently had very few, and if one wants to blame the USA for that, well, I can't help you. But you might want to blame Gandhi, too.
If a country allows itself to become such a "culturally-colonized client-state", than I would have to say their culture might have been so weak, or more likely, so oppressive, that the majority chose such. Hardly a thriving culture.
We'd better get used to this kind of thing, now that China essentially owns the US in everything but name.
I've been living in Hong Kong for 2 years and am grateful everyday for the internet so that I can watch tv shows and movies the way they were made and not the way the censors think I should see it.
On Star Movies' coverage of the Oscars, they showed Dustin Lance Black walking up to accept his award, then cut to him walking off with it... a stupid move considering his acceptance speech was the highlight of a very long and dull show.
But I guess I shouldn't be suprised. While watching Curb Your Enthusiasm, I noticed they bleeped out the word "bitch" but not the "f", "c" or "n" words. Go figure.
What are you whining about you chose to live there.
In one of the richest cities in the world with virtually NO crime and very brisk economy.
What a bummer, huh?
How am I not surprised that Rupert Murdoch and his "freedom loving" media outlets would not somehow make it into this story?
Rationalizations won't change the fact that homophobia is homophobia and heterosexism is heterosexism. Nor will rationalizations change the fact that both are socially corrosive forces because they are built on a foundation of ignorance and reduce the quality of life of not only gays but everyone who deals with them, including the bigots who expend unnecessary energy being bigoted.
I am Chinese now living in the US, and I don't mind the comment "Commie" by Sean Penn--Communists certainly weren't whom he's really referring to.
I do find CCTV cutting out his comments to be totally within reason--most Chinese would just consider the way he puts these things a bit distasteful. We don't really mind much about how the American fight for the gay rights. As for us, there are much heavier issues that require attention these days.
What I do hope to happen, is for Americans to know the Chinese better. Somehow, first of all, people are made to believe that "the Chinese don't like the Americans much". Seeing how popular American pop culture, American fast food, American cars and pretty much anything American is in China, I really don't think so.
Also, the media reports on the US in China are mostly about what make the head lines here--economy, politics, some sensational news that catches people's attention. While the coverage here about China is almost never about the big issues, but often just whatever that make people think that China is still backwards and repressive. I think that is almost like an insult on the American people's intelligence--people would really want to know that China and the Chinese people are like, but the media is too powerful, too biased; and somehow it's the only channel for almost all people to learn about us; and most people do take almost all in.
Muoyuer, coming to know the Chinese people is one of the great joys of my well-traveled life and I wish other Americans could have the same experience.
xie xie
Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
As an adoptive American, I can relate to your comments. But please be aware they don't apply to China only, they apply to any country that is not America. As much as I like this country, its people tend to believe that other nations are either backward or hostile or both. A couple of days ago, even our elegant president was claiming that the automobile was invented in the US! Americans think the US has the best of everything, the best health care system, the best press, the best universities, etc. Fortunately, Americans travel more and more abroad and they can see for themselves.
Perhaps we think your government-sponsored editing is "a bit distasteful." If thus, it does make China appear backwards.
I am not a proponent of the "We're Number 1" mantra of the US nor its puritanical influences, but I will say that if China can't handle the truth and wants to rewrite it to control its masses, then the Oscar's shouldn't be broadcasted there in the first place.
Seems like the Asians have more sense than Europeans and North Americans.
How DARE THEY!!!, where's the UN? . . . NOTHING is More Important than what Sean said!!!
I don't think anyone would agree with you, except . . . apparently, the Chinese.
I don't think Sean Penn was addressing the Chinese government specifically, even though his acceptance speech, as well as Dustin Lance Black's speech, brought huge tears to my eyes. I think we should rebroadcast the documentary "The Times Of Harvey Milk" over and over again.
I'm in general agreement with those who believe that Asia/China governments and peoples would not understand the context for the reference of "You homo-loving commies." They wouldn't necessarily see it as a compliment. Be that as it may, I'm a gay white American male and I lived in Singapore for 10 years, attended university there, and taught in secondary schools. I travelled extensively throughout Asia and seldom had a problem. Some of the teachers at my school complained privately to the principal that I was gay and should be removed, but he told them to mind their own business. The bottom line was as long as I didn't flaunt being gay, I had no problem...kind of like Don't Ask, Don't Tell here in the military. Being a guest in that country, I rolled with that with no problem. Never was I ever harrassed by the government, the police, or local citizenry. Though in large part that was due to my being discrete and my being an expatriate school teacher. I found that the average citizenry there much more accepting of gay men and women on a personal level than the average Joe the Blow Plumber in the U.S. Once the U.S. accepts gay marriage at the national level, the rest of the world will generally follow...with time.
I hope you are right.
The rest of the free world is not waiting, we went and are going ahead with gay marriage without the United States, sometimes, despite the United States.
Lets get real here, if staying in the closet was not a problem for you, bully for you, but that does not make it not a problem for everybody else. Especially those who are not expatriots with the US government behind them or holding the status of teacher.
I mean, let's get real here, if the United States follows the rest of the free world on gay marriage, or health care, would be great for Americans, and might even be good within the whole sphere of American influence. It will be too late to influence the free world, it will be catch-up. For the Chinese, hmm...can't hurt.
My apologies, dst1, obviously I hit the wrong reply button, and meant this response not for you at all, but for cityprof.
I am very embarrassed by my mouse error. Very sorry.
I don't think you'll see gay "marriage" in the US. Pehaps the easing of restrictions on the rights of partners, but not marriage.
Living recently in China for years, I met a number of gay people from teens to their forties. Social acceptance is proceeding apace with their economic growth and increasing Western influence. Larger cities have lively gay venues. With a graying population and a government of elders, there is resistance at the top, which is where the censorship originates.
There are four confluent issues here: acceptance of homosexuality, censorship of media, resistance to authority, and the word Commie. The latter might well have been the most provocative factor. Once you let loose with the word Commie, even the most modernized of Chinese might bristle. (Penn meant it as a term of endearment, but that's beside the point.) Communism was bestowed by Mao, who is still deeply revered.
Not much needs to be said about the Chinese attitude toward resistance to authority. But in regards to censorship, it might surprise you (as it did me) to find out that censorship, does not offend Chinese the way it does us in the West. They view it as an accommodation to the enormous cultural and generational diversity in their great nation, and as a buffer to instability, which is more dreaded than censorship or totalitarianism.
That said, by the sheer persistence of quality gay-themed major motion pictures and other Western entertainment, the message of tolerance and protectiveness of gay concerns will eventually take root in China. Sooner, I sometimes think, than it will here in the U.S..
Thanks for your perspective.
Having just returned from China, I too am not surprised that censorship might not offend the average Chinese they way it does Americans. Hey, the Chinese think very much differently than we do!!! We tend to be a culture of the individual and individual rights. That is not in their concept of society.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
