h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Mr Burns' Jewishness may simply come from the fact that he's voiced by a Jewish actor, and I think the same is true in many cases of villains. It might be more important to ask why so many villains are played by the English and other Brits, and to a large extent I think it's because they will and can take the roles.

In the past - I think it may be breaking down now - Hollywood stars were all American (and in many cases, all-American), while character actors came from all over. Your American star carried the film, and never played a villain because it might tarnish their image. So you went to your stock of character actors for the villain, and any US actor wanting to be a star some day might avoid the villain role, but British character actors have always been seen to have some leeway.

The same applied with crossing media. Once an American actor broke into films, it used to be seen as career death to go back to TV, but this limitation was rarely applied to the British.

Also, the villains played by the British are usually urbane and charming; a kind of role pioneered by British actors, and East Coast actors with plummy Boston accents. This creates an image that becomes self-perpetuating, until you think smooth villain and you think 'George Sanders, or nearest living equivalent'.

Or maybe I'm just rambling, but I hope there's somehthing in there that's useful.

I think British English is usually applied to spelling rather than speech, with American English being post-Webster (or is it post-Merriam; I forget).

Dictionary

anything else?

It's not just Mr. Burns' voice. To me, his appearance bears a striking resemblance to the evil images in Stalin's and Goebbels' anti-Jewish propaganda posters. Also consistent with the racists' stereotype of jews is Mr Burns' mean, cunning, selfish nature. This effect may not be intended, but it is nevertheless unfortunate. As someone with Jewish ancestry, I do find it offensive.

D.

I think Mr. Burns is a dialectic parody of that Jewish stereotype rather than a perpetuation of same. The writers of the simpsons often employ this sort of irony.

If the image was a parody of a Nazi carrying a poster, I'd agree with you but, as I see it, it's a parody of a Jew, not a parody of a poster.

One can accept most of the parodies in the Simpsons, including most of the main characters and families, including the South Asian shopkeeper (who's name I can't spell) who, though a stereotype, is one I think the South Asian viewers themselves are better qualified to judge.

The evil characters are all men and all, including Mr. Burns, have English RP accents.

Dry.

It's evident that dialectic parody of stereotypes is only funny when the stereotypes have nothing to do with oneself.

That's a bit below the belt. Nevertheless, it deserves an answer.

To be honest, it does concern me that some South Asians may find the shopkeeper offensive, but I pacify my conscience by assuming that, if so, they are well able to say so themselves. Furthermore, although he is comical, he is a nice person. In fact, most of the characters, some from all walks of life, are portrayed the same way.

Although the Van Houtens appear Jewish, I don't find them offensive, for the same reason.

I do find Mr Burns comical much of the time. For instance, when he said "My nuclear plant, how I miss her!" What I find offensive is not the comical part of his character, it's his exaggerated physical features plus the fact that other undesirable characteristics are also associated with his Jewishness.

The overall representation is demonstrably prejudicial, because the proportion of evil members in the various ethnic groups ranges from zero (or close to zero) for Anglo-Saxon Americans, through 50% for Jews, to 100% (or close to 100%) for posh-sounding Brits.

In this context, is or is not "a dialectic parody of stereotypes" synonymous with "satire"? In any case, if it's offensive, does it matter what you call it?

Do you find my attitude hypocritical? I hope not, as I detest hypocrisy.

D.

Correction to the above: If one includes all the Van Houtens, the proportion of evil among the Jewish characters drops to 25%. Since I may have missed some, it may be even lower. It's still infinitely larger than zero, however.
D.

Your points are valid and well presented. However, we're veering from the purpose of PR, and they would be better made in a conversation posted to the entry itself.

I'll see if I can work in some of the comments made lately.

I've done another revision. Have a look.

Thanks. I still haven't mastered the intricacies of h2g2's thread system. (I'm a new bee.)

Revenons à nos moutons.

I have read your piece, which seems good to me. (Though you've omitted the cartoons, presumably because they're not films as such.)

I have noted some typos & other small errors.

The only spelling mistake: cheifly -> chiefly.

one liners -> one-liners (?)

Kevin Costners -> Kevin Costner's

the glow of cigarette -> the glow of a cigarette (?)

In the quotation at the end, " ... always ... every time." sounds wrong, though it may be right (if that's what the reviewer actually said).

"Also, Vader was redeemed at the end of The Return of the Jedi, and imperial officers were." - were what?

I hope you don't mind me pointing these out. I'm only trying to help. I'm good at spelling and syntax, but not so hot on literary qualities, which is probably why I took up mathematics.

Dry.

I categorically do not mind. Rather, I appreciate the input. I have altered the errors to suit.

Are we ready yet?

Sorry: I've missed a typo: Under "History of ... ", 2nd paragraph, "natually"!

Also, I have a feeling that A. Hopkins spells his name "Antony", but I can't find any corroboration. Can you say which it is? Meanwhile, I shall keep looking.

Dry.

You were right all along: according to the BBCi web-site it is Sir Anthony Hopkins. I must have been thinking of someone else.

Dry.

Thanks anyway for checking it out.

I fixed the typo.

First, the obvious, people in LA can't properly detect any kind of accent...the population in the city is far to diverse. There must be residents from every language base in the world.

To answer the accent question is quite simple. Most English accents have a ring of intelligence and culture to the average American ear. Nothing sounds more evil than an educated, cultured, bad guy.