by Rich Elias, Jun 4, 1999

Putting "The Phantom Menace" in a galaxy far far away isn't far enough for writer-director George Lucas to escape accusations that his new movie presents racial and ethnic stereotypes. An Associated Press article reported complaints from critics that Jar Jar Binks, the alien sidekick of Qui-Gon Jinn and young Obi-Wan Kenobi, sounds like and acts like a Steppin Fetchit from outer space. His singsong speech, his comic cowardice, and his street strut walk remind critics of the African-American actor who shuffled through Hollywood movies in the years before America learned that such characterizations of black people were objectionable.

Defenders of Jar Jar claim that the charge won't stick. Viewers upset about the character don't agree on what stereotype he represents. His unusual patter has been likened to a Jamaican accent, which raises the question of whether Jar Jar is supposed to be a Rastafarian. His long floppy ears look like dreadlocks. The counterargument seized on by the film's defenders cites this and other "identifications" of Jar Jar's earthly ancestry to claim that because no one can pin down what he supposedly represents, it can't be proved that he represents any stereotype at all. Besides, it's ONLY a movie.

The problem here is that Jar Jar is not the only stereotype in "The Phantom Menace," although he has gotten the most attention. Other characters in "The Phantom Menace" come uncomfortably close to racial or ethnic caricature too.

The most flagrant is Watto, the slave-owner shopkeeper who bargains with Qui-Gon for the freedom of young Anakin Skywalker. Watto runs a junkyard where the two Jedi shop for parts to repair their spaceship. The character features a very prominent drooping nose, if you can call it that, plus what looks like stubble. He sounds accommodating but comes off like a chiseler ready to squeeze the last nickel from his customers. He thinks hard about Qui-Gon's bet on the outcome of a space speeder race. If young Anakin wins, Watto agrees to free him. Watto is certain Anakin will lose, so the bet looks like a sure thing. He is mistaken, but that doesn't mean Watto isn't a sharper.

When I saw the movie, my first thought was that Lucas had created an extraterrestrial Shylock, the conniving Jewish moneylender in Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice." The large nose and false politeness recollect older stage treatments of Shakespeare's character. More recent productions of "The Merchant of Venice" deliberately downplay these traits, emphasizing the misguided humanity of Shylock, although James Shapiro's historical account in Shakespeare and the Jews (Columbia, 1996) proves that the playwright wove contemporary concerns about the doubtful place of Jews in a Christian kingdom into the character.

But this doesn't prove that Lucas meant Watto as a Jewish stereotype. Can we assume that George Lucas, whose space operas seem more indebted to the canned mythology of Joseph Campbell than to Shakespeare, was deliberately modeling Watto on Shylock? Again, critics point their finger at other possible stereotypes. Watto has been called Turkish, Arabic, Middle Eastern, even French and Italian. And if he can't be all of these, he must be none of these.

Let's take a look at two Federation senators who conspire against the intergalactic senate in an early scene. My first reaction was that they sound like extras from "The Godfather," two mafiosi dons speaking in what sounded like Hollywood Italian accents. Others have heard Japanese inflections in the same dialogue, the Japanese of Japan-baiting movies like "Rising Sun," based on Michael Crichton's pointed thriller about the Japanese takeover of the American economy.

Are we wrong to see these characters and hear these characters and wonder whether George Lucas was making use of contemporary prejudices? Andy Ihnatko, a well-known writer and columnist specializing in Macintosh computers, has exchanged dozens of messages with me on the subject. Andy is also a "Star Wars" nut. Ihnatko deftly challenges my concern about stereotyping by citing inconsistencies in each alleged instance of this. If Jar Jar is Steppin Fetchit AND a Rasta and whatever else, Lucas isn't the problem; it's the viewer who sees a caricature where none is intended.

My response over the last several weeks has been (1) even if Watto, Jar Jar, and the senators aren't exact, identifiable caricatures, they make use of a collective prejudice. Watto may be Jewish or Turkish or Arabic - it doesn't matter. Our response to the character depends in part on an unacknowledged mainstream prejudice against ethnic groups lumped together as semites. As for the senators, what's the difference in the public mind between mafiosi trying to topple legitimate authority and a "Rising Sun" brand of Japanese subversion? and (2) even if one instance of stereotyping fails of proof, how do you disregard three such instances?

Let's reframe the question. Is Lucas guilty of stereotyping? Yes. Is he a racist? I doubt it. The "Star Wars" movies have been scrupulously fair to earthlings and aliens of every genotype imaginable. Billy Dee Williams figured prominently as a hero in the first trilogy. You can point to several characters in that trilogy and "Phantom Menace" whose presence give the lie to claim of racial prejudice.

So what explains the current controversy? My guess is that the reasons lie in writer-producer-director George Lucas' total control of his new movie. Lucas money floated "Phantom Menace." He wrote the script. He created the characters. He gave Fox, the distributor, its marching orders. What this means is that there was probably little studio control over the movie. Lucas may be a great mythologizer, but he's no great shakes as a writer. He can invent new worlds, but then he's stuck with populating them. And his admitted talent for creating wondrous creatures doesn't preclude the possibility -- no, the likelihood -- that when he imagined Jar Jar, Watto, and the conniving senators, he relied on the shorthand of collective stereotypes in the creation of these characters. His real work in "The Phantom Menace" was moving his story forward. One-off characters like Jar Jar, Watto, and the senators were quick studies, done once, probably to be forgotten in upcoming sequels.

My conclusion: If Lucas had been under effective studio control throughout the making of the new "Star Wars" movie, somebody from Standards and Practices would have raised a red flag and forced changes in the script. But this was Lucas' money and Lucas' vision. No one at Fox had the guts to gainsay the creator of a movie that has made more money faster than any movie in history.

But, hey, it's ONLY a movie! Is it? Movies have always been an easy target for naysayers who argue, for example, that the horror of Littleton would not have occurred if Hollywood toned down violence. Movies using racial and ethnic stereotypes may not encourage kids to take Ouzis to school, but relying on such stereotypes to make alien characters instantly recognizable is a related sin, if our belief in a galaxy far, far away builds on prejudices we are trying to dispel on this small planet.