I've never understood why some folk in the Asian community don't like Charlie Chan.
A reviewer here said he cringed at the racist comment of an innkeeper who wouldn't let Charlie sit on his porch. Well, gee...in 1940 America that was common behavior. But Charlie Chan doesn't throw a fit, he gets on with the job of investigating murder and at the end of the film shows himself to be smarter than all the white folk who looked down on him.
Doesn't that make him a great role model? That was the case in many of the Charlie Chan films. The character was created at a time when Orientals were always villains, nothing more. Earl Derr Biggers created Chan to be a hero. He is brighter than everyone else he meets, for all that he doesn't speak grammatical English. Not because he's stupid, but because he's an immigrant from Hong Kong! Lesson? Just because someone's English language skills are not up to snuff doesn't mean that they can't run rings around you intellectually.
True also to the tenor of the times, Chan has to have "comic relief" - either his fully Americanized sons (and occasionally daughter) who speak English perfectly and are played by Asians who deserve to have their work seen - or by African Americans Stepin Fetchit or Mantan Moreland. I admit I do have problems watching those characters - I don't think I would have thought their actions funny then, nor do I think their funny now, but again, they're part and parcel of the times.
Having said all that, Warner Oland is the only Charlie Chan for me. I've never really cared for Sidney Toler's version. The plot is rather labyrynthine, but fun for all that. For the most part, anyway!
