Dear D.W. Griffiths,

I hope that this letter finds you well. As a scholar of critical race theory and Asian American Studies, I am writing to you on behalf of your audience, particularly your non-white audience. I am not writing out of hostility, but rather curiosity, considering I have some pressing concerns and questions that I need answers to.

I wonder if you yourself realize the impact of your films on the American narrative, especially in the twentieth century. You revolutionized filmmaking with The Birth of a Nation, and I commend you on your accomplishment. In fact, film as a medium witnessed its greatest influence in the social and political atmosphere of the United States during the early half of the twentieth century, which I am sure you are aware of. With the racist tones of Birth of a Nation, your film set the national rhetoric on American identity—one that embraced and applauded the white patriotic clansman while vilifying and degrading the African American. That certainly put hefty weight on your shoulders.

Thus, given the critical responses to Birth of a Nation, you released Broken Blossoms several years later. The film starkly contrasts with your first film, not simply because it centers around a Chinese immigrant and a teenage white girl, but because of the way you present the Chinese immigrant to your audience. Indeed, the portrayal of the Asian Cheng Huang is antithetical to the portrayal of the white Battling Burrows. However, while you attempt to exonerate yourself of the bold statements you made in Birth through this film, the racist overtones are still pervasive in Broken Blossoms. You make Cheng Huang sympathetic, as someone with whom the girl can seek refuge. However, in his sympathy, Cheng Huang is meek, sensitive, feminine, and foreign. You perpetuate his foreigner status, unable to fully assimilate, and also sexually deviant, for he lives in the dubious dens of Chinatown and takes in the girl to metaphorically turn her into a prostitute. Thus, while Cheng is much more sympathetic than Battling Burrows, his character is still doubtful because of his perpetually foreign nature.

And for me, this is more troubling than than the harsh, dangerous treatment of Battling Burrows because there is no question that we are supposed to look at Battling Burrows in disgust. And even though his brutal character is immoral and corrupt, he does not serve as a representative of the white race. But for Cheng, as a minority Asian character, when viewers empathize with his character, they also fall for the trap that this is what the Chinese are like--they are homogeneous, feminine, and foreign. Thus, the danger in your film is that it perpetuates racialized ideas that are deleterious in the progression of society.

I think that in the art we produce, we must always be aware of the consequences of the statements we make--both on ourselves and on society. I hope you consider these thoughts and get back to me soon.

Sincerely,
Robert G. Lee

Questions:
1) In Orientals, Robert G. Lee discusses the origins and consequences of the model minority myth, which is a pervasive, supposedly positive stereotype placed on Asian Americans. In what ways is the model minority image imposed upon Asian Americans today? What are the implications of this? Why is this dangerous?

2) Robert G. Lee explores the racialized space of Los Angeles, especially during the Los Angeles Civil Unrest of 1992. He explores the political and economic changes that had been occurring in that area, which altered the racial and social dynamics of that space. How do you think the identity of a space correlates with the identities of the groups who occupy that space?