The Problem With Apu

So this was on HBO Max, and I watched it for the first time. Holy cow. I can't even.

I want to talk about every part of it, but a lot of the boards I post my reviews on frown on political talk. But let me be blunt. I don't think racism is a political issue. I live in Massachusetts. It is an unfathomably racist state. And we all vote for Democrats. When I discuss the racism this film explores I want you to keep in mind that I'm not doing it under some sort of political context. I am 100% positive I personally have failed to be racially sensitive when it mattered at several points in my life. It's not a political issue to me if it effects everyone, not just a sole political party. And I hope that on the boards that frown on politics this review will be taken in that context.

I think the thing that surprised me most was that there was no part of the film that was measured. Michael Moore's shtick got old to me because he's always pushing an agenda. Whether I agree with the agenda or not doesn't matter as long as his thumb is on the scale. Moore stopped doing documentaries at some point and turned to propaganda. As such, as far as documentaries go, I like a more even hand. I like a documentarian who can play Devil's Advocate themselves, and show why the argument is wrong. But I am actually impressed with the fact that Hari Kondabolu refuses to really list Apu's good points. And he's a fan of The Simpsons. He knows they exist. But they don't matter. Because the character is hurtful and there is no need for him to be giving the producers cover there.

Hank Azaria is the villain in the film, much like the CEO of General Motors was in Roger & Me. I actually got why the GM president didn't want to talk to Michael Moore. Even though this was before Moore became a well-known liberal iconoclast, I wouldn't want to be interviewed for that film either if I were him. But just based on the brief interviews the film used, Azaria refusing to go on camera to talk about Apu to an actual person of Indian descent means he's a bad guy. Seriously. That interview where he talks about how he voiced Apu based on a convenience store clerk he personally hated is like something I can't possibly fathom how somebody could be so psychologically self-unaware to understand that makes the voice's racism deliberately ugly. The story we've heard from Mike Reiss recounted in the film is that Azaria did the accent for the nameless clerk in an early episode, it got a big laugh in the writer's room, and the worst character on the show was born. It's more than that when you realize the depths of hatred Azaria had to plumb to get that specific voice as obnoxious as he wanted.

And I love Hari quipping that maybe Inspector Clouseau could solve the mystery of why Peter Seller's Indian blackface was offensive. Good one. Also, Hank Azaria is super dumb.

Kudos to Dana Gould for agreeing to do the film. But I still think a HELL of a lot less of him after that interview. His entire bit during the live-action Family Guy scene set on Real Time With Bill Maher is that he's a comedy writer who is actually insightful and knows the issues. He's defensive here, and his defenses actually make what he's defending sound worse, not better. I think the documentary is best served by the fact that it's is produced and hosted by a comedian. As a comedian Hari can rationally give counterarguments at the drop of a hat. He made Dana Gould look foolish just by his follow-up questions.

Interesting that Kal Penn simply hates The Simpsons. Hari doesn't agree with him, but Kal is interesting to me because he can't separate the show from Apu. And maybe more people should be thinking along those lines. Frankly, I don't know if I'd be able to do that myself. But it's a totally valid viewpoint.

Whoopi Goldberg's specific memorabilia fetish is horrifying. It's telling the talking Apu toy actually appalls her until Hari suggests she puts it in her ugly collection. Then it fits. Whoopi not being offended by any of that stuff at all is one of the myriad of reasons I simply do not understand Whoopi Goldberg. I think she means well, but I think she is far too forgiving of unforgivable things. And that's always been her problem.

I don't know if it was the magic of editing or if Hari staged reading Hank Azaria's reply for the first time, but if his reaction in the film DID occur exactly at that point, if Azaria HAD appeared, he would have been slaughtered. Azaria doesn't want to do the film because he believes he'll be made to look foolish in editing. Judging by what an ass Gould comes across as, that's a real fear. I believe the first words out of Hari's mouth about that is that it must be great for Azaria to be allowed to decide himself how he allows himself to be portrayed. And that's all that really needs to be said.

After this documentary, Al Jean and the rest of the crew handled their response to it unbelievably poorly. So poorly I would not be surprised if the show lost actual fans. Lisa of all people being given the defense in a later episode was all kinds of messed up.

That documentary was amazing. I had very little respect for Hank Azaria left before I saw it. Whatever I had is completely gone. It's effective in its rage, and is effective for making ME angry. I normally prefer documentaries to be fairer. But really how fair can a talk about race relations be if the white offender in question is the guy who gets to set the terms of the debate? Speaking as someone who frequents liberal blogs, this is HUGE problem for ANY discussion of racial matters. If you talk about a way white people are failing race matters in a general way on a Democratic website, people crawl out of the woodwork to cry "Not all white people!" and demand you recognize they are an ally. Your feelings about racism don't matter. You have to make sure the white liberal ally is comfortable at all costs. If you hurt their feelings, it can't be discussed. They get to set the entire parameter of the debate, and you may only discuss it with their permission. There is just no way to speak about something like this in an evenhanded manner ANYWHERE. And unlike Michael Moore, whom I've come to view as a sell-out and phony, I responded to this documentary because Hari's rage and hurt is sincere, and he made me share it. Maybe a documentary doesn't simply need to inform. Maybe tackling an agenda is fine if it's done sincerely by a person who cares passionately about the topic. And it's for that reason Hari Kondabolu really impressed the living hell out of me. This was great. I cannot say enough good things about it. *****.