The Evil Doctor Was Portrayed Sitting In Front Of A Large Statue Of The Buddha.

[rockyysdt]

Recently reminiscing on old episodes of Batman on the internet l couldn’t believe my eyes at the level of propaganda, intolerance and lies portrayed to the Western public against Buddhism.

The original Batman series (1943) featured a villain, the Doctor, an evil Japanese scientist who enjoyed torture, feeding people to alligators, & derailing trains, amongst other acts.

His employees who failed him suffered swift and horrific retribution.

The Evil Doctor was portrayed sitting in front of a large statue of the Buddha when dispensing violence or handing out evil orders to his henchman.

You can see the Buddha’s image in You Tube at the three minute 30 second mark.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dZL3O6NobI&NR=1

I wonder how much damage this caused to a generation of Westerners due to the implied association of the Buddha with pure evil?

Why would the makers have done this?

How much damage and aversion would this have caused in terms of international relations, trade, and tolerance with nationals of countries such as Thailand?

[camerata]

Well, it looks to me like a statue of Amitabha, so I doubt Thailand would care much. Anyway, do you watch old kung-<deleted> movies? They are full of battles in front of Buddha (Amitabha) statues and dirty deeds done by Shaolin monks.

There is a James Bond movie where Sean Connery slips his cigarette into the mouth of a small Buddha statue. One of the later ones, can't remember which. The Western movie industry was less PC then.

[camerata]

The above clip is pretty nutty. An agent of the Japanese Emperor in WW2, when State Shinto was in full swing, wouldn't have had a huge Buddha statue in his home.

[ScubaBuddha]

I doubt it had any effect.

[rockyysdt]

Well, it looks to me like a statue of Amitabha, so I doubt Thailand would care much. Anyway, do you watch old kung-<deleted> movies? They are full of battles in front of Buddha (Amitabha) statues and dirty deeds done by Shaolin monks.

I never knew of Amitabha prior to today.

Perhaps Westerners, subjected with negative images of the Buddha in such movie series, wouldn't have had the skill or knowledge to differentiate.

All American icons such as Superman, & Batman, were influential in portraying truth, justice and the American way.

All that viewers would perceive was a subtle association of Buddhism with evil and darkness.

Edited December 28, 2010 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

I doubt it had any effect.

Such shows are known to have brought about a hatred and distrust towards Japanese for many years.

Perhaps we'll never know the impact of such a diet during forties & fifties on the psyche of its audience.

Edited December 28, 2010 by rockyysdt

[xen]

There always has to be a bad guy and they change as often as the political climate changes. The large Buddha statues are there to give support to the concept of evil asians because a gullible audience will take the bait and form the association .Wether it influences people's attitudes probably has more to do with the audience's preconcieved bias and their level of education and/or general knowledge.

What always makes me chuckle is how many movies/TV shows /avertisments show Thailand girls wearing Chinese dressess and with westernised Chinese names.

[camerata]

I never knew of Amitabha prior to today.

Perhaps Westerners, subjected with negative images of the Buddha in such movie series, wouldn't have had the skill or knowledge to differentiate.

Probably not. There are several buddhas in Japanese Buddhism (and Mahayana in general), the main ones being Amida (Amitabha, Buddha of Infinite Light), Yakushi (Healing Buddha), Shaka (historical Buddha) and Dainichi (Cosmic Buddha). Quite often, when the Japanese refer to "the Buddha," they mean Amida, the central focus of Pure Land.

All that viewers would perceive was a subtle association of Buddhism with evil and darkness.

I wonder what the intent of the producers was? Most likely the buddha image was there to convey a sense of alienness and exoticism, i.e. the Japanese are not like us. A statue of Hachiman, a Shinto god of war, would have been more appropriate but Shinto generally has no statues of its deities (except when shown as avatars of Buddhist bodhisattvas). If I was making the movie I'd have had a full suit of samurai armour and a set of swords in the room.

But you also see Buddha statues in just about every old Hollywood movie about China or Japan, used for decoration or atmosphere and not associated with evil characters. Check out the painting behind the evil doctor - typically beautiful "Oriental" images of a half-moon bridge and wisteria. Others appear to be of cherry blossom and a geisha.

[rockyysdt]

Probably not. There are several buddhas in Japanese Buddhism (and Mahayana in general), the main ones being Amida (Amitabha, Buddha of Infinite Light), Yakushi (Healing Buddha), Shaka (historical Buddha) and Dainichi (Cosmic Buddha). Quite often, when the Japanese refer to "the Buddha," they mean Amida, the central focus of Pure Land.

I knew of Siddhattha Gotama the Buddha.

Are the other Buddha's fictitious or real.

Did the Buddha speak of them after becoming enlightened?

I wonder what the intent of the producers was? Most likely the buddha image was there to convey a sense of alienness and exoticism, i.e. the Japanese are not like us. A statue of Hachiman, a Shinto god of war, would have been more appropriate but Shinto generally has no statues of its deities (except when shown as avatars of Buddhist bodhisattvas). If I was making the movie I'd have had a full suit of samurai armour and a set of swords in the room.

But you also see Buddha statues in just about every old Hollywood movie about China or Japan, used for decoration or atmosphere and not associated with evil characters. Check out the painting behind the evil doctor - typically beautiful "Oriental" images of a half-moon bridge and wisteria. Others appear to be of cherry blossom and a geisha.

Perhaps it was a way of associating villains with non Christian association.

NB: Thankfully the series of my other super hero, Superman was generally more politically correct.

Edited December 29, 2010 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

Are the other Buddha's fictitious or real.

Did the Buddha speak of them after becoming enlightened?

They appear only in the Mahayana suttas and texts, not in the Pali Canon. If you ask a Tibetan Lama whether the various buddhas and bodhisattvas are real and "out there" or existing in the mind, he'd say there's no difference.

[orang37]

Sawasdee Khrup,

The key fact to bear in mind here is that in 1943 the U.S. was at war with Japan since December, 1941, and anti-Japanese propaganda was officially sponsored and encouraged in Hollywood movies, beginning in 1942. Such movies as "Batman" were made for domesic U.S. consumption: in 1942, 110,000 Japanese-Americans, many born on American soil, were forcibly removed from their American homes, and interned in "camps." An attempt to offend Japanese inside or outside America: "Batman" was not.

Note to Khun Camerata: may we suggest your reading "What the Buddha Really Taught" by Walpole Rahula (for the Theravadan Buddhism of S.E. Asia), and Donald Lopez' "The Story of Buddhism: A Concise Guide to Its History and Teachings," for the perspective on what original Buddhism became later when it fused/mixed/scrambled with Hinduism and, later, Sivaite Tantric estoteric and magical practices, and travelled to Tibet, China, Japan, etc. The whole Boddhisattva thing, the treatment of the historic Buddha, Gautama, as "divine," etc., comes much later than the original Buddhism.

The original Buddha teachings, as preserved in the Theravadan teachings, have Gautama describing himself as a teacher, not "God," and as someone who reached "enlightenment," freedom from all attachment to desire and karma: as saying that there were innumerable Buddha before him, and coming after him, and that we are all on the "path," through countless lifetimes, to becoming a "Buddha," where the word "Buddha" has the meaning not of some supernatural or divine being, but of an extinguishing of the personal ego-bound self, and its "karma," which is nibbana in Pali, nirvana in Sanskrit.

Tibetan Buddhism, a fusion of an ancient typical central and north Asian shamanic animist cult (Bon) emphasizing demonic and propitious entities and divination by trance, and the impoted Tantric Buddhism of Padma Sambhava from India, and every other form of later so-called "Mahayana" Buddhism, which embraces, as does most of Mahayana, Buddha as "God," and as surrounded by five demi-gods, the Dhyana Buddhas, also considered Boddhisattvas, such as the principal one, Avalokitesvara.

As Lopez points out, whole Tantric manuscripts of the Siva cult were copied over into Tantric Buddhism with the word Siva changed to Buddha.

This Mahayanic constellation of demi-gods embraced the ancient Aryan/Vedic/Hindu notion that male spiritual beings are abstract, and require a female counter-part to affect change on "material planes:" hence we have the "Goddess of Mercy," the female counter-part of the Dhyana Buddha Avalokitesvara, known in Thaiand as "Mae Kwan Im," and, in other parts of Asia as Kwannon, Kwan Yin, etc.

WWII, and the deaths of countles Americans, Canadians, New Zealanders, and Australians, contributed to anti-Japanese feeings for many years after WWII: not the propaganda: the movie propaganda, and other propaganda, only reflect this, and persisted, on a mass scale, some years after the war was over.

This excerpt from Rahula's book, a dialogue between the Buddha and the Monk Malunkyaputta, may indicate to you how the historical Gautama did not comment on reincarnation, the "meaning of it all," what happened after death, etc. in the Theravadan tradition:

Dialogue with Malunkyapatta

best, ~o:37;

Edited January 2, 2011 by orang37

[camerata]

Note to Khun Camerata: The whole Boddhisattva thing, the treatment of the historic Buddha, Gautama, as "divine," etc., comes much later than the original Buddhism.

Where did I say otherwise? We are talking about Hollywood's notions of Buddhism, which have been heavily influenced by Mahayana. Mahayana tends to be a lot more exotic and colorful, so even today's movies about Buddhism (The Little Buddha, Kundun, etc) have a lot of Mahayana elements. I'd also argue that where Buddha images are concerned, "Oriental" facial features are aesthetically more pleasing to Hollywood and fit their stories better. A 1940s set designer probably wouldn't put an Indian-looking image in his movie about Japan, for example.

[Brucenkhamen]

Such shows are known to have brought about a hatred and distrust towards Japanese for many years.

Perhaps we'll never know the impact of such a diet during forties & fifties on the psyche of its audience.

Judging by the proliferation of Buddha statues in garden centres and new age shops etc everyone now wants a Buddha image in their backdrop.

[rockyysdt]

Judging by the proliferation of Buddha statues in garden centres and new age shops etc everyone now wants a Buddha image in their backdrop.

Those most influenced by such serials would now be in their 60's, 70's & 80's and generally no longer influential.

The direct racial damage these people would have caused was during an earlier age.

Conditioning of racial intolerance, which can be passed on to future generations, is the unseen damage.

Edited January 2, 2011 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

The key fact to bear in mind here is that in 1943 the U.S. was at war with Japan since December, 1941, and anti-Japanese propaganda was officially sponsored and encouraged in Hollywood movies, beginning in 1942. Such movies as "Batman" were made for domesic U.S. consumption: in 1942, 110,000 Japanese-Americans, many born on American soil, were forcibly removed from their American homes, and interned in "camps." An attempt to offend Japanese inside or outside America: "Batman" was not.

WWII, and the deaths of countles Americans, Canadians, New Zealanders, and Australians, contributed to anti-Japanese feeings for many years after WWII: not the propaganda: the movie propaganda, and other propaganda, only reflect this, and persisted, on a mass scale, some years after the war was over.

Yes, those directly involved and influenced by the war would have already carried ill feelings.

The Hollywood propaganda would have influenced the younger generations (children) and probably caused racial and possibly religious intolerance to continue for a much longer period.

Edited January 2, 2011 by rockyysdt

[orang37]

Note to Khun Camerata: The whole Boddhisattva thing, the treatment of the historic Buddha, Gautama, as "divine," etc., comes much later than the original Buddhism.

Where did I say otherwise? We are talking about Hollywood's notions of Buddhism, which have been heavily influenced by Mahayana. Mahayana tends to be a lot more exotic and colorful, so even today's movies about Buddhism (The Little Buddha, Kundun, etc) have a lot of Mahayana elements. I'd also argue that where Buddha images are concerned, "Oriental" facial features are aesthetically more pleasing to Hollywood and fit their stories better. A 1940s set designer probably wouldn't put an Indian-looking image in his movie about Japan, for example.

Khun Camerata,

I see this reponse as a "noisy" attempt to avoid facing the fact that my comments were specifically in reaction to comments you made on this thread which to me imply some real gaps in your knowledge of what Buddhism is and is not, and what the differences are between a Boddhisattva and a Buddha, and what the various Japanese Buddhas and the historic Buddha, Gautama are in historical and cultural relationship.

The thread's original topic was specific to sixty-eight year old propaganda related to the war with Japan inserted into a Batman series. You introduced the comments into it making its scope much wider. I doubt there was one American out of a million who saw these Batman series in 1943 who would have known anything about the subtleties, and sects, of Japanese Buddhism, let alone the name "Amida," or even the word "Zen."

Now you are creating distraction by bringing up the current media infatuation, sixty years later, with Tibetan Buddhism, reincarnation, the Dalai Lama, etc. shown, in glamorized form, in movies like Kundun, and LIttle Buddha: this has nothing to do with the OP. In fact there are scholars that would argue that Tibetan Buddhism is the least typical form of Mahayana Buddhism.

And the word "Mahayana" itself is an exercise of grandiose self-elevation by those who wished to put down what they saw as the crude original tradition: it means "great path," and is accompanied by the pejorative label "Hinayana," meaning the "lesser path" which was applied to what we know as Theravadan Buddhism in S.E. Asia (from Sthaviravāda, meaning the "teachings of the elders"). Sthaviravāda Buddhism

Lopez' perspective on Mahayana: in Lopez you have someone who is an internationally respected professor and scholar, a specialist in Mahayana and Tibet, one of several people who have served as official translators for the Dalai Lama, and someone who is utterly unafraid to reveal all sides of the historical and cultural issues in Mahayana Buddhism, including instituionalized hostility towards women, the corruption of monastic life, the collage of "everything under the sun," from Hinduism and Tantric Shaivism folded on top of ab origine Buddha's teachings, etc., the powerful Advaita Vedantic Hinduism influence of the philosopher Nagarjuna, often quoted by the Dalai Lama, etc.

And for those of you who want a general introduction to Buddhism's arrival, and current state, in Japan, of course: Wikipedia: Japanese Buddhism But don't forget Bodhidharma : whose development of Chan Buddhism in China became Zen Buddhism in Japan (where he is known as Daruma). Bodhidharma aka Daruma

Ignore the words of this flea on a tick in the ear of a mangy soi dog, but do sample the wonderful words of Rahula, and the exquisite daring scholarship of Lopez.

Better yet, sit quietly, watch the breath, and as Gautama recommended: know thyself from the inside out.

best, ~o:37;

[phetaroi]

I agree that Hollywood's portrayal of Buddha statues, and to some extent, Buddhism in general is...well, let's say insensitive at best...with a few notable exceptions, such as "Lost Horizon" back in the 1930s.

But to be honest, I'm more offended by what Thais do with Buddha statues in some instances. I remember being in a decent hotel up in Phitsanuloke years ago, and when I walked past the "massage" center, there was a Buddha statue at the "massage" center...and as we all know, "massage" there is a euphemism. Buddha gracing a prostitution business? No thank you.

I'm even more offended by the chain of restaurants I see in Thailand (and apparently elsewhere)...what is the name that sounds Buddha-like and the logo that looks like Buddha.

[camerata]

I see this reponse as a "noisy" attempt to avoid facing the fact that my comments were specifically in reaction to comments you made on this thread which to me imply some real gaps in your knowledge of what Buddhism is and is not, and what the differences are between a Boddhisattva and a Buddha, and what the various Japanese Buddhas and the historic Buddha, Gautama are in historical and cultural relationship.

Actually, since you seemed to have misunderstood my comments, it was an attempt to find out specifically what you were referring to and to bring the topic back onto the original subject of the association of a Buddha statue with evil in a Hollywood movie. I don't see how the history of Buddhism or a criticism of Mahayana is relevant to the OP.

The thread's original topic was specific to sixty-eight year old propaganda related to the war with Japan inserted into a Batman series. You introduced the comments into it making its scope much wider. I doubt there was one American out of a million who saw these Batman series in 1943 who would have known anything about the subtleties, and sects, of Japanese Buddhism, let alone the name "Amida," or even the word "Zen."

Sure, which was why I mentioned it in reply to the OP's question about damage "in terms of international relations, trade, and tolerance with nationals of countries such as Thailand." Since the statue is likely Amitabha, the Thais wouldn't care. The discussion became broader because the OP then asked about Amitabha and the other buddhas. This is how forums work - the OP asks a question, gets an answer, and then asks more questions.

In the meantime, feel free to start a topic on the history of Buddhism if that interests you.

[camerata]

I agree that Hollywood's portrayal of Buddha statues, and to some extent, Buddhism in general is...well, let's say insensitive at best...with a few notable exceptions, such as "Lost Horizon" back in the 1930s.

I think Hollywood's portrayal of anything Asian - even before the war - was pretty insensitive. During the 30s everything Oriental was in-trend (movies like Shanghai Express were popular), but still pretty insensitive. It's no surprise, then, that wartime propaganda was pretty harsh. Batman was a fantasy, but check out movies like Across the Pacific for some nasty stereotyping.

[bobo42]

Inconceivable! What could possibly have driven the American filmmakers to portray a Japanese person (or any Asian in general) in such a bad light back in 1943? The mind boggles...