As a filmmaker having conducted extensive research in media literacy and all forms of narrative storytelling, I challenge the notion that Puccini and others of his ire were somehow above the spirit of their times. All artists are products of their environment and Puccini lived in an era where misogyny and racism were commonplace. Why should contemporary opera companies, or audiences for that matter, assume that his work is untainted by these elements?

It also begs to question: how many opera aficionados are familiar with the history of colonization in China?

By the time Puccini wrote his opera in 1924, nearly two-thirds of the total landmass of current day China was under so-called spheres of influence by European, American, and Japanese imperial powers. China had been weakened by foreign intervention for over a century, with formal territorial concessions in place some 85 years since the First Opium War began in 1839. With blessings from their government, British merchants flooded the Chinese market with opium to profit from addiction and intentionally destabilize society. When the Chinese government tried to intervene in the interest of their people the British actually went to war over it. Thus began European colonial concessions in China.

Colonial concessions granted foreign governments power over commerce, legal jurisdiction on Chinese territory, unilateral control of trade tariffs, and unrestricted Christian missionary presence. If a foreign national committed a crime against a Chinese local, it was the foreign government’s decision whether or not to prosecute. Once mighty China had been reduced to a tributary state, and a culture formerly regarded as a European equal was openly mocked as inferior. Any guise of sovereignty was summarily eradicated while tensions between rival factions in China prevented the Chinese from unifying against foreign intervention.

This caused a terrible economic disaster for the people of China, but the human cost associated with colonization through the Chinese Coolie Trade was far worse. This practice became rife during the second half of the 19th century as Chinese coolie workers replaced hard labor jobs left vacant after the African Slave Trade was abolished in Europe, and later the United States. Many laborers were either taken against their will or tricked into contracts from which they could never escape. To say that Puccini was ignorant to the reality of China’s position in the world and in relation to Europe is both unrealistic and irresponsible from the perspective of a historian.

Negative stereotypes have always existed, but they became increasingly important in defining colonial relationships and were used to reinforce the racial hierarchy that European imperialism perpetuated. By distancing themselves from, and dehumanizing their non-white colonial subjects, the European public accepted the atrocities their governments committed against people who were perceived as lesser beings because of their skin color or eye shape.

As admirers of art we must be mindful of the history behind the pieces we celebrate. D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation is one of the early triumphs of Hollywood cinema, yet it glorifies the Klu Klux Klan as saviors of honest government who restored order in the post Civil War South. In spite of its blatant bigotry, film historians and media studies professors continue using this film for educational purposes based on the artistic merit of its innovative film technique. They also openly acknowledge the extremely problematic aspects within this film as products of that bygone era. We can be critical of something while also appreciating it as art; these are not mutually exclusive concepts. If we are to continue admiring the beauty of classical theater, should we not also acknowledge problematic aspects within it?

Turandot and other plays from the Orientalist canon differ from historically racist cinema because film exists in perpetuity. We study film as a primary source derived within the era in which it was produced because it will never change from its original state. A film produced in 1924 is the same film when watched in 2016. In the case of problematic films that use blackface, yellowface, and other negative ethnic stereotypes, we can still appreciate them from this historic context. However, a contemporary film production company could never justify a remake that included openly racist elements from the original.

Somehow problematic theater pieces continue being produced faithful to their original stage plays by contemporary theater companies, largely unaware that they are perpetuating negative stereotypes inherent within. Perhaps this case is unique to theater because pieces are traditionally performed as they are written. But the suggestion that eliminating problematic racist or misogynistic aspects might compromise the integrity of a piece is no longer a defensible argument in 2016.

As patrons of the arts we must challenge our theater companies to critically engage in conversations like these. If companies insist on staging productions such as Turandot they must acknowledge the problematic aspects and frame the production as a relic from a bygone era. We as audience members should also demand that our theater companies reinterpret these pieces according to contemporary standards of social equality. If not, we condone their role in perpetuating these negative stereotypes and greater systemic inequalities.

We ask that our athletes, politicians, celebrities, educators, and journalists be held to a certain moral standard of accountability regarding implicit bias within their work. Is it really too much to ask the same from our artists?

About the Author: Rob Buscher, Festival Director of Philadelphia Asian American Film Festival, is a film and media specialist who has worked in many aspects of film including production, administration and distribution. Due in part to his biracial Japanese American heritage, Rob’s expertise is Japanese, East Asian, and Asian American Cinema. Some of his career highlights include co-founding Zipangu Fest - the UK’s premier Japanese Film Festival, co-hosting and programming Philadelphia Japan Arts Matsuri Tohoku Earthquake charity film festival and creating the Japanese Cinema Studies curriculum at Arcadia University.