Once upon a time, a film featuring an all-Asian cast was produced by a major Hollywood studio.
Crazy Rich Asians is certainly a breakthrough for racial representation in the American film industry. Since Wayne Wang's 1993 Joy Luck Club, no Hollywood studio movie has featured an all Asian or Asian-American cast. On top of that, Crazy Rich Asians posted the best rom-com box-office debut in three years, grossing an estimated 25.2 million dollars at North American theaters over opening weekend. Yet as impressive as it is commercially and culturally, is it good?
Essentially, what most rom-coms boil down to is whether or not they succeed in immersing the audience enough that they forget about the countless authenticity and conceptual flaws scattered throughout the film. They're silly, but you've got to admit, they're cute. But if the storyteller fails to hold your attention for just one second, just one, you'll realize, "Ok, what the hell am I watching."
Yet it's not the clichés (like the rich guy falls in love with a poor girl but doesn't care about her wealth, rather her "inner true self") that bother me, but rather the manner in which they are executed. I believe a cliché is only truly a cliché if you notice it. Some opinions identify the acting as the shortcoming, but I feel the cast did their job just fine. In reality, the problem lies in the script. Like the great Roger McKee once stated in his screenwriting manual, Story, "(Imagine) two attractive people sit opposite of each other at a candlelit table, the light glinting off the crystal wine-glasses and the dewy eyes of the lovers. Soft breezes billow the curtains. A Chopin nocturne plays in the background. The lovers reach across the table, touch hands, look longingly in each others' eyes, say, 'I love you, I love you' ... and actually mean it. This is an unactable scene and will die like a rat in the road."
It is simply impossible to act a scene so poorly written. In Crazy Rich Asians, there is a moment where Nick Young (Henry Golding) apologizes to Rachel Chu (Constance Wu) on a couch about how he screwed up or whatever. Rachel, at the beginning of the scene, is sobbing and won't even properly talk to Nick. Yet, in a matter of seconds, she forgives him, and life goes on as if nothing has happened. It's not the actors fault the scene felt fake. It's the screenwriter's.
As much as its comedy angered many critics, who emphasized the fact that most of the jokes were exploiting the Asian stereotype, I would disagree. The comedy was clearly not meant to be taken seriously, especially in such a light-hearted film. If anything, the humor calls attention to the stereotypes and how they relate to our society today. That's valuable.
On the other hand, Nick's mother, Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh), is awfully flawed. She acts as the antagonist of the film, opposing Nick and Rachel's relationship. Since Eleanor is strongly against the relationship, Nick is presented with a dilemma of choosing love or family and money, the three primary motifs of the film. But before they even reveal his choice, we already know his choice. Love will triumph over family and money. It's too predictable. The reason for this predictability factor is that Eleanor simply doesn't provide a strong enough antagonist. She displays such a weak and powerless sense for family, so weak that it feels like there's no opposing force to the protagonist. She even seems to care more about money, boasting a mansion furnished with lavish chandeliers and paintings. And as we know from 99% of commercial movies, greed for money never prevails.
For the protagonist's victory to be marvelous and beautiful, the more menacing the antagonist has to be. The harder the struggle, the more glorious the triumph. For example, in great love stories such as Casablanca (1942) or La La Land (2016), we have no idea what the outcome will be because the conflicting values against the protagonist are so persuasive and dominant, so much so that victory for the protagonist seems impossible. Or is it?
Despite these faults, one of Crazy Rich Asians' greatest achievements is the beautiful production and costume design. From the extravagant sets to the luxurious clothing, this film does a magnificent job of producing an immersive and believable environment for the audience.
Overall, Crazy Rich Asians is a great start for Asians in Hollywood. The clichés and unconvincing characters are so typical in a modern rom-com that there's nothing really to criticize the film about. Originality and ambition is always encouraged, but it's ambitious enough already to feature an all-Asian cast. These flaws and imperfections should not worry us at all; they only serve as a reminder that we still have things to work on. After all, like Rachel finally stands up to Eleanor at the end, Asian filmmakers are finally challenging Hollywood for racial representation. "Bok Bok, Bitch!"
Crazy Rich Asians is certainly a breakthrough for racial representation in the American film industry. Since Wayne Wang's 1993 Joy Luck Club, no Hollywood studio movie has featured an all Asian or Asian-American cast. On top of that, Crazy Rich Asians posted the best rom-com box-office debut in three years, grossing an estimated 25.2 million dollars at North American theaters over opening weekend. Yet as impressive as it is commercially and culturally, is it good?
Essentially, what most rom-coms boil down to is whether or not they succeed in immersing the audience enough that they forget about the countless authenticity and conceptual flaws scattered throughout the film. They're silly, but you've got to admit, they're cute. But if the storyteller fails to hold your attention for just one second, just one, you'll realize, "Ok, what the hell am I watching."
Yet it's not the clichés (like the rich guy falls in love with a poor girl but doesn't care about her wealth, rather her "inner true self") that bother me, but rather the manner in which they are executed. I believe a cliché is only truly a cliché if you notice it. Some opinions identify the acting as the shortcoming, but I feel the cast did their job just fine. In reality, the problem lies in the script. Like the great Roger McKee once stated in his screenwriting manual, Story, "(Imagine) two attractive people sit opposite of each other at a candlelit table, the light glinting off the crystal wine-glasses and the dewy eyes of the lovers. Soft breezes billow the curtains. A Chopin nocturne plays in the background. The lovers reach across the table, touch hands, look longingly in each others' eyes, say, 'I love you, I love you' ... and actually mean it. This is an unactable scene and will die like a rat in the road."
It is simply impossible to act a scene so poorly written. In Crazy Rich Asians, there is a moment where Nick Young (Henry Golding) apologizes to Rachel Chu (Constance Wu) on a couch about how he screwed up or whatever. Rachel, at the beginning of the scene, is sobbing and won't even properly talk to Nick. Yet, in a matter of seconds, she forgives him, and life goes on as if nothing has happened. It's not the actors fault the scene felt fake. It's the screenwriter's.
As much as its comedy angered many critics, who emphasized the fact that most of the jokes were exploiting the Asian stereotype, I would disagree. The comedy was clearly not meant to be taken seriously, especially in such a light-hearted film. If anything, the humor calls attention to the stereotypes and how they relate to our society today. That's valuable.
On the other hand, Nick's mother, Eleanor (Michelle Yeoh), is awfully flawed. She acts as the antagonist of the film, opposing Nick and Rachel's relationship. Since Eleanor is strongly against the relationship, Nick is presented with a dilemma of choosing love or family and money, the three primary motifs of the film. But before they even reveal his choice, we already know his choice. Love will triumph over family and money. It's too predictable. The reason for this predictability factor is that Eleanor simply doesn't provide a strong enough antagonist. She displays such a weak and powerless sense for family, so weak that it feels like there's no opposing force to the protagonist. She even seems to care more about money, boasting a mansion furnished with lavish chandeliers and paintings. And as we know from 99% of commercial movies, greed for money never prevails.
For the protagonist's victory to be marvelous and beautiful, the more menacing the antagonist has to be. The harder the struggle, the more glorious the triumph. For example, in great love stories such as Casablanca (1942) or La La Land (2016), we have no idea what the outcome will be because the conflicting values against the protagonist are so persuasive and dominant, so much so that victory for the protagonist seems impossible. Or is it?
Despite these faults, one of Crazy Rich Asians' greatest achievements is the beautiful production and costume design. From the extravagant sets to the luxurious clothing, this film does a magnificent job of producing an immersive and believable environment for the audience.
Overall, Crazy Rich Asians is a great start for Asians in Hollywood. The clichés and unconvincing characters are so typical in a modern rom-com that there's nothing really to criticize the film about. Originality and ambition is always encouraged, but it's ambitious enough already to feature an all-Asian cast. These flaws and imperfections should not worry us at all; they only serve as a reminder that we still have things to work on. After all, like Rachel finally stands up to Eleanor at the end, Asian filmmakers are finally challenging Hollywood for racial representation. "Bok Bok, Bitch!"