Crazy Rich Asians: The Complex Fight For Representation
This past Wednesday I had the privilege of seeing 'Crazy Rich Asians' a week before its official release, and I've been putting off writing my thoughts about it because there's so much to talk about, and I wasn't sure if I'd be able to put it all into one coherent thought. From the film's announcement two years ago to its pending release this week, there've been countless think pieces, debates, and Twitter wars over what this film - the first to feature an entirely Asian cast, by an Asian director, co-written by an Asian screenwriter, in over 25 years, backed by a major Hollywood studio - actually means. The general consensus seems to be: yes, it is a milestone. What everyone seems to disagree about is whether or not it's enough? There are fair arguments for and against the film and what it means for representation in Hollywood, but there are also unfair expectations forced upon the film, the filmmakers, and its stars strictly because it's such a rare sight in Hollywood.
The Premise
Adapted from Kevin Kwan's best-selling novel of the same name, 'Crazy Rich Asians' has an unfortunate title that may make you roll your eyes and which makes it seem like a lesser film than it actually is. The film stars Constance Wu (from ABC's 'Fresh Off the Boat') as Rachel Chu, an economics professor at NYU, who follows her boyfriend Nick Young (TV host Henry Golding, in his first acting role) to Singapore to attend his best friend's wedding. Though they've been dating for over a year, Rachel has no idea Nick is an heir to one of the richest families in Asia.
What follows is your standard romcom - part fish-out-of-water, part meet-the-parents - in which Rachel, who was born and raised in the United States, acts as the audience surrogate in her first experience in Singapore; we're learning and taking everything in at the same time she is. Almost immediately we're drawn into the sweeping cityscape, beautiful architecture, breathtaking views, and mouth-watering food. Rachel soon meets Nick's extensive family, which may or may not end up being too much for her to handle.
There's Eddie Cheng (Ronnie Chieng, 'The Daily Show'), Nick's douchey banker cousin; Alistair Cheng (Remy Hii, 'Marco Polo'), Eddie's movie producer brother; Astrid Leong (Gemma Chan, 'Humans'), Nick's closest cousin, dubbed "The Goddess" for her beauty and philanthropy; and most importantly, Eleanor Sung-Young (the legendary Michelle Yeoh, 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon'), Nick's loving, but controlling mother. It's Eleanor who Rachel runs into conflict with because Eleanor, prideful and protective of the family name and status, immediately disapproves of her son's "ABC" (American-Born Chinese) girlfriend.
Rounding out the rest of the supporting cast includes: Colin Khoo (Chris Pang, 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: Sword of Destiny'), Nick's best friend and groom; Araminta Lee (Sonoya Mizuno, 'Ex Machina'), Colin's bride-to-be; Oliver T'Sien (Nico Santos, 'Superstore'), Nick's cousin and the "rainbow sheep" of the family; Goh Peik Lin (Awkwafina, who broke out earlier in this summer's 'Ocean's 8'), Rachel's college best friend; Goh Wye Mun (Ken Jeong, 'The Hangover'), Peik Lin's father; and Kerry Chu (Tan Kheng Hua, 'Phua Chu Kang Pte Ltd'), Rachel's working-class single mother who had to start her life from scratch when she immigrated to America.
The Actual Story
Though the title implies this is a story about unimaginably rich Asians, thankfully that's not the case here. Sure, the film showcases excessive wealth, extravagance, and feels like "affluence porn," as Vulture film critic Emily Yoshida described, but these are just background elements - they're not the point. Rachel is the main character, not the film's many wealthy characters.
The primary story focuses on the conflict between Rachel and Eleanor, with both essentially trying to "win" Nick's future. If Rachel ends up with Nick, he may lose his inheritance and his family. If Eleanor gets her way, Nick will lose Rachel.
This is a story that covers many themes, some executed better than others. There's Old Money versus New Money: characters endure power imbalance, and come into conflict because of it, despite both parties being wealthy. There's marital strife because one makes more money than the other. It's about learning how to gain the confidence to stand up for yourself and what you believe in. It's about a loving couple who, despite coming from two extremely different backgrounds, fight to stay on equal footing. It's about tradition and the generational gap. It's about what it means to be Asian or not Asian enough. Thank god this isn't a story about rich people problems.
What I Liked
To be honest, if 'Crazy Rich Asians' didn't feature an all Asian-American cast, or at the very least, Asian romantic leads, the film probably wouldn't be as talked-about as it is. Having never read the books (it's a trilogy), and judging solely on its film trailer, I wouldn't have even given it a second thought. The film's directed by Jon M. Chu, who has made a couple films I enjoyed ('G.I. Joe: Retaliation' & 'Justin Bieber: Never Say Never'), but whose overall filmography didn't exactly give me confidence ('Step Up 2: The Streets', 'Jem and the Holograms', 'Now You See Me 2'). 'The trailer (and the film itself) didn't feature a groundbreaking story. The story just seemed so generic! But what wasn't generic was seeing Asian and Asian-American actors playing every role; we have Asian characters who are sexy, nerdy, funny, self-possessed, charismatic, materialistic, and everything in between. For once, we had Asians depicted as three-dimensional characters in a Hollywood film instead of as the token minority, the sidekick, or the weirdo. Asians were the stars.
I saw the film in a theatre packed with people who looked like me. We were all watching a film starring people who looked like us. It was an experience I'd never had before, and those who know me know I see a lot of movies in theatres. I had a sense of pride seeing myself represented on screen, as well as supporting a film like this. Seeing 'Crazy Rich Asians' felt like a life-event I just couldn't miss.
I'm happy to say I was impressed by other aspects of the film, too. The film wouldn't work without a great cast. Constance Wu is perfect as Rachel, who leads the film and grounds it with a sense of humanity. There's a reason why her character became the lead in 'Fresh Off the Boat' starting with Season Two despite being a supporting character in Season One, and it's because it's hard not to like her. Awkwafina and Nico Santos will probably be most people's favorite characters because they're so funny together and have plenty of standout scenes despite having smaller roles. And Michelle Yeoh wows as the stern Eleanor, who gives the character more depth than simply "Cinderella's evil stepmother."
I wish I had read the book before seeing the film so I can adequately critique the changes from book to screen, and what worked and didn't work. From my limited understanding, I heard the book has more of a satirical bite to it. 'Crazy Rich Asians' the film is not satire. Maybe it would have worked as one too, but for what it's worth, the film is thoroughly enjoyable as an unchallenging, yet charming and enjoyable romantic comedy executed with sheer confidence.
As beautiful as the Singaporean setting is, the scene that took my breath away was the actual wedding between Colin and Araminta, dubbed "the wedding of the century." And it. Did. Not. Disappoint! This was, quite frankly, the most gorgeous and impressive wedding I've ever seen depicted on film. I'm not even going to describe anything because I want you to experience it for yourself for the first time. I'll just say the physical beauty of the sequence, combined with the emotion of the moment, topped with the perfect song choice, all worked in harmony to bring us this unforgettable sequence. I bet you everyone who sees this film will want to recreate this wedding to the best of their abilities, as much as one possibly can to duplicate a $40 million wedding.
What Resonated With Me
There were two important themes the film featured that really resonated with me: (1) What it means to be Asian, and (2) Pursuing your passions versus making sacrifices for your family.
Rachel Chu is an Asian-American character portrayed by an Asian-American Actress. The majority of the other characters are not Asian-American. Rachel's American upbringing is considered low-class and she's often discriminated by Nick's family members. She may not be able to relate entirely to the traditions Eleanor tries to maintain.
As an Asian-American, specifically Vietnamese-American, born and raised, I'm one of many who sometimes feel a disconnect between my Asian identity and my American identity. In America, anyone not white is considered a hyphenated-American. Asian-Americans are considered the "other," even when we've lived here all our lives. If there'll ever be a time where we can be considered 100% Americans, it won't be anytime soon. To Asians, we're not Asian enough. I have trouble speaking my parents' native language, and I don't really follow Vietnamese traditions like my parents do. It's a major side-effect of my upbringing in a small, predominantly white town. Whether or not that's a bad thing, and whether or not that's something to be ashamed of, is up for debate. But it's true people like me are looked down upon by those born and raised in Asian countries because we're Americanized or white-washed. Our American-ness brings me to the next theme: pursuing your passions or sacrificing your passion for the sake of your family.
Eleanor worked hard to get where she is, which is why she's so adamant about maintaining her family's status and image. She sacrificed her career to be a mother and maintain her household. She finds honor in this. To her, pursuing your passions - like Rachel has - is a very American way of life. It reminded me of an event I helped host a few years ago that featured a Q&A session with former House Representative Joseph Cao (R-LA) and then-Mayor of Garden Grove, California Bao Nguyen (D). This event was about Vietnamese-Americans in political leadership positions. A history professor in attendance mentioned how she has many Vietnamese-American students who were studying to be doctors, more so because it's what their parents want and not necessarily because it's what the student wanted. The professor asked the two men what their advice would be to those students?
The two men not only had a political gap, but a generational one too. Joseph Cao, now in his 50s, felt that in real life we have to make sacrifices to take care of our families, which may mean pursuing a career that can support one's family even if it's not one you prefer. On the other hand, Bao Nguyen, now in his late 30s, championed us to do what we love and to love doing it. There's merit in both views, and none of us can really say which approach is right and which one is wrong, but it shows the divide that is present in the Asian-American community.
I can't tell you how many of my Asian-American friends struggle with this dilemma. So many are studying to be doctors, engineers, or lawyers because it's what their parents pressured them to do. Yes, there are some friends who actually want to pursue these paths, but I can guarantee you they're in the minority. I'm lucky enough to have parents who allowed my siblings and me the complete freedom to make our own choices when it came to our futures and career paths. Crazily enough, none of my parents' four children have chosen to study medicine, engineering, or law. The four of us are pursuing our passions, even if some of us don't know what exactly are passions are just yet.
What Didn't Work
As much as I enjoyed the film, there were a few things that didn't work. Because it has all the elements of a standard romcom, just with Asian people, the story is fairly predictable. But the charming cast and solid direction by Chu made it more about the journey than the destination, and that's totally fine.
The book featured several points of views, including Rachel, Nick, Eleanor, Astrid, and Eddie. The filmmakers wisely reworked the story into a conventional movie told from just one perspective, Rachel's. This helped to streamline the plot, however, it also resulted in the underdevelopment of other characters, namely Astrid.
From what I've gathered, Astrid is a fan-favorite character from the book, but in the film she's shorthanded. She's definitely one of the more likable family members of the Young clan, and she's the only one given her own subplot, but the fact it's barely paid attention to makes me wonder if they should've just removed her side story altogether? Perhaps she'll play a bigger role in potential sequels.
The Controversies
'Crazy Rich Asians' doesn't represent all Asians.
There's been a lot of hype surrounding 'Crazy Rich Asians', with many heralding it as big step towards representation of Asians in Hollywood. However, once the film's trailer was released, there was much outcry and criticism aimed at the film for not representing all Asians. Most of the critiques I've read are thoughtful and valid, some I disagreed with, but ultimately this discussion is good to have because it helps move the conversation forward.
With many progressive movements, including Feminism and Black Lives Matter, there are people who consider themselves members and supporters of the movement, but who may not necessarily agree or adhere to the same philosophies. Can you be a housewife and still be a feminist? There are feminists who disagree and feel that it moves feminism backwards. However, most feminists would say the answer is yes, you can be a housewife and still be a feminist because feminism allows women the freedom of choice. Can you be pro-Black Lives Matter if you're against the LGBTQ community? Some may say yes, because the black community is racial, whereas LGBTQ concerns sexual orientation. However, the answer is no, because how can you be pro-black Lives if you don't also support black LGBTQ lives?
Movements are complex because they have to represent so many people under one umbrella. But the debates we have, with each one of us educating the other, eventually help solidify and strengthen the overall progressive message the movement stands for. Now the question begs: can we truly have Asian representation when we're only seeing light-skinned Asians, or Southeast Asians, or ethnically ambiguous Asians?
Then there's the criticism that 'Crazy Rich Asians' has racist undertones and promotes the oppression of South Asians and brown Asians. It's true, when you watch the trailer or the actual film, the major characters are all light-skinned Southeast Asians.
"Chinese Singaporeans, at 77% of the population, are the vast majority of the nation and the population’s minorities are Malay and Indian people, who make up 15% and 7% respectively," writes Singaporean writer and activist Sangeetha Thanapal. "Given this context, this movie is actually perpetuating the state of racism and Islamophobia in Singapore. The only Brown people in the movie are opening doors or in service of the elite Chinese in the movie. Minorities only exist in the periphery of the film. Why is this being lauded as revolutionary?"
To be fair, the novel is loosely based on his experiences growing up in an affluent family in Singapore. Kwan has a passage in the novel that suggests there's colorism within Singaporean society; the passage was regarding a family member who got disowned for marrying a women who was "one shade too dark." I have no doubt that the real people Kevin Kwan based these characters on are all light-skinned Asians. I don't doubt that the rich Asians he based these characters on surround themselves with people just like themselves.
In a way, the film may be depicting an honest truth in the way the 1% live, and the types of people they keep in their circle. Growing up in a middle-class family, even I've heard there was a preference for light-skinned people in Vietnam because if you were dark-skinned it meant you were poor or worked out in the fields. It's not right, but it's a reality of many Asian societies. Just look at how pale all of the Kpop stars are!
Some recent films that come to mind, ones that have been celebrated for their impact in Hollywood's diversity problem, include Pixar's 'Coco' and 20th Century Fox's 'Love, Simon'. The former was the first film from Pixar that focused on non-white characters, and the first animated film by a major animated studio to feature an entirely Latino cast and characters. The latter is the first film from a major Hollywood studio to feature a gay, teen protagonist. Both are films I love and cried over. Both were celebrated as major wins for diversifying Hollywood's stale slate of films. But I don't remember hearing complaints about 'Coco' not being diverse enough in depicting other facets of Mexico, including Afro-Latinos, and the racism darker-skinned Mexicans face in their country. With 'Love, Simon' there were some complaints about it being yet another story featuring a white gay character, though the film did feature two supporting characters who were gay and black, and featured a scene that showcased how there's different types of gays and they can't be boxed into one stereotype. These criticisms were not as vocal as the ones I'm hearing about 'Crazy Rich Asians' and its responsibility regarding adequate representation of its community. I think the main reason for this disparity is the fact that in America, we're not used to seeing Asian characters on screen as we do Latinos and even Gays (and I'm definitely not implying this is a game of who is oppressed more).
Molly Ringwald ('The Breakfast Club,' 'Sixteen Candles') wrote a piece in The New Yorker earlier this year about how John Hughe's films looked in the #MeToo era. In an age where we're constantly demanding more representation in Hollywood, John Hughes's films have not aged well; you can find elements of sexism, sexual assault, and racism (remember Long Duk Dong?). Hughes's films can be considered great, yet still problematic. They featured white characters, but also stereotypical and offensive minorities. Yet some can still find themselves represented, as Ringwald described in her piece:
And yet I have been told more times than I could count, by both friends and strangers, including people in the L.G.B.T. community, that the films “saved” them. Leaving a party not long ago, I was stopped by Emil Wilbekin, a gay, African-American friend of a friend, who wanted to tell me just that. I smiled and thanked him, but what I wanted to say was “Why?” There is barely a person of color to be found in the films, and no characters are openly gay. A week or so after the party, I asked my friend to put me in touch with him. In an e-mail, Wilbekin, a journalist who created an organization called Native Son, devoted to empowering gay black men, expanded upon what he had said to me as I had left the party. “The Breakfast Club,” he explained, saved his life by showing him, a kid growing up in Cincinnati in the eighties, “that there were other people like me who were struggling with their identities, feeling out of place in the social constructs of high school, and dealing with the challenges of family ideals and pressures.” These kids were also “finding themselves and being ‘other’ in a very traditional, white, heteronormative environment.” The lack of diversity didn’t bother him, he added, “because the characters and storylines were so beautifully human, perfectly imperfect and flawed.” He watched the films in high school, and while he was not yet out, he had a pretty good idea that he was gay.
It's true that 'Crazy Rich Asian' doesn't represent all Asians. There are billions of us - how can it? But the film doesn't try to represent all of us, and it shouldn't have to. The fact that we're having this conversation is a result of Hollywood's drought in diversity. Because a film like this is so rare in Hollywood, we examine it under a bigger microscope than we do with white-led films. Because it's the first film in 25 years to feature an all-Asian cast, it's not unreasonable for all of us Asians to want to be represented in this film. But it's not fair to expect the film to do so.
“It is diverse when you look at it in the scope and context of Hollywood, which is predominantly white,” says Nancy Wang Yuen, chair of Biola University’s sociology department. “But in terms of representing all of Asians and Asian Americans, it doesn’t hit that mark. It is a very specific story to a specific enclave, and even within that enclave, a specific class of that enclave.” She goes on to add "The problem is that we don't have enough stories. It's not that the film is terrible and Kevin Kwan's book is so horrible, but that it is one story and it shouldn't represent all of Asia and nobody wants that to happen."
What Yuen said about looking at the film in the context of Hollywood is important. The topic of Asian representation can be split into two viewpoints: one from the Asian-American perspective, and one from the Asian perspective. A film like 'Crazy Rich Asians' is not going to be a big deal in countries where movies like this are the norm. Minorities in Asian countries see films represented by light-skinned, ethnically-Chinese stars all the time. They most definitely have a right to voice their concerns about representation of darker-skinned Asians. That's not to say Asian-Americans don't have that same right. It just helps to understand why the majority of Americans view Asian representation in a different light - because it's a different context.
Hollywood is dominated by so many white players in front of and behind the camera, anyone not white is considered diverse. From the Asian-American viewpoint, 'Crazy Rich Asians' is a game-changer because there's simply no other film that looks like it in Hollywood.
'Crazy Rich Asians' reinforces western beauty standards and what it means to be attractive.
Though the film is deemed a win for representation of Asian-Americans in heavily-white Hollywood, there's valid criticism in how the film showcases its attractive Asian characters. If you disregard the fact that they're Asian, most of the actors in 'Crazy Rich Asians' would fit within Hollywood's conventional idea of beauty. The women are tall and skinny, the men have chiseled abs and defined jawlines, both groups have thin noses and lighter skins.
On one hand, portraying Asians like this helps put us on an even playing field as whites. On the other hand, should we even want that? Shouldn't we aim for different standards of what it means to be beautiful? Shouldn't we set the bar higher than whites do?
And then there's the issue of the film reinforcing hegemonic masculinity. Phillipe Thao (co-host of the Asian-American Millennial podcast "What's the Bubble Tea?") writes:
"If Golding did not possess these masculine and heterosexual traits often associated with hegemonic masculinity, would he still be considered desirable? My guess would be no... Crazy Rich Asians has shown that Asian male desirability is able to exist when there isn’t whiteness to compare it to. I would like to suggest that it’s not just whiteness that we must decolonize from our minds, but the gender binary as well. The only Asian men in the film who are sexualized are all straight, but not all straight men are sexualized."
Ken Jeong, Nico Santos, and Calvin Wong (who portrays Peik Lin's socially-awkward brother P.T. Goh) all play characters who are never depicted as desirable men, who are often the comic-relief, or in Wong's case, is the joke. There's nothing wrong with having characters who provide comic-relief, but as is almost always the case in Hollywood, the ones providing them are not conventionally attractive. Ken Jeong's Goh Wye Mun, like many of his other famous characters, is obnoxious and sassy; Nico Santos, an openly gay actor, portrays the effeminate gay cousin of the family. Regarding Jeong and Santos's characters, we often laugh with them. Regarding Wong's character, we're laughing at him. He's presented as the complete opposite of Golding's Nick Young, a total creep at times.
"It is possible for Asian men to be queer, feminine, funny, have an accent, and be considered desirable. Do I have a concrete answer on how representation can work toward embracing these complexities in identity? No, but writing more dynamic and non-stereotypical Asian characters may be a good first step into the right direction," Thao emphasizes.
Can any Asian actor portray any Asian role?
Casting Asian characters in Hollywood can often be a complex and touchy subject. 'Memoirs of a Geisha' (2005) generated controversy for having Chinese actresses in Japanese roles. Other examples in American mainstream media include Korean-American actor Ki Hong Lee playing a Vietnamese character named Dong Nguyen in 'Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt'; Korean-American actress Jamie Chung portraying the legendary Chinese character Mulan in 'Once Upon a Time'; and more recently, Vietnamese-American actress Lana Condor playing a Korean-American character in 'To All the Boys I've Loved Before' (also adapted from a best-selling book, premiering on Netflix this week!) .
The argument is Asians are diverse and we're not interchangeable. It's true, we are diverse. We don't look alike. We have different features. All of this is important to note. However, this is a privilege white actors don't have to deal with because whiteness has dominated our media landscape for so long. We don't have a problem with a British actress portraying a French character (Emma Watson in Disney's live-action adaptation of 'Beauty and the Beast'), or with a British actor playing an iconic all-American type (Henry Cavill as Superman; Andrew Garfield as Spider-Man), because whites haven't had to endure systemic racism and have seen themselves depicted in mass media for generations.
When Henry Golding, who is of Malaysian Iban and English descent, was cast as the Chinese Singaporean Nick Young, there was outrage over him not being Asian enough because he's biracial. We have Korean-Americans (Ken Jeong), Japanese-Brits (Sonoya Mizuno), and Filipino-Americans (Nico Santos) portraying Chinese characters. This begs the question: Should the film have casted ethnically Chinese actors in all of its roles? This is something director Jon M. Chu asked himself, to which he acknowledges he doesn't have the answer to.
“Like are we allowed to cast a half Chinese, half some other ethnicity person in a Chinese role? Are we allowed to cast a Korean as a Chinese person? All these different rules that I don’t know if there are answers to,” he said. “Because with other ethnicities, we have British people playing US soldiers or Spiderman which is an all-American thing, so I think it’s a little unfair … But at the same time, I also want to be the example of how to do it correctly.”
When I read Ken Jeong and Nico Santos were cast in the film, I raised an eyebrow. They're two actors whose respective works I enjoy, but they definitely don't look Chinese. Ken Jeong is Korean-American and has Korean features. Nico Santos is Filipino, which inherently means he has darker skin. A white audience may not care enough to notice the difference, but even to me, as someone who normally isn't as concerned about having an ethnically accurate actor portraying an ethnically-specific character as others, I was confused why they'd be playing Chinese characters.
Director Jon M. Chu said he wanted to cast the "the Avengers of fucking [Asian] actors." I get it - he wanted to include not only fairly unknown Asian actors, but also the ones we love and recognize in American mainstream media. He wanted this film to be a celebration with some of the actors who helped play their part in the slow route to equal representation.
An unintentional benefit to the casting of not-ethnically-correct actors is that it can speak to Asians who are often told "you don't look Chinese," or "you don't look [insert ethnicity here]." I've had friends be told they didn't look like their ethnicity, and maybe they didn't take any offense to it or made it a big deal, but to others it can hurt and make them feel not enough.
In addition of the "They're not Asian enough" argument, there's the belief that casting biracial or ethnically ambiguous Asians in prominent roles, such as in 'Crazy Rich Asians', perpetuates the belief that Asians can only be deemed desirable if they have European features. The film features several Asian actors who come from mixed backgrounds: Henry Golding (Malaysian Iban and English); Sonoya Mizuno (Japanese, British, Argentinian); Remi Hii (Chinese, Malaysian, English); and Gemma Chan (Chinese and Scottish). Hollywood famously celebrates Asians when they're ethnically ambiguous and/or white-passing, like Keanue Reeves, Maggie Q, Vanessa Hudgens, or Chloe Bennett.
The belief that Asians are only beautiful when they're part white is something I've heard countless times growing up, and it's an idea I've unintentionally supported. "Half Asian, half white babies (and people) are so beautiful!" is a common saying. We even have a word for this - mỹ lai - which we say in high regard when talking about half-white Viets.
Perhaps when we get to a place where there is equal representation across the board, we won't have to worry about whether or not someone is Asian enough, or ethnically Chinese/Korean/Japanese/etc. enough to portray a specific Asian character. Right now, it's a privilege we just don't seem to have.
In Conclusion
As much controversy as 'Crazy Rich Asians' is causing in the debate surrounding representation, and the different levels of it, I'm really happy that these conversations are even happening. It's good to try and understand other people's perspectives and why or why not something you hold in high regard may not mean anything to someone else. If there's one thing I would want everyone to agree on, it's that 'Crazy Rich Asians' isn't and shouldn't be a one-size-fits-all approach to Asian representation in mass media. This is not a perfect film that's going to solve all of our problems in Hollywood.
Unfortunately, like how minorities have to work twice as hard to get half as far in our society, this film is being held to a higher standard than most others. This is a film starring an all-Asian cast, but to some it's not Asian enough. This is a film starring Asian romantic leads, but it supports conventional western standards of beauty. "If we expect art from underrepresented groups to be flawless right off the bat, then we are holding it to the same standards as white art without acknowledging the advantages and privileges white creators have had for many years."
A lot is riding on the success of this film and whether or not it's a hit at the box office. It goes back to how unfairly we view projects by minorities in comparison to white ones. If 'Crazy Rich Asians' failed critically or financially, it'd probably convince Hollywood that Asian-made or Asian-led films don't work. But how often can white-made and white-led films fail and not affect their future prospects? Even films featuring Hollywood's "box office draws" fail (cough, cough Scarlett Johansson, Will Smith, Johnny Depp, and so many more), yet they still give the very same people more opportunities. That's totally fine, but a film like 'Crazy Rich Asians' deserves the chance to be a failure without affecting whether or not future projects are made with Asian-Americans in mind. Thankfully, the film seems to be a critical success and, potentially, box office success (currently tracking at $20 million opening weekend on a $30 million budget).
From my perspective, all of the criticisms against 'Crazy Rich Asians' are valid and should be heard and discussed, but it shouldn't completely dismiss the fact that the film can be a momentous occasion for those who do feel the film adequately represents them in one way or another.
The struggle for on-screen representation is not easy and it's not a straight path. For us Asians who are 100% on board with the film and feel represented, that's great. Just don't make other Asians - those who don't see themselves depicted in this film - go out and effortlessly support it just because it's an American film with an all-Asian cast.
As Thanapa put it, it's not that no one should watch the film, but instead people "should consume it in a critical way."
The film opens on Wednesday, August 15th.
