I first heard about Crazy Rich Asians when the book got published but I never got around to reading it. Then, I learned that Kris Aquino was actually cast in the movie adaptation. That created a buzz in the Philippines because it's quite rare to find a Filipino in the cast of a Hollywood movie. Curious with the role Kris Aquino played, I decided that I wanted to see the movie.
... and then, the movie opened to rave reviews.
So I went to the movies with my parents and Tita Babie to see what the excitement was all about.
And being Asian who just moved to the Americas, I frankly couldn't relate to the people who had a lot of great opinions about Crazy Rich Asians. What I had, however, were eyeopeners.
First, this movie is touted to be a movie that fulfils the demand for Asian-led movies. Perhaps this need is particularly true for the Americas (specifically in Hollywood). In Asia, there is certainly no shortage for movies with Asians portraying characters but there may be shortage of theatres to show them because they compete directly with Hollywood movies. Hence, some of the best films end up going to international film festivals before gaining a wider theatre release in the Philippines. Aside from that, there are movies with Asian actors that have broken through the US market such as "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", "Joy Luck Club", the Bruce Lee and the Jackie Chan martial arts films, and the Asian horror movies that Hollywood tried to remake but with sub-par results.
Which brings me to my second eyeopener: the movie is claimed to be a departure from Asian stereotypes. In the USA, apparently, being Asian means knowing martial arts (thanks to the popularity of kung-fu and karate-themed movies), and talking in English with a heavy Chinese accent. Oh... and Asia is supposed to be filled with poor, hungry people. For audiences less exposed to Asian cinema, it must be surprising to see a movie that showcases Asians who speak English without the strong accents, Asians who are crazy rich, and Asians who don't do martial arts (And Asians who don't break into synchronised dance moves each time a movie's theme song is played). However, the movie couldn't avoid showing other stereotypes like the condescending mothers, the workaholic fathers, the dumplings, and the street food.
The one stereotype the movie (and the book) failed to avoid was equating Asian with East Asian. Yes, the plot called for characters that were of East Asian ethnicity and heritage and may be a limitation BUT the movie's title is still misleading. Why? Because Asia doesn't have one look nor one cultural background. In fact, Asia is a Western socio-geographic concept; there is no such thing as "Asia" culturally, according to the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco. Anyone who grew up in Asia may be surprised at how people from different continents view them. I, for one, was mistaken as Korean in Switzerland.
Third, the movie was all about the opulent lifestyle of Asia's supposed crazy rich citizens. But it was so easy to miss a message with all the sparkly jewellery and the rich gowns: the hero's father was absent because he prioritised duty over family (he had to be someplace else for work). This and the rest of the storyline made me realise that the patriarch was the only one working his butt off. I'm not denying that the other characters also had income-generating activities but the responsibility to keep the family financially afloat mainly fell on the patriarch. This placed the family in a precarious position. If the patriarch became incapacitated, was the next generation prepared to take the responsibility upon itself? Could the family still afford its affluent lifestyle? Or was the arrival of a working class woman into the family its ticket to survival?
Though I disagree that this movie is as great as what a lot of people in social media attest, I have to agree that Crazy Rich Asians is a breath of fresh air at a time when people need to have a bit of a laugh. Will the success of this movie herald enhanced diversity (or at least more Asian ethnicities in major roles) in both big and small screen? That is still to be seen.
... and then, the movie opened to rave reviews.
So I went to the movies with my parents and Tita Babie to see what the excitement was all about.
And being Asian who just moved to the Americas, I frankly couldn't relate to the people who had a lot of great opinions about Crazy Rich Asians. What I had, however, were eyeopeners.
First, this movie is touted to be a movie that fulfils the demand for Asian-led movies. Perhaps this need is particularly true for the Americas (specifically in Hollywood). In Asia, there is certainly no shortage for movies with Asians portraying characters but there may be shortage of theatres to show them because they compete directly with Hollywood movies. Hence, some of the best films end up going to international film festivals before gaining a wider theatre release in the Philippines. Aside from that, there are movies with Asian actors that have broken through the US market such as "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", "Joy Luck Club", the Bruce Lee and the Jackie Chan martial arts films, and the Asian horror movies that Hollywood tried to remake but with sub-par results.
Which brings me to my second eyeopener: the movie is claimed to be a departure from Asian stereotypes. In the USA, apparently, being Asian means knowing martial arts (thanks to the popularity of kung-fu and karate-themed movies), and talking in English with a heavy Chinese accent. Oh... and Asia is supposed to be filled with poor, hungry people. For audiences less exposed to Asian cinema, it must be surprising to see a movie that showcases Asians who speak English without the strong accents, Asians who are crazy rich, and Asians who don't do martial arts (And Asians who don't break into synchronised dance moves each time a movie's theme song is played). However, the movie couldn't avoid showing other stereotypes like the condescending mothers, the workaholic fathers, the dumplings, and the street food.
The one stereotype the movie (and the book) failed to avoid was equating Asian with East Asian. Yes, the plot called for characters that were of East Asian ethnicity and heritage and may be a limitation BUT the movie's title is still misleading. Why? Because Asia doesn't have one look nor one cultural background. In fact, Asia is a Western socio-geographic concept; there is no such thing as "Asia" culturally, according to the Asian Art Museum in San Francisco. Anyone who grew up in Asia may be surprised at how people from different continents view them. I, for one, was mistaken as Korean in Switzerland.
Third, the movie was all about the opulent lifestyle of Asia's supposed crazy rich citizens. But it was so easy to miss a message with all the sparkly jewellery and the rich gowns: the hero's father was absent because he prioritised duty over family (he had to be someplace else for work). This and the rest of the storyline made me realise that the patriarch was the only one working his butt off. I'm not denying that the other characters also had income-generating activities but the responsibility to keep the family financially afloat mainly fell on the patriarch. This placed the family in a precarious position. If the patriarch became incapacitated, was the next generation prepared to take the responsibility upon itself? Could the family still afford its affluent lifestyle? Or was the arrival of a working class woman into the family its ticket to survival?
Though I disagree that this movie is as great as what a lot of people in social media attest, I have to agree that Crazy Rich Asians is a breath of fresh air at a time when people need to have a bit of a laugh. Will the success of this movie herald enhanced diversity (or at least more Asian ethnicities in major roles) in both big and small screen? That is still to be seen.
Comments
Post a Comment
Thank you for dropping by!
Before moving on, please share your thoughts or comments about the post. :)
Thanks again!