Okay, I also enjoyed Harold and Kumar immensely. Definitely better than dude where’s my car–actually didn’t like this much. Back to H&K, despite the enjoyment I was a bit troubled by the way it dealt with racism. Its basic position was that what goes around comes around; the racists will get what they deserve in the end, so Harold and Kumar need not get directly involved. A bit troubling? (I still feel bad for the convenient store clerk who was deserted by the two.)
A very different kind of movie but similar in its Asian American connection, Better Luck Tomorrow, also seemed to skirt around the problem of racism. The movie’s interest in class issues was interesting, but that seemed to have resulted in failing to treat with satisfaction what seems to be the more foundational problem of racism.
About BLT: you make a good point, that the film sidesteps the broader social context of racism, but its focus on intra-community issues & conflicts — or just the problem of “community” for a category like Asian American — was relatively sharp. The decision to approach experience in this way (focusing on the pressures inside) recalls Philip Roth’s or Toni Morrison’s early fiction…. or is this a bit generous for what is a well-crafted variation on the teen-falling-into-gangsterism genre?
mmmmm blt…
sunhee also makes a good point about harold and kumar’s avoidance of messy issues of racism. we discussed this somewhat last night but i think conversations in the flesh are highly overrated–much better to talk on this blog even though we’re in adjacent rooms now. anyway:
my, perhaps overly generous, reading of the film’s handling of racial issues is that while it remains within genre conventions–generally frothy, passive “heroes” who don’t do anything etc.–it does not shy away from introducing the question of race. it seems to be aware that for these protagonists in this genre race is expected to be an issue and it brings up various racial interactions that are actually quite brutal–their journey begins with a witnessing of a hate-crime in jersey in which an older indian and korean pair (“less cool versions of us”, as kumar says) get savagely beaten in the street. i would hesitantly suggest that the film is reminding its audience that the journeys of protagonists like these have elements that something like dude, where’s my car? does not. and it keeps bringing these things up even if it backs away from resolving them in any way.
and remaining in overly-generous mood i would suggest this is partly because it wants to remain a genre movie–light, not heavy. it doesn’t want to become another kind of movie in which the heroes right the wrongs of the world. it may also be that the film denies the audience’s expectation: that a film with minority characters has to become about race and racism at a more visceral or satisfying level. this may be a copout, at the very least it may be what prevents it from becoming a true classic, but it is true to the sensibility of the film and genre.
“Light” and “heavy” are tricky terms, though, aren’t they? I assume a “light” treatment of race means that it employs comic rather than dramatic elements. But what’s wrong with that? Most “heavy” films (such as “Monster’s Ball”) tend to guide us effortlessly through sophisticated racial politics towards a gratifying and self-satisfied resolution. Gimme the “light” films anytime (“Blazing Saddles” is one of my favorites). This goes for films that deal with other minorities, as well. Consider how far advanced “Stuck On You” is compared to, say, “My Left Foot.” Granted, serious films like “Mask” (the P. Bogdanovich film) and “The Elephant Man” can be very, very smart at times. But smarts don’t always need to be wrapped up in tragic seriousness.
Note: I reluctantly give credit to Mike R. for alerting me to the Farrellys and their unique portrayals of disabled people.
Is this the Asian-American-film ghetto? Or just a “racial-politics” back-alley cul-de-sac? Either way, maybe a quick note on Justin Lin’s Finishing the Game, a mock-documentary (first bad move) about attempts to exploit by recasting and completing Bruce Lee’s last misbegotten film (Game of Death). [Lin directed Better Luck Tomorrow, which I liked more than Sun Hee, and the less-effective but equally-ambitious Shopping for Fangs, and the less-ambitious but I gather semi-effective Fast and Furious 3: Tokyo Drift. He is also an old friend of Ruth Kwon’s, who is an old friend of mine. And, for more pointless details, see my other blog, We Like To Talk About We Who Are Liking To Watch, a careful explication of my every train of thought behind each post here.]
The film does a few very interesting things in capturing the era, particularly in focusing on the endemic racism of Hollywood filmmaking. Even when the film veers off into campy ‘seventies-mocking (curse you, VH1; bad move two), or a somewhat under-written and over-emphasized sincere focus on character development, the implications of race and racism bubble up in often funny, often sharp-edged ways. Perhaps the most inspired concept is one aspiring Lee-substitute who has a Chinese mother and a Caucasian father and who appears to be a fairly typical “white dude” (as many characters note–as in, “Who’s the white dude?”).
There are some other inspired riffs, but the film’s great central concept–using this reshooting for a satire of Hollywood and race–is almost woefully undernourished. Woefully in that it could have been so great, but it feels like a great 30-minute film blown up into 90 minutes with a concomitant loss of momentum, focus, and insight. Still, I did enjoy watching: some great, funny parodic scenes of martial-arts films, a strange small bit by MC Hammer as casting agent for “the colored” Roy Thunder, and a couple good performances by Dustin Nguyen and Sung Kang (who I really liked in BLT and, even more, The Motel).