Harold and Kumar are the Greatest Thing AA Cinema Has Ever Seen
30 Responses | Leave a Comment »
I saw HK escape from G-Bay last night, and it was brilliant. This isn’t going to be a full review; I just wanted to share a thought. These movies are probably the greatest Asian-American movies ever created, both from a political as well as artistic standpoint. They have pop-appeal, they’re funny, well-written, well-produced, and well-acted, and they acknowledged racial (and even gender) issues without being preachy or making the main characters and their families exotic and alien, which is something almost every other AA movie does. The writer/producers, two Jewish guys, know exactly how to present their underlying messages without compromising the artistic integrity of the movie; instead, they actually enhance it. Just amazing.
Fuck Red Doors and Falling From Grace and Joy Luck Club (which was actually a good movie, I admit) and all the rest. The key, as Jaehwan and countless others has said before, is not to make criticism or “hating” your main thing: it’s to produce something good and let that speak for itself.
This is it.
Leave a Comment »
Share
Entries (RSS)
Xian
11:29 am | Apr 27, 2008We saw it last night, three things:
1) They credited our tickets to 88 seconds. Motherfuckers.
2) We thoroughly enjoyed it.
3) It actually supported Jenn’s thesis–it was great, but it was as if they were actively trying to be sexist.
Before I get flamed–remember the difference between the scenes with the parents, and the extreme racist in the film, where it’s clear satire of bullshit by non-main characters, and the sexism which was spurred by really horribly, terribly atrocious writing for the female characters.
It wasn’t the nudity; it wasn’t the IR coupling; it wasn’t the sex craziness of the characters or the fact that it focused mostly on men and their desires; it was the complete inability to write which was problematic. It was particularly awful in that the writers clearly have talent to write ALL OF THE OTHER LINES for the film.
And then the hee-hee, they got assaulted by strangers in the credit ending was a sorry note to end on.
Review:
Go see it! Make sure they count your tickets properly! Represent!
But ask yourself why they couldn’t fucking write it better for the female roles. Asian American male empowerment should not and cannot possibly come at the expense of female empowerment. It’s rather easy to do both. We should have many many more films that focus on the Asian American male condition, but we could actually not worsen the Asian American female condition in doing so.
Dialectic
5:20 pm | Apr 27, 2008[SPOILER WARNING]
“And then the hee-hee, they got assaulted by strangers in the credit ending was a sorry note to end on.”
Actually, that was hilarious.
With regard to the writing of the two female characters, I agree it wasn’t great, but it wasn’t horrendous; they gave Kumar’s girl a personality, and she was also integral to his “origin,” or the development of his personality; Harold’s girl was of course a non-entity, but they also had limited space, and in any case she’d already liked him from the first movie.
With regard to something like the brothel scene, I think the “retributive justice” of shotgunning NPH in the back and having H&K open up in “feminine” conversation with the prostitutes were both pretty acceptable ways to have whores in a raunchy movie; and while there was certainly imbalance in what was shown at the “bottomless” party, Osama’s beard on Raz’s was beautiful.
I don’t think we can go so far as to say that this movie “worsened” the female condition, much less the Asian-American one (since they were absent, except for H&K’s parents, who were awesome).
Xian
5:45 pm | Apr 27, 2008More spoilers!!!!
Well, there was also the reference to Cindy Kim.
With regard to something like the brothel scene, I think the “retributive justice” of shotgunning NPH in the back and having H&K open up in “feminine” conversation with the prostitutes were both pretty acceptable ways to have whores in a raunchy movie; and while there was certainly imbalance in what was shown at the “bottomless” party, Osama’s beard on Raz’s was beautiful.
The low point of the brothel scene was “oh wait, you’re a whore”–it was not only dehumanizing (of course prostitutes fall in love–many are married with kids), but also came from one of the main characters in what was supposed to be a less hypermasculine scene.
The “bottomless” party was fine, I thought–sure it was imbalanced, but the way it was approached was more “so I thought I’d do this” rather than anything directly exploitative, and as you said, having the male members (;)) exposed was a good turn around.
Dialectic
9:09 pm | Apr 27, 2008I think discussions like this ultimately come down to a little bit of a double-standard with regard to race-based (or “racist”) and gender-based (or “sexist”) jokes.
Ultimately, I don’t think anything they did was all that bad. I think that there exists a hypersensitivity to “sexist” jokes in the AA political community, probably as a result of the confused AA feminism that dominates the political landscape. To say that the lack of deep characterization (which was only lacking in Maria, and she was portrayed pretty neutrally and not badly), the Cindy Kim comment, the whore comment, or the masked-grabbers at the end, “worsen the condition” of females, AA or not, is, I think, a bit of an exaggeration. Similar to the racial jokes, it’s clear that this movie regards this kind of objectification as amusingly wrong. We could make a very similar “worsening” argument for the racial jokes, too, but the point is to laugh at the bullshit; without trying to sound too dramatic, I believe this movie is part of the West’s recovery process (for both whites and minorities) from the fragmentation and hypersensitivity dominating this type of discourse.
We must recall that the admirable characters in the movie are ultimately respectful to women, that the objectifiers (racial or sexual) get their comeuppance, and even in the masked-grabbing scene, we know that what happened there was wrong: the characters are indignant and angry, but it’s not considered an enormous deal, because it’s not.
Again, we always have to keep a perspective on scale.
Any “sexist” joke in the movie could not possibly approach the scale of the “racist” ones: the grape drink, the coins, the ching-chong comment, all that shit, but all that gets a pass from us because we apply a more relaxed standard to the race ones than the sex ones, and I think the reason for that is somewhat arbitrary: both types of jokes are amusingly wrong, and both “-isms” are being mocked, but we are somehow not allowed to laugh at the “sexist” ones, and it’s unclear why. This double-standard is part of the sickness of the AA activist community.
Finally, we should also appreciate that this movie was not an attack on women or Asian-American women; that already puts it heads-and-shoulders above most of our other pieces of cinematic “art,” which almost always have something pretty bad to say about AA men. I don’t think that’s being hypersensitive either: again, we just have to look at trends. The AA woman’s “journey of self-discovery,” her “reconciling of her family and American society” and her inevitable finding of herself in the arms of a white man are an oft-repeated cliche, and a very harmful one, and many of our advocates have somehow failed to realize that.
Xian
9:38 pm | Apr 27, 2008I could not disagree more. I respect the level of racial discourse in the movie specifically because it’s not “racist jokes”. The protagonist and dominant POV in each of the racial situations is very clear.
It’s still tricky, in the parents scene–which was one of the best in the movie–a good chunk of the theater was just laughing with the racist content rather than at the racism. But the POV in the scene is very clear.
It’s that POV and knowing understanding that heals racial discourse, not mere laughing. It was handled with intense care on the one issue and not with the other. That’s not hypersensitivity, it’s observation. I don’t mean for it to be a judgment, other than a critique–the writers might just suck at empathizing across the gender barrier–they certainly couldn’t write across it.
That they were able to write across the ethnic barrier is a beacon of hope. Look at the difference between Family Guy’s handling of race vs. South Park’s. This series’ writing is certainly in the Family Guy genre rather than SP.
But let’s not get carried away. I mean, the writing was as shallow on the main female character as on Maria’s character. She was just on screen more.
Dialectic
9:51 pm | Apr 27, 2008Again, it’s just a matter of perspective: writing simpler female characters doesn’t equate with “worsening” the female condition. I don’t disagree that the writers didn’t portray the women as well as they did the men: at the same time, calling that “sexist” is going overboard, as is labeling a lot of the other jokes that way.
The POV is pretty clear on the female stuff: just as in the case of the grape drink, and the coins, and the parents, and the rednecks, we see that ultimately, the movie and its creators have love and respect for all, and while they emphasize racial issues much more than gender, I cannot agree that they displayed sexist ignorance which worsened the female condition. Even saying this sounds faintly ridiculous.
Was the movie homophobic as well? (They were almost entirely absent, and the model and director had no substance, to say nothing of the cockmeat sandwiches.) Perhaps anti-disability? (The horrendous and mocking depiction of the cyclops.) Classist? (The series does hicks in the woods no favors.) How about ageist? (It didn’t do any favors for old coots on planes either.) And let’s not forget shapeist, lookist, intelligencist, and who knows what else.
You can make almost-legit arguments for any of those criticisms, but ultimately, it’s hypersensitive and misses the point. I can only accept that this movie was “sexist” insofar as it was also homophobic, anti-disability, classist, ageist, shapeist, lookist, and intelligenicist. Anything beyond that is, as far as I can tell, an ideological viewpoint. In my opinion, there’s not enough evidence to back the sexist accusation up, and it doesn’t stand up to critical analysis (except insofar as all those abovementioned accusations “stand up” to it).
kwak76
9:55 pm | Apr 27, 2008Saw the movie. Not to get into the debate. The movie has allot of bathroom jokes. I could see how some people may think the movie does have sexist elements in it. It’s more of a guy flick but I think girls can also enjoy the movie. Overall I think the sexist element is more secondary where as the racial element played a bigger role.
Pat the Great
11:27 pm | Apr 27, 2008i haven’t seen it yet, but my lady has, and she was downright appalled by the way gender was handled in the movie - from what it sounds like, it was butchered exponentially worse than it was in the original (which she adores). she went to see it with a female friend of hers and said that they both felt unsafe - unsafe in the way that you might feel if you’re the only asian person watching Breakfast at Tiffany’s in an all-white theatre.
certainly the standard for buddy flicks is pretty low. but it does disturb me a bit to see the API community rally around a film that clearly isn’t made wholeheartedly with the interests or issues of the community in mind.
Speaker4TheDead
11:27 pm | Apr 27, 2008I was offended by how they handled getting kneed in the balls and farting because of it.
That shit hurts. Ain’t no laughing matter. Damn ballists/fartists.
Movie was everything I expected it to be. That little cameo by Osama had the whole place howling. And that Vanessa gal was a cutie.
nightshade
11:46 pm | Apr 27, 2008I saw the movie last night. I couldn’t stop laughing.
The square root of 3 poem was especially good.
nskripchun
11:52 pm | Apr 27, 2008Not to jump in, but I also saw the movie and it gave me a good laugh.
*SPOILER*
The H&K parents scene was hilarious, but my funniest part of it all had to be H&K getting smoked out with the *gasp* the president. The whole scene I was like… “WTH?”
evil_FUX
12:43 am | Apr 28, 2008H&K 2 is indeed a funny movie. With regard to Xian and D’s discussion, Xian you bring up some good points, but I’d have to agree with D because while the Cindy Kim and whore lines weren’t positive you could, much like D explained, apply the same logic to the parts of the movie spent in the South.
That being said, one can only hope for so much Xian because for one thing individual audience members will laugh at parts of the movie for entirely different reasons. For example, you cited in your theater that people were laughing at the racist content during the parents scene. In my theater, people were laughing at how retardedly racsist the interrogators were acting.
Even if the writers of H&K2 tried an alternate route to be less offensive or write better, there’s equally nothing to say on both counts that it would’ve helped or that there wouldn’t be people that would be offended either way.
I think then the likley approach then is to hope that people will look at the broader scope and context of the film and realize the underlying political messages for both race and gender.
Pat the Great
1:08 am | Apr 28, 2008http://poplicks.com/2008/04/harold-and-kumar-up-in-smoke-again.html
O-Wang spits on fiya here.
Dialectic
8:07 am | Apr 28, 2008First, Pat, you should probably watch the movie. Second, as I say above, this is a MASSIVE double-standard that says more about “feminist insecurity” than it does about any insensitivity in the movie. (I say this with the proviso that I am a feminist, insofar as I support gender “equality” however you might interpret that.)
Again, sure it’s “sexist,” just as it’s “racist” (a ton of neanderthals will be laughing at the racial stuff for the wrong reasons, just as they did in, say, Team America), “homophobic,” “ageist,” “lookist,” and all the rest. But hey, we just stand up for the issues closest to our own lives, right?
To be honest, the whole “sexist” accusation smells of insecure AA activist bullshit. It’s a total loss of perspective.
(I also addressed that Poplicks’ guy’s Falling From Grace comment in my post above. This didn’t attack women, AA or otherwise. The usual crap that passes for AA cinema attacks AA males left and right. Also, on a personal note, I’m able to enjoy a good show or movie with WM/AF, but the “literature” and shit coming out now, that just re-hashes the same narcissistic garbage over and over? It’s a far cry from even Joy Luck Club.)
Pat the Great
9:58 am | Apr 28, 2008as an asian american pothead male, i fully intend to watch the movie - i loved the original.
that said, calling it “The Greatest Thing AA Cinema Has Ever Seen” strikes me more as a commentary on the sad state of affairs with AA cinema and less on the virtues of the movie itself.
i’ll withhold further commentary until i can find a screener or something, since i doubt it’s getting released in japanese theatres.
jaehwan
12:30 pm | Apr 28, 2008I’ve got a lot to say about that gender and feminism thing, but I should withhold commentary until I’ve seen the movie. With the baby, I haven’t been to a movie in three years, but maybe this is a good time to break that hiatus.
groinpull
2:03 pm | Apr 28, 2008I read the poplicks review and some of the comments here as well as other places, and i’ll comment after I actually see the movie so I don’t pull a Jenn Fang like she did with Falling for Grace.
But given the paths asian feminism sponsored movies and asian male screen representation actvism is anyone surprised that we have arrived at this point? Tell me that I’m not the only one who saw this coming.
RebelAzn
3:49 pm | Apr 28, 2008Great fun funny movie. People were laughing their asses off. Go see it.
Dialectic
5:43 pm | Apr 28, 2008“that said, calling it “The Greatest Thing AA Cinema Has Ever Seen” strikes me more as a commentary on the sad state of affairs with AA cinema and less on the virtues of the movie itself.”
Well of course; I don’t disagree with you here. That’s the way things are. Motel with Sung Kang and that little chubby kid comes in second.
Dialectic
7:24 pm | Apr 28, 2008A very nice article/interview from the South Jersey Courier Post Online:
‘Harold & Kumar’ plead innocence to all offense
By ALEXANDYR KENT • Gannett News Service • April 27, 2008
Picture an R-rated buddy comedy conceived by horny, “Daily Show”-savvy adolescents. Got it? Good. In a nutshell, that’s “Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay.”
The heroes break laws as fast as they can violate taboos. A Homeland Security agent chasing them through the South is an epic-sized, racist dimwit. And most importantly, oodles of young women get naked.
“We have a bottomless party, and it’s almost a 13-year-old’s perviness,” says star John Cho, who plays Harold. Dozens of women ditch their drawers for a soon-to-be-infamous pool party scene. “It’s not adult perviness.”
Whatever Harold and Kumar do, Cho believes, they must be viewed through the puerile eyes of their creators, Hayden Schlossberg and Jon Hurwitz. The pair wrote the franchise’s first installment — “Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle” — and re-teamed to write and direct the Gitmo edition.
“Jon and Hayden, much like Harold and Kumar, are innocents,” and that’s why they get away with so much, Cho says.
Schlossberg and Hurwitz, who grew up as high school friends in New Jersey, likely wouldn’t disagree with Cho’s assessment.
“We’re writing for that 13-year-old boy in ourselves that loved movies like “Revenge of the Nerds,’ ” Hurwitz says. “Our 13-year-old selves would say, “put as much nudity in this movie as humanly possible. And make it frontal nudity.’ So we listened to that inner voice.”
Besides accomplishing that goal, “Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay” is bursting with jokes about racial profiling, interrogation tactics, oral sex, cathouses, inbreeding and, being true to its origins, getting stoned.
This time around, the character passing the biggest joint happens to be President George W. Bush, as played by impersonator and comedian James Adomian.
“I’ve tried to use my impression as a weapon to attack,” Adomian says. His Bush impression — prone to malapropisms and arrogance — is often featured on CBS’ “The Late Late Show” and YouTube.
Since substance abuse is no stranger to the real president, the comedian sees nothing strange about satirizing him as a stoner. What really intrigues Adomian is Bush’s place in the movie’s story.
“Harold and Kumar go on this journey into the heart of darkness, into this awful world of a torturing country,” Adomian says. The duo ultimately drops in on Bush at his Crawford, Texas, ranch. “They get to the heart of it, and there is no one there. It’s just emptiness. It’s just a man-child. It’s all this storm swirling around the eye of a hurricane.”
Though the movie is loaded with edgy social satire, Kal Penn, who plays Kumar, believes audiences shouldn’t read too deeply into it. At the very cores of their on-screen beings, Harold and Kumar are immature.
“The movie, while it has political undertones, is not about politics,” he says. “As un-PC as the movie gets, it’s never mean-spirited. In fact, it does the opposite. It kind of includes everybody as part of this 13-year-old humor movie.”
Hurwitz holds a slightly different view of the laughs.
“Every country has its pluses and minuses and their flaws within the system. And it’s those flaws that are a good source of comedy,” Hurwitz says. “We’ve always liked comedy that’s pushed the envelope. When we were in high school and we bonded over Howard Stern or watching Dave Chappelle do stand up or watching ‘South Park,’ these (were) things that (we) always really enjoyed.”
Schlossberg suggests that their satire is, by and large, playful.
“We’re not even saying it’s necessarily good or bad that Guantanamo Bay exists,” he says. “What we’re really saying is that, “God, it would suck if you went there, right?’
“As long as you keep it juvenile enough and sophomoric enough and you have a bottomless party in it, then you can joke about George W. Bush and Guantanamo Bay.”
Xian
11:02 pm | Apr 28, 2008What’s the goal here? I find it interesting that I’m being called “insecure” for my opinion without my argument being engaged at all–surely we can see the difference between racial satire and simply trotting out racial stereotypes? At the same time, no one batted an eye at the stealing of Harold and Kumar’s box office credit for 88 seconds.
As much as we may disagree on gender portrayals, isn’t it much more important to be furious about that?
Dialectic
3:46 am | Apr 29, 2008First, it was not my intention to personally attack you at all. I wasn’t trying to call you insecure, and I don’t think you’re particularly insecure, so if my post came across that way, I apologize. There was certainly no intent to insult you on my part.
Secondly, I have directly engaged your argument in at least two posts. To summarize very explicitly, here is my position: you have put this movie into a box. You consider it to be racial satire, and as such, race-based jokes are permitted, which would otherwise be very offensive in another context. Sex-based jokes are not permitted and are “sexist” in your view of this movie.
I am putting it into a bigger box, or perhaps a multi-module box: it may primarily be racial satire, but it also includes sexual satire. This reviewer would seem to agree:
http://www.bostonherald.com/entertainment/arts_culture/view.bg?articleid=1089722
“Nothing is off-limits … Not racism. Not sexism.”
I think the ridiculous satirical elements are pretty obvious: the bottomless party filled with just women, the deliberately-offensive Cindy Kim reference, the branding of the prostitute, even the “we’re whores” comment. Clearly, they’re mocking sex issues as well. Sure, there is some titillation at play here, but there is also “racial titillation”: you can clearly make the points they make in a much less offensive way, but that would defeat the purpose.
My comment on “insecurity” in AA activism was a bit of a throwaway line about serious problems I see in any sort of social activism in general: at this point in time, much of it is based on
1) Fear/ self-victimization/ insecurity
2) Condescension/ disdain
3) Narcissism
I’ll post more of my thoughts on this later, but to put it very briefly, I believe that political/social activist groups tend to be really fucked up and filled with really fucked up people, and this fucks up, or undermines, the legitimacy of their political/social agendas. It wasn’t always this way, but it’s become this way, partially as a result of baby boomer narcissism which has been passed onto the boomer children, partly because all the fundamental fights have been won (having established “formal” equality but not “substantive” equality), and partly because it seems to be the nature of the beast.
(”Atlasien” was a prime example of a good person who completely lost perspective as she got caught up in her feminist agenda. There are thousands, if not millions, like her. Also let me say that I don’t exempt myself from this, as none of us is immune; I try to be aware of the roots of my reactions and motivations and conduct myself as best I can.)
I’ll give you an extremely brief example, which will probably piss off Pat the Great. His girl was “downright appalled by the way gender was handled in the movie” and she and her friend “felt unsafe - unsafe in the way that you might feel if you’re the only asian person watching Breakfast at Tiffany’s in an all-white theatre.”
With regard to any “sexism” contained in this movie, look to my many previous posts for my thoughts there. Essentially, I don’t the movie “worsens the female condition”, or promotes “objectification” and “sexism” any more than it promotes objectification via class, age, race, appearance, or physical ability: it’s all there if you look hard enough, or are sensitive enough, but let’s keep some fucking perspective.
With regard to them feeling “unsafe” or “alone,” it can’t be compared to being a singular Asian at Breakfast at Tiffany’s. I’m going to make a fairly safe assumption here and guess that there were way more than just two females in that theater, and that they probably weren’t the only AA ones either. So their feelings don’t stem from any danger or isolation based on numbers in the physical world.
They stem from the mind. They stem from the fact that they feel isolated in their offended-ness; that they know “better” than all the other women and men in the room, and they don’t consider that perhaps their offended-ness is not warranted, and certainly not to the degree that they feel it. There is an incredible self-centeredness in this reaction; there is a sense of fear and victimization here, and there is certainly massive disdain for fellow audience members.
The question is, is it warranted? Is this reaction “reasonable” given the whole context of the movie? I believe that it is not, and I believe that anyone who feels this way has lost a bit of perspective on just what sexism (or racism or whatever-ism is), and that they are projecting their own fears and insecurities onto others. They are bringing their own monsters out, and essentially “creating” them where none exist (or where the “real” ones are a lot less scary).
This is a huge problem in social activism, and I think accusing H&K of being “sexist” is symptomatic of that problem. What’s worse, we’re taught to be this way by the intellectual and social activist elite.
Xian
8:13 am | Apr 29, 2008Sex-based jokes are not permitted and are “sexist” in your view of this movie.
Apology accepted. I apologize also for focusing on a throwaway line. There is certainly insecurity ruining the discourse coming from every end of the community and your call to address that it necessary and vital.
The above is the other rift we have, and where much of the miscommunication is coming from.
1) I see no difference between sexism and racism and other -isms that root in the majority power culture’s need to control.
2) I have no problem with either issue being addressed with strategic satire. As you say, it is one of the best and only ways to address these issues in a pathological society.
3) We must evaluate each situation, as we are forced to everyday in our interactions as members of the ethnic minority in our respective societies, with what skills are at our disposal.
4) With that in mind, I have evaluated and it seems very clear the difference between the approach to race and sex in the movie. The approach to race is satirical, the approach to sex (not sexuality) is merely cheap, low-hanging fruit. As you can see in my posts, I’m not talking about the 14 year-old “I get to see pussy all day!” idea. I’m talking about the way that THE MAIN NARRATIVE in the film addresses women in general.
That’s the key difference for me–whether people choose to laugh at the racist elements or understand the satire, the racial perspective is crystal clear. The gender perspective is not, or in some cases, appears to me to be clearly regressive.
Both issues need to be addressed–that’s why Chappelle should be honored–he was brave enough to walk away when he felt that those who saw themselves as his masters were attempting to make money off of white racism rather than address racial issues. But the more serious one is the careless non-satirical approach to sexism in the movie.
TheMac
1:27 pm | Apr 30, 2008I think, and I’m pretty sure this point has been made before, that this movie is being held to an unfair standard. Frat-boy movies are sexist, they are low-brow. This is what H&K is, only it stars Asian men. That being, it has the opportunity to talk about racism and stereotypes in a humorous way, which I think it does. But acting as if it is horrid because it has sexist elements, then we must also criticize every fratty-flick ever made.
That said, the movie even laughs at itself, the over-romanticized elements of Harold and Maria is JUST as unrealistic as NPH (in all his real-life gay glory, which is itself satire) branding some whore on the ass. H&K is a satire of everything- racism, sexism, even itself.
Besides, John Cho is hot.
Xian
8:14 am | May 01, 2008But acting as if it is horrid because it has sexist elements, then we must also criticize every fratty-flick ever made.
1) Who is doing this? This thread is strawmanning all over the place.
Re-read my original post. I am not saying the film is horrid and I’m not criticizing it simply because it has sexist elements. I am criticizing it because it has one dimensional (yes, up to and ESPECIALLY including Kumar’s love interest) characters and those happen to be female. I’m criticizing it because those sexist elements do not qualify as “satire”–they are simply sexist.
Are there people having knee-jerk reactions that some might refer to as “PC”. Perhaps. I am not. Please speak to me.
2) With that in mind, we must criticize every fratty flick with those same weaknesses or worse, which is almost every frat flick ever made.
Done and done. The difference is I dropped twenty bucks on this film that went to support 88 seconds instead of H & K and I don’t do the same with other fratty flicks.
Let me clarify one last point: Simply saying something is satire or ironical doesn’t make it true. Surely we are all familiar with the “it was a joke when I squinted up my eyes to mock you” defense. We have also probably all used racial satire to mock racist. But the latter requires an understanding that shines through in the action. Tone and who supports the speech is critical.
When you examine these elements in H&K, it’s pretty clear that the tone and whether the speech/action is support differs between the racial and gender issues. One is almost 100% of the time satire, and the other is rarely such.
That’s problematic.
TheMac
8:46 pm | May 02, 2008@ Xian
First of all, I’m sorry I didn’t state this in the beginning (it would’ve cleared up confusion), I wasn’t replying specifically to your post. I was more just stating my opinion about the film and some of the criticisms I’ve heard about it. I actually agree with what you have to say- namely that the female characters are one-dimensional. I would never argue with that assessment. And, yeah, okay, I do get that this is a movie you went to see, support, etc, and so you are going to judge it. That makes sense.
And I DEFINITELY get the deal about satire-gone-bad or misinterpreted or just ill-used. I sat through an entire season of the Dave Chappelle show on a majority-white college campus. It was straight torture, and I was throwing eye-darts at frat boys on a daily basis.
Yes, in H&K, women were either unattainable, perfect-girls-next-door, or whores. But how many female-based movies show men in the same ridiculous standards- player, best friend, dream guy? I mean, I just choose to see H&K as a silly fratty-guy flick, and I don’t think it should be held to a microscope because it stars Asian men (again, not saying you, in particular, are doing this. Just a point).
Xian
2:30 am | May 03, 2008Sure, and this is an important cautionary note–don’t pick on films that happen to relate to our community more as that will only result in less non-full white movies.
However, the solution is not to hold Asian American movies to a high standard, just to hold mainstream movies to as high a standard.
groinpull
5:27 pm | May 03, 2008I just saw this movie and didn’t think it was that good. Kal Penn was the one bright spot while Cho’s comedic timing is just aweful. He’s just not funny.
Regarding the sexism/racism jokes, I didn’t think it was that bad. It’s no worse than what’s out there in terms of fratboy movies. The American Pie series was just as ’sexist’ I guess, I don’t know.
What’s the Cindy Kim remark everyone’s talking about? I didn’t see that part.
TheMac
6:19 pm | May 03, 2008“However, the solution is not to hold Asian American movies to a high standard, just to hold mainstream movies to as high a standard.”
Word, my friend. Word.