BY DANIEL SAENZ
For the past few years, there has been a rather long and heated debated about diversity and inclusivity in Hollywood. Many people argue that there has been an epidemic of whitewashing in many movies that focus on foreign cultures. There is some truth to this as we have seen with the case where actors who look European will often play Middle-Eastern characters such as Jesus Christ, Moses, or Persian kings. Or, they are cast to play Asian characters in movies such as Dragon Ball Evolution or the Last Airbender. On the other hand, sometimes Hollywood does try to inject diversity into movies simply for the sake of having a diverse cast.
Oceans 8 and the remake of Ghostbusters are, in my view, perfect examples of Hollywood trying to make movies that are inclusive for women and minority groups simply for the sake of including women and minority groups. Warner Bros was so concerned with the backlash for Scarlett Johansson playing a Japanese character in Ghost in the Shell, that they decided to rename the main character and turn the racial matter into a plot point when it didn’t need to be one in the first place.
So what is the right way to handle diversity? Singaporean author Kevin Kwan’s Crazy Rich Asians, a new blockbuster hit, may be the perfect example. Featuring an all Asian cast and with little information given away in the previews, it made many wonder if this movie would be another example of Hollywood of pandering to appear diverse and inclusive. After watching the movie, the audience can quickly see that this not the case.
Rather than simply being a romantic comedy with Asian actors thrown in, the movie begins to with Kwan’s satirical analysis of the wealthy elites in Singapore. The movie tells the story of Rachel Chu, a Chinese-American Economics professor at New York University. Nick Young, her boyfriend tells her that he is ready to take her to meet his family in Singapore.
All of this is fine and good until she finds out that he is actually the heir to the most wealthy family in all of Singapore. This then causes a great deal of tension between Rachel and Kevin’s family as she is very open-minded and Americanized while Young’s family is quite elitist and tradition based. The rest of the movie follows a basic romantic comedy formula, but that is mainly because Kwan primarily wants to focus on the cultural commentary and aesthetics, which makes for a pleasing experience nonetheless.
However, some of the humor can come across as cheesy and forced. For example, there is a point where Rachel Chu jokingly says to her mother, “I am so Chinese that I am an Economics professor who is also lactose intolerant.” I understand that the intention behind these jokes is to show that the writers are familiar with Asian stereotypes and want to diffuse them. While some may find it funny, it just comes across like the actors are making fun of themselves for the sake of a few cheap laughs from the audience.
My other main problem with the movie is that it was hyped up by TIME to be this revolutionary movie that would change Hollywood but instead tries to follow the typical Hollywood formula for romantic comedies. In fact, plot points from the book are dropped to give the movie a happy ending where it would have been more “revolutionary” to include the sad ending and really change the way romantic movies are made.
In the book, Nick ends up separated from his family because he ultimately chooses Rachel over his materialistic family. Kwan uses this to showcase the dark reality of growing up in such a class in Singapore. Instead, the movie has Nick’s mother giving him her own wedding ring to signal her approval and also shows a parade of people greeting Rachel and Nick to signal their newfound approval for the couple.
Nonetheless, the cultural aesthetics make for a very enjoyable experience and really show that diversity in movies is great when it isn’t forced down our throats. I would very much like to see movies made out of various other famous books around the globe.