Trans-Racialization in “21″

by guest contributor Jenn Fang, originally published at Reappropriate

Six MIT students band together to hoodwink Las Vegas casinos for millions.

It sounds like the plot of a Hollywood movie — and it is. But before Jim Sturgess (Across the Universe), Kate Bosworth, Kevin Spacey and Laurence Fishbourne were cast in 21, Ben Mezrich wrote a non-fiction book called Bringing Down the House, upon which the film is based. In that book, Mezrich documents the infamous MIT Blackjack team, which was led by Asian American — not White — students.

Although referred to by pseudonyms in the book, it was later revealed that the main characters of Bringing Down the House – Kevin Lewis and Jason Fisher — are former real-life MIT students Jeff Ma and Mike Aponte who are both Asian American men. Jeff Ma has since gone on to start a company based on fantasy sports, while Mike Aponte remains a professional Blackjack player.

Mezrich has criticized the casting of 21, and argued that it plays into fears of the marketability of an all-Asian cast.

During the talk, Mezrich mentioned the stereotypical Hollywood casting process — though most of the actual blackjack team was composed of Asian males, a studio executive involved in the casting process said that most of the film’s actors would be white, with perhaps an Asian female. Even as Asian actors are entering more mainstream films, such as “Better Luck Tomorrow” and the upcoming “Memoirs of a Geisha,” these stereotypes still exist, Mezrich said.

Mezrich notes that the Asian American identities of these students was critical to the MIT Blackjack team’s strategy. According to Wikipedia:

In the book, Mezrich explicitly states that a young Caucasian betting large amounts of money stands out, while a young Asian or other minority would be less conspicuous.

Perhaps in response to criticisms that 21 was “White-washing” the story, the filmmaker also cast Asian American actors Lisa Lapira and Aaron Yoo in the movie, but they remain secondary characters, distantly-removed from the story of the White male and female protagonists. The casting of Sturgess and Bosworth remains a damning assertion that Asian American faces are simply not “American”-enough to carry a big-budget film like 21. And though the story of the MIT Blackjack team centres on the Asian American identity of the team members, the movie loses its opportunity to explore this reappropriation of stereotypes by real-life Asian American men who used society’s perception of them — for better or for worse — to steal millions from Las Vegas casinos. Instead of exploring this interesting (and arguably empowering) story of racial identity, the movie becomes yet-another “boy-meets-girl” trifle with Asian American characters existing only as props to further a story about White protagonists.

Now, I do want to take a second to note that there’s plenty about 21 and its trans-racial casting to get annoyed about, so there’s no need to get angry about imagined slights. I’ve read arguments that Lisa Lapira’s casting as a secondary role to Jim Sturgess’ lead means that the film will yet again depict an Asian female/White male romantic coupling. But the trailer (and Hollywood formula story-telling) don’t bear that out: clearly Kate Bosworth is Sturgess’ romantic interest in the movie. In criticizing a movie, I think we, as a community, need to remember to consider all the facts and not make any assumptions until we have good solid evidence to back up our assertions. There’s plenty enough in this film to be annoyed at; we don’t need to make anything up.

What bothers me about 21 is the trans-racial casting of the main characters and the sweeping under the rug of Asian American identity politics by a movie based on our community. The treatment of 21 is all the proof I need for my argument that we need more — not less — Asian American filmmakers and actors in Hollywood. The decision to “White-wash” the MIT Blackjack team was fueled not by stereotypes (though the decision certainly perpetuates them), but by concerns of marketability. Mezrich, himself, cites the counter-argument that Better Luck Tomorrow and Memoirs of a Geisha were considered as evidence that an all-Asian casting job could still prove profitable, and yet executives still chose to cast White actors: I think primarily because these films are too few in number. More big-budget films with promising Asian American actors at their helm will demonstrate to Hollywood — better than any angry Internet rambling – that doing an Asian American story and doing it right can promise more money, not less.

Until we, as a community, prioritize Asian American cinema that can cross-over into mainstream Hollywood and earn the big bucks, what happened with the casting and treatment of 21 will continue to happen. And with that, those stereotypes of Asian Americans as emasculated, perpetually foreign, a model minority, or meek and submissive will thrive in an industry that has no reason to believe that casting an Asian American actor to play an Asian American role will produce any increase to the movie’s bottom line.

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. e*star LA » Blog Archive » “21″ And Race on 01 Apr 2008 at 4:07 am

    […] Trans-racialization in “21″ - Racialicious.com (blog) […]

Comments

  1. Cynthia wrote:

    So a bigger budget film and executives prefers to have a predominantly white cast, despite the original story involving Asian Americans. Who cares? Big budget films are almost always dumb, anyway. They usually don’t get the awards from the respected organizations like the Academy of Arts and Sciences (how many blockbusters have had won major awards compared to more independent/artsy films in the past 15 or so years? Right now, I can only think of Titanic. Even Shakespeare in Love won over the more publicized Saving Private Ryan the following year!) How many people saw L Vie En Rose? I don’t recall it making the top 10, lest the top 5. Mainstream cinema, while garnering the big bucks, isn’t taken as seriously. I’d rather be taken seriously by SERIOUS critics than be plastered all over those rags. And you KNOW that this is a movie that’ll make Jim Sturgess into a major hearthrob (more people will see this than people who saw Across the Universe…that movie didn’t show in too many theatres….too independent for many smaller markets)…goodness….our world is turning into that movie Idiocracy.

  2. Bix wrote:

    I actually read the book about 2-3 years ago and, if I remember correctly, there was also a black student in the book. He wasn’t a major part of the book but I remember he was there. The significance was that people tended not to think that the black kid was card counting due to stereotyping…

  3. Celeste wrote:

    This is so, so wrong! I gues the Asian as the other white meat works both ways. If you can’t get a white baby, downgrade slightly and get an asian. But if there’s an asian in a movie, you can ubgrade (slightly) to a white person. The exception is if they’re getting slaughtered (Kill Bill, Rambo) then you can’t substitute). Is there any other race that you could even try to sub in white people for and get away with it? And booo to the actors who took the parts knowing that thye were really asians. In the future if you sell the screen rights, stipulate that the characters remain whatever ethnicity that they were in real life. Hollywood is not to be trusted.

  4. Cynthia wrote:

    Re: No. 1 - I’m pretty sure I typed in La Vie En Rose….the “a” seems to have disappeared….hmmm…

  5. Latoya Peterson wrote:

    Co-sign with Bix.

    I read the book a few years back as well, and a lot of the plot came down to stereotyping, and how it worked both for them (early on, creating identities, etc) and against them (later on, when people were trying to ID them.)

    So, I am not surprised they ripped the guts out of this book to make it more “appealing”, but I am probably not going to see it.

  6. Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:

    Yeah I wish I had remembered to bring up this point about how stereotyping played a large role in the story when I was on NPR yesterday.

    This was an opportunity to tell an interesting story about Asian-Americans who are three-dimensional, realistic, complex characters. Yes, they happen to be MIT students (thus somewhat conforming to the stereotype of geeky Asian) but they also used their smarts to engage in immoral behavior (stealing), playing on the racism already existent in society to accomplish their goals.

    Instead, we’ve got yet another cookie-cutter Hollywood flick.

  7. Cynthia wrote:

    Celeste,

    Completely agree. But you have to read the fine print and also have a good lawyer. You have to have lots of money to be able to convince the studios to do what YOU want. Most writers are just ordinary folks and take the money that the studios give when they buy the screen rights.

    I wrote about this situation in my not-often-read writing blog a few months ago.

  8. Elton wrote:

    This movie has had me pissed from the get-go. But like Jenn said, we can complain ’til the cows come home and it’s not gonna fix anything. What are we gonna do about it?

  9. EvilAngelfish wrote:

    According to this Ben Mezrich article in Wired, it seems that producers went with marketability at the expense of believability:

    The MIT team thrived by choosing BPs who fit the casino mold of the young, foolish, and wealthy. Primarily nonwhite, either Asian or Middle Eastern, these were the kids the casinos were accustomed to seeing bet a thousand bucks a hand. Like many on the team, Kevin Lewis was part Asian, and could pass as the child of a rich Chinese or Japanese executive. “When you’re recruiting, you don’t recruit white kids. They look conspicuous. Asian kids, Greek kids, dark skin fits in better with lots of money in the casinos. White 20-year-olds with $2 million bankrolls stand out,” explains Andrew Tay, one of Lewis’ teammates. “A geeky Asian kid with $100,000 in his wallet didn’t raise any eyebrows.”

    @Cynthia - this isn’t a summer blockbuster. Granted, it’s not an art house film with a shoestring budget but I think it’s very dangerous to excuse this with a nonchalant “who cares?” just because you assume all big budget films stink. It’s very troubling to think that instead of trying to make a movie about smart young people of color using their intelligence and charisma to break the house in casinos all over Vegas, the filmmakers basically said, “No one’s going to want to watch that movie. Let’s make the leads white!”

  10. Aaminah wrote:

    “And booo to the actors who took the parts knowing that thye were really asians.”

    I like what you have to say Celeste, but on that one… well, there’s a good chance that they actors had never read the book or knew anything about it originally being about Asians when they accepted the parts. You’d be amazed how many actors don’t read the book even after accepting the part. :)

  11. Anonymous wrote:

    I agree with you Angelfish. i actualyl wrote about this on my blog here too and it’s a shame this is happening. And in response to Cynthia, Lord of the Rings and Titanic were big blockbuster films that also swept Academy Awards. We can’t play the “it’s not an academy award-worthy film so who cares if the film’s whitewashed” game because especially now we’re seeing that the Academy Awards are becoming something that people don’t care about. Look at the recent award show when most of the films were artsy and missed a large segment of the American audience. If we are out for change, we have to take every avenue we can get.

  12. atlasien wrote:

    I’m not going to see this movie. I heard the book was great, but knowing about the de-Asianification makes the movie just way too insulting to watch.

  13. Celeste wrote:

    Well boo to them if they knew. I think that some of them would have to have had an inkling because this movie isn’t the first we’ve heard of this particular story. It was somewhat know of beforehand.

  14. Gregory A. Butler wrote:

    Typical Hollywood racism!!!

    Take a story about Asian American college students ripping off casinos, and then totally whitewash it by reacasting the leads as White folks, even though the race of the characters was a major element of the story - and even though there is a HEAVY Asian and Asian American presence in the gaming world (go to any casino on the AC Boardwalk or the Las Vegas Strip on a weekend to see EXACTLY what I mean!)

    Hollywood is Pathetic!!!!

  15. RoslynHolcomb wrote:

    They did it again. I guess I need to just get over it, it’s Mississippi Burning and Windtalkers all over again. I think that’s what made the movie Whale Rider so refreshing. A story about Maoris that had nary a white person in it.

    If you don’t think people want to make a movie without white people in it, fine. Then leave POC’s stories alone. This is just too insulting for words.

    And anyone who’s ever been in a casino knows the darned places are chock-full of young Asians with wads of bills large enough to choke a horse. The guys were right, nobody bats a lash at them. (Well, other than me who was blown away by folks wagering tens of thousands of dollars on one roll of the roulette wheel. Staggering.)

  16. Thea wrote:

    Maybe this is insignificant, but in Mezrich’s book does he give the main characters white-sounding pseudonyms (Kevin Lewis and Jason Fisher)? In that case doesn’t the white-washing start with the book?

    I just saw two things with Lucy Liu in them where she’s given white relatives/names and the audience is supposed to accept them - in Charlie’s Angels her dad is played by John Cleese (he’s white), and in Cashmere Mafia she has a white last name (despite the fact that both of her parents are clearly East Asian). In these situations are we supposed to think she’s mixed race, adopted, or taking on the name of a white partner - or is it just that casting directors and writers can’t bring themselves to give her a Chinese name?

    I know this misnaming is a small thing, but it still gets my goat!

  17. Cynthia wrote:

    @EvilAngelFish:

    So Hollywood is playing with the idea that much of America is going the route of Idiocracy…maybe even making fun of it (perhaps even realizing it…) They know that stupidity sells. Sure, they could have made it very charming with Asians, but that one would have been an art house movie. And there’s nothing wrong with that either. Unless, of course, you think so. It seems to me that when many people say that more western-raised non-whites (especially Asians) should be in the film business, it isn’t about indies. 21, as you said, isn’t an art house film.

    I’d be madder if they turned the debutante wannabe character in my novel into a white girl because her storyline won’t make sense if she wasn’t Asian.

  18. Cynthia wrote:

    Thea,

    I don’t think these Lucy Liu’s character in Cashmere Mafia was originally supposed to be Asian. They just casted her. It’s funny. In the world of theatre, it’s many people don’t really blink an eye anymore when they see non-white actors playing roles that are supposed to be white. The musical, Les Miserables is famous for non-traditional casting. Sure, people were critical of Lea Salonga, who was probably the first Asian actress to play Eponine outside of Japan, but since then, there have been many non-white actresses who played Eponine (and Fantine, I might add).

    The Elton John/Disney version of Aida is also kind of like this. The “Egyptian” characters are predominantly white, with a few Asians or hispanics in the cast while the Nubian characters are all black. While some people were critical of this, I think it was to illustrate the differences between Aida and her lover, Radames. If you’ve seen it, you’ll also notice the very “western”/”mainstream” look and sound of the Egyptians and the very “gospelly”/African-American sound of the Nubian characters.

  19. Kaonashi wrote:

    Good to know. I’ll skip the movie and read the book instead.

  20. Jay wrote:

    Who cares? Big budget films are almost always dumb, anyway.

    But it does provide a vehicle for actors to get more lead roles (which Asian American actors have a dearth of). My guess is that Jim Sturgess and Kate Bosworth are going to get more roles based on their performance here regardless of how good or bad their acting is.

    It is how most Hollywood directors and producers think - Asian or black lead usually means means “niche film/ethnic film” while white lead means “universal appeal”. Of course, it’s a self fulfilling prophecy.

    Thea, my guess is that the Lewis and Fisher (Jeff Ma and Mike Aponte) characters were renamed so that it would be harder to trace them back to Ma and Aponte. At the time the book was published the MIT kids were seriously scared of reprecussions from the casino industry.

  21. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    So what the filmmakers and the producers are really saying is that they can’t envision Asians/Asian-Americans, specifically Asian-American men, doing anything as *sexy* as bringing down a casino. Such hawt activities should left to and/or led by the white guys, i.e. George Clooney’s (and Frank Sinatra’s) Danny Ocean. Thus, to market the sexy, the creative folks on 21 cast white actors. Did I get the ugly logic of this situation correct?

    Christ on a bloody crutch.

  22. jd wrote:

    BX - just read the book last week. no black kid on the team, but Micky Rosa told stories of a card counting buddy in the 70s who put on a whole “pimp daddy” persona to hide the fact that he was a professional card counter.

    Thea - The three BPs (big players) were all written as mixed-race in the book, hence the names. The third guy was asian-latino and his last name was Martinez.

  23. Cynthia wrote:

    The Cruel Secretary,

    And what’s wrong with a “niche film”? They’re often much, much better, anyway, because people involved in them place more work on quality rather than what the general public wants. We need more films like that, don’t you think?

    I’d rather see something really excellent made on a budget of say, $2 million or less than something made on a $100 million budget that is pure garbage.

  24. DivergentDana wrote:

    “But it does provide a vehicle for actors to get more lead roles (which Asian American actors have a dearth of). My guess is that Jim Sturgess and Kate Bosworth are going to get more roles based on their performance here regardless of how good or bad their acting is.”

    That’s what I was going to say… there’s a bit of wonky logic, Cynthia, in saying “So what, it’s not an ‘important’ film.” Something tells me if we were talking about “good films”, you’d shrug it off with a “So what, these films are geared towards a very small, specific audience”, or “So what, these studios aren’t prominent anyways.” Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong on this assumption. If you’re (not you, “you”, general “you”) an Asian actor with a sparse background because you were waiting for that Academy Award role or were consistently passed over for less storied roles based on race (way more likely), the chance that you’ll be called for the next Citizen Kane is next to nil. … why? Because people don’t know you and they haven’t seen you.

    And Cynthia, while I don’t know about your N. American “award-winning film” consumption/criteria, the group of actors that I’ve seen come to prominence through that track (Chloe Sevigny, Scarlett Johanssen, Hilary Swank, Jake Gyllenhaal) seems to have been as disproportionately non-Asian as the blockbuster stars.

  25. DivergentDana wrote:

    Oh, and this should go without saying, but actors need to eat, too… just ask Michael Caine.

  26. Cynthia wrote:

    There’s always live theatre if an actor wants to work. Live theatre seems more open to non-traditional casting than film, and the audience, while surprised at first, will usually accept it later on. Why isn’t the case for film? Why are we more critical?

  27. Eun-jung wrote:

    I refuse to see this piece of crap. Because in essence, this is what it is: a piece of crap.

    I never wanted to see it from the beginning, and I think a lot of my friends (them being Asian Americans) once knowing the background of this movie, will not have any desire to see it either.

    This is completely upsetting. I would like to write a more poignant, intelligent response but right now the caveman attitude to affecting me to the point that all I can think of is: “Ugh, ugh. Me hate movie. Ugh. UGH!”

  28. ILLAIM wrote:

    I’ve always felt even as bad as Black people have it in the media, Asians have it the worst…

    It seem that the zeal to eliminate the Asian foundation of the plot was acted upon with complete knowledge that it wold destroy the true foundation of the plot.

    I understand money and marketability, (More White people in the country so craft something palatable to them) but this is truly sinister in nature, with its act of rewriting history

    “the movie becomes yet-another “boy-meets-girl” trifle with Asian American characters existing only as props to further a story about White protagonists.”

    I believe Races should play there own race….there are plenty of actors of all creeds that can do a exemplary job representing there own people.

    It’s a damn shame 8/10 if I see a Asian man in some form of entertainment he performing some form of martial art or if it’s a Asian women she is playing a sexual object whose affection is given to anyone besides an Asian man,….

    Money is God tho, and such an entity doesn’t care about fair or even accurate reflections of particular communities

  29. Thea wrote:

    Cynthia - I think the reason why POCs playing white roles in theatre is out of dire straits - there aren’t enough roles in theatre for POCs and most of the best roles in theatre (the only “best role” I can think of for a POC is Othello) are written for white folks. The parallel is also not very accurate - it’s really not the same as white folks playing POCs, for a myriad of reasons all enumerated above. Also, if they just casted Lucy Liu, why did so much of her character’s story revolve around her ethnicity? Ie the Asian doctor boyfriend, the pushy parents…

  30. Angel H. wrote:

    I’m not sure if anything has mentioned this yet, but because “21″ is a mainstream movie - bad or not - more people are likely to see it than if it was an indie. It’s great that there are indie movies who may potray POCs in a better light but, as we saw from the last Oscars show, those are not what people flock to see.

    Case in point: “College Road Trip”.

  31. Eva wrote:

    Well this is another movie I’m not going to waste $11.50 to see, in fact I won’t even bother watching it when it comes on cable.

  32. Black Canseco wrote:

    While everything isn’t black/white, this has been an issue for black movies from almost Day One.

    Folks like Will Smith and Don Cheadle still talk openly about the struggle to field all black casts or greenlight movies with black co-leads (male and female) without pressure from the studios, critcs and fns to dismiss their projects “black movies” (i.e. it’s just for them).

    As attrocious as The Honeymooners and Wild Wild West were, the biggest issue for way too many folks was that black actors were in roles most associated with whites.

    The great irony in this is that when movies have predominantly Jewish or Italian or Irish casts, unless there’s some overtly narrow storyline, no one ever marginalizes these films as being “just for jews” just for italians, etc.

    There’s the assumption that actors and storylines from a european background are more American than the darker folks’.

    Consequently Asians, African Americans and Hispanics and those of mixed ancestry always have to play the “no, this is a story/movie for EVERYBODY!” game where they’re practically apologizing for the specificity of the actors and storylines.

    Conversely, you run into the issues as with 21 where the jerk with the truth and the casting as not to offend and alienate white audiences.

    it’s all a bunch of crap, but until ethnic entertainment folks try to build audiences within their communities first they’ll always have that problem.

    Say what you will about the quality of Tyler Perry’s work, but his focus is reach black audiences first. So when he missteps and offend, i think it comes from a much better place than movies like 21 or some some of the buppie flicks of the past even.

  33. jd wrote:

    Illiam - exactly. it would have been bad enough if the whitewash had been of a story to which race was truly incidental. to have it happen here, where race was a MAJOR part of how they scammed the casinos, is just insane.

    If they keep in the “rumor” that Kianna was sleeping with Micky Rosa, I will lose my last bit of respect for Kevin Spacy for agreeing to be associated with this crap.

  34. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    What the red herring…okay, Cynthia. First of all, I’m not quite getting what you mean by “niche films.” So I’m not going to agree or disagree with you until you define what you mean.

    What I’m getting at–and am frankly disgusted about–is the racialization of what’s “marketable” about the film niche of casino heists. And, from what I’m gathering from some of the posting, the racialization of what deemed marketable in film, period.

    Part of marketing is sex appeal–the ol’ “sex sells” adage. From The Sting to Casino to the Ocean’s trilogy, one of the major draws–the marketability–of these films is the sex appeal of the actors playing heroes and heroines and even the villians to draw in the audiences to watch–if not relate to–what amounts to what’s socially considered immoral (gambling, stealing, etc.). And, really, the sexy allure surrounding the immoral act itself. The go-to for the sexy leads in casino-heist flicks are usually white male and female actors, even when the heist crew is racially diverse, like the Ocean’s Trilogy I stated in my initial post.

    21 is based on a story where the casino-heist *leaders* were not white; they were Asian/Asian-American men. However, the filmmaker and producers–the film creatives–in their effort to ensure that their film will be some sort of box-office winner–decided to cast white leads instead of finding Asian/Asian-American male leads. My utter disgust with this is the lack of imagination on the filmmaker’s and producer’s part and, by extension, the disregard for the facts. They refused to see marketing a film where the “sexy” deed of bringing down the casino is led by members of a group that is stereotyped as “unsexy”–Asian/Asian-American men. Thus, the lack of imagination–flat-out refusal, really–to look beyond a stereotype to the point of disregarding the facts.

    BTW, Cynthia, I *wouldn’t* be surprised–if H’wood optioned your book, if the debutante wannabe character in your novel was cast with a white female actor. They’ll simply change the storline to fit the actress, call it original, and make for sure that you don’t see a dime. SMH

  35. Leah wrote:

    I heard about this a few weeks ago and just thought it was ridiculous. I will definitely be boycotting the movie and checking out the book instead.

    The one good thing about casting Kate Bosworth? They were willing to cast a blonde female as an MIT student. Clearly I’m grasping for any silver lining at all here.

  36. Jay wrote:

    “College Road Trip”

    Probably not the best example, since Raven Symone and Martin Lawrence are the main characters and Brenda Song has a prominent role in it. Raven already has a built-in audience because of her show.

    Oh, also please contact Ben Mezrich (his site is http://www.benmezrich.com), because he’s under the impression that the Asian-American community is happy with the current state of affairs with “21″. I don’t think he has much power to _change_ it (in his current project or in future ones), but he should know about it, at least.

  37. Madletters wrote:

    “There’s always live theatre if an actor wants to work.”

    Yes and no. I’ve actually just started a run in an Off Broadway play with a multi-ethnic cast produced by an Asian American theater company, and let me tell you, finding interesting work, not to mention a full-on Actors Equity backed production, is by no means a guarantee.

    I remember attending a panel with David Henry Hwang and he mentioned how theatre is inherently more metaphorical/symbolic than film. It’s developed a vocabulary over the years where audiences are more willing to accept what/who’s on stage as a representation of something/someone else.

    As far as the actors go, there’s a school of thought that runs something like this: “They’re going to cast an Asian, and it might as well be me because at least I can make it interesting.” I know Masi Oka’s role in Heroes in controversial, but if he turned it down simply based on the principal that it was just another Asian nerd that character could’ve turned out a lot worse. And I mean a LOT.

    I can’t speak for Aaron Yoo, but if he came into the production with the attitude of “I’m going to steal this movie like I stole ‘Disturbia’ from Shia LaBeouf” it’s a lot more subversive than “screw this” and walking away. Because that’s the capacity you’re thinking of as an actor.

  38. Madletters wrote:

    For the record, changing the ethnic make-up of the main characters is pretty repulsive considering how integral that specific detail was to the story. I’m not excusing the producers and won’t be seeing “21″ in a theater.

  39. Winn wrote:

    Cynthia,

    I am African American woman and have worked as a professional actor for eighteen years. I still do an occasional play and voiceover and narration work, but nowadays I have assumed a second career as a therapist, partially because I got tired of living off the lint in my couch and pockets. Some may say, “Well, maybe you weren’t very good, or you didn’t go where the opportunities are”. Actors can work frequently, as I did, and still never get that big break, and barely make ends meet. There are brilliant actors all across the country who never make it. SAG, AFTRA and Actors Equity, all of which I belong to, provide statistics on the annual salary of the average working actor, and believe me it is far below the poverty line. That’s why most actors supplement their incomes with day jobs. Asian and Asian-American actors are underrepresented even among minority actors, and even nontraditional casting does not offer a endless plethora of roles for actors of color. It also depends on your geographical region; not everybody can afford to live and work in New York or LA. It’s a lot easier to exercise social responsibility about the roles you take when you are not barely eking out a living. And the , “you can always do theatre” is not really representative of the real life and opportunities afforded to working actors, especially those of color. Film actors often do theatre to bolster their reputations and resumes, and can afford to spend a couple of months taking a pay cut. Julia Roberts made $35,000 a week for her poorly-reviewed role in “Three Days of Rain”, which seems astronomical until you recall that she has commanded up to 20 million dollars a film. Remember, supporting actors in the cast or the average respected stage actor is making nowhere near a salary like that, and you’d better hope that show keeps running, or else you’re job hunting again. The average actor spends more time auditioning than working. And that’s not even considering the substantially lower salaries paid at regional theatres as opposed to Broadway. It smacks a little of naivete to put the onus for changing representations solely on the shoulders of the least powerful people in the equation: actors of color.

    I could also go into a long discussion of the differences in the viewing gaze, audience perception and the willing suspicion of disbelief that make the experience of live theatre distinct from that of filmgoing, which thus supports the greater tendency for nontraditional casting to occur on stage rather than screen, but that’s for another essay…

  40. Orville wrote:

    I wonder if a compromise could of been made by the studio? Couldn’t the studio of cast at least two of the lead characters as Asian American and maybe one as white? Why make most of the cast white?

    When are Asian American male actors ever going to get the big leading man roles? I can only think of Kal Penn and perhaps John Cho as the only Asian American male actors that have had mainstream success in the last few years.

    I think opportunity is the real issue. Perhaps this movie could work in Asian cinema? It seems Asian men are only presented as three dimensional people in Asian cinema and not North American cinema. But the big issue is the lack of opportunities that Hollywood is just so unrelenting and willing to give Asian American men a chance to shine on the big screen in North America. I think this refers also to the issue of white male dominance in films. The white male or sometimes even the black male is viewed as the dominant male and Asian American men are rendered the other.

    Now of course, I know Hollywood is racist it just isn’t surprising to me that Hollywood would change the cast to white to make it more marketable to an American audience. Hollywood does this all the time. In fact, so many movies that were hits in Asia have been changed to reach a white demographic audience in North America.

  41. G. D. wrote:

    I find that whole casting debacle disgusting,too. I guess the executive’s reasoning behind the decision to recast the characters was probably, “Oh,well,there just aren’t enough Asian-American actors with star power to cast in the leads, so we’ll just go with white leading men as par for the course.” I mean, c’mon–you mean to tell me they couldn’t have cast John Cho (who should be something of a name since HAROLD AND KUMAR) and Sung Kang (the villainous hottie from BETTER LUCK TOMORROW) as the leads? That’s how most leading actors/actresses became stars—they were given a shot/chance to prove themselves at a particular role that managed to show all their star potential in the first place. Hell, that’s how Tom Cruise and Bruce Willis blew up and became box-office stars. Someone should tell that executive that this is the 21st century and that today’s white audiences would probably be a lot more accepting than the studios give them credit for (or could probably care less) of two Asian-American leads in a movie, as long as the movie’s good,period. As someone who’s spent the last decade coming to appreciate the joys of Asian film (and Asian-American films) it would be a hell of refreshing change than just the same old bigging up of white male characters and everything they ever do in most films. But,apparently, the studio didn’t have the guts to go down that path and decided to just play it safe. I know movie studios are a business and that profit is the bottom line, but c’mon, nobody thought films like THE ENGLISH PATIENT, MY BIG FAT GREEK WEDDING, THE BLAIR WITCH PROJECT, THIS CHRISTMAS, THE JOY LUCK CLUB, THE FRENCH CONNECTION, or BETTER LUCK TOMORROW, for that matter, would be huge box-office hits,and the majority of them had actors who were virtually unknown at the time. My point is, studios were willing to take a chance on these films, which palyed a small part in their success.

    And, yeah, Black Canseco, I don’t know why studios act like white people can’t possibly relate to films that feature non-white people in the majority, as if they were some strange kind of foreign films or something—they’re American films too, dang it! The recent smash success of the holiday film THIS CHRISTMAS (written and directed by a black director—formerly of Detroit) was living proof that audiences could care less if the film is in question a “black” film so long as it’s a GOOD film,period. All I can say is that studio execs need to start watching more Asian (and Asian-American) films in order to expand their concept of what a box-office lead should look like.

  42. Black Canseco wrote:

    what’s interesting is when David Simon, co-producer of THE WIRE complained about the lack of support from critics, mainstream fans, and media he—despite being a white guy himself–was/is written off as a “complainer.”

    I need to find the link to the MSN interview he did earlier this year ripping into Hollywood over this. If he didn’t call his own shots, i doubt he’d work much.

    what’s said is THE WIRE staffers actually tracked their show’s performance. and in the episodes with over 90% back casts, the scores among white viewers were wildly lower than those with more “integrated casts. Blacks watched the show regardless of what the episode focused on or looked like.

    Go figure.

    but he (simon) is one of the few to man-up and speak objectively on the whole casting issue.

  43. sfsinger wrote:

    These studio executives as like cookie-cuter carbon copies of each other. Similar backgrounds and narrow-minded. They don’t want to make many significant changes even when presented with examples of movies that do well. They want to keep ‘their’ people employed and on the pedestal.

  44. napthia9 wrote:

    It’s also pretty weird that they’re going to release a paperback version of the book with the movie poster as its cover. That’s just kinda…. bleeeergh.

  45. dirkdiggler wrote:

    hold on. didn’t george clooney make a speech at the oscars a few years back about how courageous hollywood people were in taking on the most provocative societal issues, including race, when others wouldn’t even talk about it? please don’t upset white peoples’ view of how progressive they are. it upsets them.

  46. Shanno wrote:

    That really is a shame…I had seen the preview and thought “mmm, that could be entertaining, I like Kevin Spacey, based on a true story,” wasn’t planning to see it in the theater but it looked like harmless entertainment until I heard this. I mean, had they just wanted to tell a story about some white, card counting college kids, that’s one thing, but to bill it as based on a true story and remove one of the main reasons the scheme worked? That’s not harmless.

    Remember when Better Luck Tomorrow came out and they acted like it was going revolutionize the way Asian American actors were going to be portrayed? There was this whole show leading up to it on MTV (because they had backed the movie) where they went to each of the actors and asked them about their acting pasts, everyone making jokes about how they could only gets roles as Chinese delivery guys, like that was a thing of the past.

  47. Michelle wrote:

    Thanks Winn….Thanks a bunch.

    Your post was SPOT ON!!!!

  48. Josh wrote:

    The people writing comments are pretty ignorant about film. Asian filmmakers have stolen so much from western directors it’s not even funny. Asian people only make up 5% of the American population.

  49. tasha wrote:

    Josh, that’s unfair. I think the borrowing and sharing of techniques, style, and ideas, goes both ways. Look at all of these remakes of Japanese and Korean horror movies as of late, like “The Ring”, “The Eye”, “The Grudge,” “Dark Water,” and so on and so forth. One of my favorite cartoons of all time was “Exo-Squad,” which was definitely Americanized Anime. Hello, “The Matrix”? Most of the DC Comics/Warner Brothers cartoons that I like are sent to Japan to be animated. What about martial arts fight sequences and choreography?

    Though it had its plot holes (like, if they really lived in Hoboken, they would’ve known that they didn’t have to go all the way to Cherry Hill for White Castle) and problems (mainly a contempt for Asian women), I think that the “Harold and Kumar” movies are a step in the right direction, even more so than this “21″ movie would have been had the producers cast Asian leads. “21″ with Asian leads would have only perpetuated the model minority stereotype. “Harold and Kumar” broke the mold and was a slacker film.

  50. The Cruel Secretary wrote:

    dirkdiggler, I don’t know what to tell you and Mr. Clooney. Even the most progressive white people–like all of us–have their blind spots, even around the issue of race. Hopefully, when called out on it, the person mulls over the critique and works on the blind spot.

    Josh, I’m confused by the juxtaposition your two statements. You said:

    “Asian filmmakers have stolen so much from western directors it’s not even funny. Asian people only make up 5% of the American population.”

    Ergo…what? Having a small population, therefore, should keep its artists from adapting story ideas from another culture, esp. in this “global village” world we live in? That because Asian filmmakers have “stolen so much from western directors it’s not even funny” it justifies what the creative team behind “21″ did when they cast white leads over Asian/Asian-American leads, especially considering that the flesh-and-blood people on which the movie is based are 1) Asian-American and 2) that phenotype–and the racism due to that phenotype–is a salient fact as to why they were able to do what they did? (Please refer to posts by Carmen (#6), Gregory (#14), and RoslynHolcomb (#15) among others on this thread.)

    IMO, what rings false about your statement, Josh, is that Asian/Asian-Americans are *not* the ones in power in Hollywood. They’re not the ones who make the decisions–through casting, greenlighting, funding, etc.–about which racial phenotypes will continue to embody what “hip/cool/sexy” or “hero/antihero”or “geeky/asexual” or “brutal” in cinema. In the case of 21, the power holders–the studio exec, the producer, the filmmaker–made the conscious decision to change the ethnicity of the leaders to make the movie marketable. As I said in my post, I sussed that they did this because they couldn’t get beyond the stereotype of Asian/Asian-American men as unsexy and, by extension, do anything as sexily antihero as bring down a casino. Thus, the 21 team decided that, instead of challenging that blind spot, sticking with the facts of book in regards to what the leaders look like, and casting Asian/Asian American men for the leads, they decided to go with white actors.

    Due to this complete disregard, there’s yet another movie in which white people are the
    relatable hero/leaders and the people of color are relegated to sidekicks. That’s why, Josh, several posters and I–who are pop-culture consumers (magazine buyers, movie-goers, blog readers)–are so disgusted with the film and with the film industry in general when it comes to the issue of race, regardless of what Mr. Clooney says.

  51. DivergentDana wrote:

    ” Asian people only make up 5% of the American population.”

    Which, like Native Americans, makes their constant underrepresentation relative to population levels in television & film that much more pathetic for those responsible.

  52. DivergentDana wrote:

    Why is it that when it’s crystal-clear that someone is talking about Asian-AMERICAN experiences in America, someone else goes, “Well, in Asia, they do riggity rao!” relevance, be damned? Is this a result of the “eternal foreigner” thing, or what, because when folks talk about African Americans in the media, references to Nollywood are notably absent.

  53. Taylor wrote:

    I hate this movie and will do everything I can to make sure it crashes (not much) but still. As an Asian American I am super pissed.

  54. Elton wrote:

    “Asian people only make up 5% of the American population.”

    Yeah, okay, then at least one out of every twenty movies should feature Asian-American casts, tell Asian-American stories, and be completely written, directed, and produced by Asian-American-run studios.

  55. Lisa wrote:

    Josh: well, in California where films are made and many are set, Asian-Americans are like 30-40% of the population in the cities. And then African-Americans, who are the usual “token minority”, are like 5% of the population there. So, for someone like me who’s from SoCal, apart from the ethics and racism, it’s just disingenious. Kinda like all those white-washed medical dramas.

    This wouldn’t matter in a perfect world where “color-blind” casting worked both ways, but alas it currently just means that whites can play non-whites, but rarely vice-versa.

    This could have been a great film with an Asian-American lead without being an “Asian” niche film. Certainly John Cho or Masi Oka or Sung Kang are better known and would attract more audiences than Yet Another Generic Emo White Boy. I would certainly go see a film just for any of them, but won’t with the cast as is.

    It is weird the latest trend of having Asian-played characters with European names. I read an interview with Lucy Liu that the character was originally written blonde WASP and when she was cast she didn’t want the named changed to be “ethnic” - she wanted to be “all-American”. Cho’s pilot “The Singles Table” was another case, although there it was for the gag of the deliberate disconnect. Now Ken Leung in Lost. I don’t know how to feel about this - if it is color blind casting then good, but still it feels a little bit off, you know? Again, it’s incongruous.

  56. dirkdiggler wrote:

    a blind spot, huh? i would have hoped that when he went on a worldwide broadcast, like the oscars, to proclaim how courageous he and his hollywood pals have been, he would have considered that little blind spot. mickey rooney was certainly a portrait of courage when he played that japanese character in breakfast at tiffany’s. a hero to us all.

  57. David Koenig wrote:

    In response to comment #6 by Carmen:

    The MIT team was not stealing. What they did was completely legal, loathed though it was by the casinos.

  58. Jason wrote:

    Boycott 21. Join the group: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=24381965401&ref=mf

  59. Cynthia C wrote:

    Cynthia’s video:

    M@king Cr@p to C@ter to the M@sses Not quite 21 related, but you have to admit that the change in ethnicities is done exactly to cater to the masses because the masses aren’t exactly bright, IMHO.

  60. Michelle wrote:

    Just joined the group! Won’t be seeing the movie!

    Josh, the expression of art is to reflect the suffering, passion, humility, joy and strength of the human soul. Art is to reflect humanity. So yes, Japanese filmmakers have been inspired to “steal” from “White” filmmakers. That is the point of art. I can point to several examples of “White” filmmakers who have been inspired by the entirety of Asian culture. As artists, it is our job to be influenced and to influence each other.

  61. Hot Tramp wrote:

    Cynthia, this isn’t about the masses’ intelligence. It’s about the white majority’s racism.

  62. johnjihoonchang wrote:

    Although I’m not myself a consumer of mainstream movies, like 21 is billed to be, I strongly believe that it’s of almost paramount importance that PoC break into mainstream movies in a big way.

    Even if the movies are not of the highest (relative to who you’re asking) quality, movies like 21, 10000 BC, etc., are the ones that are most seen by the mainstream. And “mainstream” typically is composed primarily of white folk.

    So, why is it important that PoC appear in white persons’ movies? Because the strongest way to combat racism is to make familiar the perceived “other”. That also means that PoC need to appear in mainstream movies in the same nuanced capacity that white persons appear in. Once you humanize PoC to those who are not exposed much to PoC, whether by choice or by chance, it becomes much more difficult to create the “other” out of them, because you find yourself relating to them on levels and finding in them more similarities to you than differences.

    One of my hopes in entertainment media is just that same capacity to bring experiences and perspectives to people that don’t normally have the opportunity or courage to encounter. It’s a passive experience, true, but unless the movie/television show/etc fails to draw reasonable characters, it can still serve the purpose of helping to make the “other” into the “us”, thereby overcoming one of the major hurdles that persons grappling with racism deal with.

    21 is personally disappointing to me because it takes this opportunity to sell a movie to the mainstream with a diverse PoC cast and changes essential elements of the story/characters to “sell” the movie better to the mainstream. It’s also disappointing to me because I know a number of Asian American actors that really could use work and these are more opportunities lost for more than a glorified extra role. Almost every AA actor I know, that works in the industry/theater, absolutely has to hold a day job in order to make rent, etc.

    It is my theory that it will take a deluge of talent, to the point that the supply far outstrips the demand, at great sacrifice to the talent (since most will not find any work at all), in order for a more representative ratio of PoC characters to start appearing out mainstream media streams.

    All of us PoC in the entertainment industry are fighting a major uphill battle, but I want to encourage those of us in the industry to keep trying, because if we give up, there’s going to be even a greater dearth of representation in the minds of mainstream Americans (and persons internationally) helping to make PoC less the other and more us we should all be perceived to be.

  63. Redstar wrote:

    This is totally lame about this movie. I’m disappointed as a (white) MIT student, because this could have been a great story cast to correctly reflect the strong, talented Asian, multicultural and international presence we have on campus, and more accurately represented not just the Asian-American/mixed-race students featured in the book, but the cultural & intellectual climate of the university that led to the provocative story behind Bringing Down the House (BDtH).

    I’m from Boston & its working- and middle-class South Shore suburbs, where Cambridge might as well be another planet. When I tell people I go to MIT, they say, “You must be really smart,” and the conversation is effectively over. To me, this movie could have been an intellectual action flick that not only accurately represented the diverse innovative and creative student body we have at MIT, but also done some work in combatting the anti-intellectualism we have in this country. I’d love for once to see a movie that is like oh!-cool!-daring smart kids! that doesn’t rely on having to make us all hunky and/or skinny WASPY babes of both genders in order to make the average American movie goer more comfortable. (And this assumes that those of us sitting in those seats prefer to see some idealized WASP norm as the protagonist. How many of us living in this country does that even represent anymore??????)

  64. Cynthia wrote:

    Redstar,

    I don’t think it’s Hollywood’s fault. It’s middle America’s fault for not being all that bright. Hollywood is only catering to that POV.

  65. Redstar wrote:

    If anyone cares, I thought I’d share MIT’s enrollment statistics, which have stayed remarkably consistent over the ~15 years since the events in BDtH occurred.

    For some reason, MIT stopped reporting self-identified racial status and started reporting on its geographic distribution of students, so here’s some data from 2003-4, the last year for which minority enrollment is available.

    In 2003-4, self-identified U.S. minority students (African-American, Hispanic American, Native American and Asian-American) comprised 28% of the total student body (2,898 students of 10,206). Asian-American students make up 18% of the entire MIT student body (and 63% of all minority students).

    MIT’s enrollment is ~60% grad students (6,140 0f 10,206 students). Racial diversity really drops off among grad students, with only 15% identifying as non-white, compared to 48% of undergrads. 11% of graduates are Asian-American, compared to 28% of undergraduates.

    In 2004-5, 2,518 international students make up 25% of the total student body, with almost all of them grad students. The top 5 sending countries are, in order: China (289), Korea (213), Canada (212), India (201), and France (89). Japan, Taiwan, Mexico, Singapore and Greece round out the Top 10. Grad students from the E. Asian countries here comprise an additional 14% of grad students, making an approximate total of grad students of Asian descent 25%.

    I’m sure this has ceased to be meaningful to anyone still reading here, but I just wanted to reinforce with some #s the presence of Asian and Asian-American students on campus.

    All of this info is available in MIT’s annual reports, in the appendices or President’s report.

  66. Persia wrote:

    So, why is it important that PoC appear in white persons’ movies? Because the strongest way to combat racism is to make familiar the perceived “other”. That also means that PoC need to appear in mainstream movies in the same nuanced capacity that white persons appear in.

    Yes, yes, exactly!

    Cynthia, your suggestion that America is too racist and/or stupid to accept leads of color is incorrect, IMO. Harold and Kumar did quite well at the box office. Jackie Chan has made a lot of money here in America with the “Rush Hour” series. The problem is the studios, who are terrified of taking a chance– even though that chance might pay off by casting an interesting, charismatic Asian lead over Another Bland White Guy.

  67. dramelyrique wrote:

    “I don’t think it’s Hollywood’s fault. It’s middle America’s fault for not being all that bright. Hollywood is only catering to that POV.”

    So if middle America’s view of POCs is racist, it’s also fine for Hollywood to portray their nonwhite characters in a racist manner?

    I am confused because you also said, “I’d be madder if they turned the debutante wannabe character in my novel into a white girl because her storyline won’t make sense if she wasn’t Asian.” So it’s alright for Hollywood to cater to mainstream America’s interests for the movie 21 but not for your book even though race plays an integral role in both?

  68. tasha wrote:

    Did Harold and Kumar do well at the box office? I thought it kind of got lost in the shuffle, actually. I was under the impression that the reason why it got a sequel was because it sold well on DVD. If Harold and Kumar didn’t do that well at the box office, it was because the release was poorly timed. It had a lot of competition with the summer blockbusters. Ideally, that film should’ve been released in the early new year or early spring, where there’s less competition and not very many good films playing. A decent comedy can really stand out in those first few months of a new year.

  69. johnjihoonchang wrote:

    tasha - H&K was a mediocre performer in theaters, but it did very well on DVD. It wasn’t well promoted and its timing could have been better, but it wasn’t a bomb either.

  70. Persia wrote:

    Sorry about being wrong on box office vs. DVD sales, guys!

  71. SoulSnax wrote:

    I’d like to see the movie 21…

    ON THE INTERNET!!

    If anyone knows where I can find this movie on the internet, or maybe even on Canal Street in Chinatown, please let me know!

  72. Tim wrote:

    “The people writing comments are pretty ignorant about film. Asian filmmakers have stolen so much from western directors it’s not even funny. Asian people only make up 5% of the American population.”

    You’re joking, right? It’s the West that’s been stealing movies from Asian directors and writers.

    Look no further than Departed as a fine example, which was based on the infinitely superior 2002 Hong Kong flick Infernal Affairs. Not only that, but the writers of Departed had the gall to mock Chinese (the very people from whom they got the idea for the whole movie in the first place) by having Jack Nicholson’s character belt out the slur, “No tickee, no washee.”

    And to add insult to injury, when Departed won for Best Picture, they announced the film as being based on a Japanese movie when it was actually Chinese. I guess Asians really do look all alike to white folks.

    And this is not counting all the horror movies imported from Asian (Korea and Japan, in particular) as crappy American remakes with all white casts. Who’s stealing from who?

    Glad to see that Hollywood continue its track record in white-washing any intellectual property it gets its slimy hands on.

  73. DivergentDana wrote:

    Does anyone have an opinion on Jeff Ma’s apparent lack of a problem with being played by Sturgess?

    http://www-tech.mit.edu/V128/N12/blackjack.html

    “TT: Were you upset that the main character wasn’t Asian?

    JM: I think that part of it is being overblown a little bit, just because the reality is that if you had a movie made about you, what would be the most important thing? It wouldn’t necessarily be that it was incredibly accurate to life; It would be that it be a good movie. I wanted a great actor to portray me, and Jim [Sturgess] is an unbelievable actor”

  74. Cynthia wrote:

    I saw posters for H&K2 at the theatre last night.

  75. Celeste wrote:

    WTF, JM? Now Hollywood gets to use what he said as justification for whitewashing the next 10 or so movies. Way to to drop the ball.

  76. Jeff Winn wrote:

    Wait a minute, hold on … there are misconceptions on the comments here other than just racial misconceptions, although there are plenty of those. Mike Aponte and a lot of the other players are Asian and it’s wrong to change their race for the movie, in my opinion.

    But! Some commenters have made references to “stealing”, “immorality”, etc., etc.,

    Let’s make this clear, card counting as the MIT team did it, is most definitely NOT stealing, not immoral, and is not some kind of “sexy crime caper” blah blah blah.

    Card counting in blackjack is merely an extension of the game’s basic strategy, where you use your MIND to estimate the changing odds of the game and adjust your bets and some of your plays accordingly. It’s no different than evaluating the probably cards held by your opponent in poker or hearts or gin!

    The casinos like to make it out to be nefarious but in fact every court that has examined it has said there is no cheating and no illegal activity involved in card counting.

    The “007″ aspect of it all comes from the casinos themselves. They don’t like winners or people with skill in the games to play. They want drunken simpletons to sit down and give away their money with no chance of winning - that’s what the casinos prefer. Casinos are totally paraniod that someone might win, so they watch individual players and their betting and plays and if they believe they are skilled at blackjack, including but not limited to card counting, they bar the player from the game.

    Thus, the whole team approach is to hide the fact of a player’s skill from the casino. If the casinos played fair and were willing to gamble with both good and bad players, the team approach and all the secrecy wouldn’t even be a part of it. Personally I think it’s obvious that the casinos would still be making a killing - most people can’t or won’t acquire these skills and even those that do still lose quite frequently.

    Look at it this way, if someone wins at slots, the casino puts their picture with handfuls of cash up on the “winner’s wall” and celebrates and advertises their win to bring in more players. Slots involves no skill.

    Win against the casino in a skill based game like blackjack and they bar you from the premises! They don’t want anyone to think they can win with skill!

  77. DivergentDana wrote:

    “Let’s make this clear, card counting as the MIT team did it, is most definitely NOT stealing, not immoral, and is not some kind of “sexy crime caper” blah blah blah.”

    My sister so gave me this speech in Vegas last year… lol.

  78. CKMBA wrote:

    @DivergentDiana:

    Of course, JM has no problem, I’m sure he got a good enough amount of money not to complain.

    In Americanese, this practice is called, “selling out.”

  79. Andre wrote:

    They can continue to do this if they want to. I’ll just continue watching Korean dramas. Anyone want to join me? Let’s see, watch this nice drama , Dal Ja’s Spring. Very good. Oh, and then there is this drama I’m Watchin now called Aircity , just go to Mysoju.com, alot of Korean movies too, also crunchyroll.com. Haha, everyone join in the fun.

  80. Andre wrote:

    oh, for your information, its the West that steals ideas from foreign film. Just check out two new movies coming to your theatres soon, My Sassy Girl ( A korean movie made in 2001, that beat the crap out of Matrix in the box-office, and really lives to that name), Battle Royale ( a complete bloody mess of a Japanese film if you know what I mean, reminds me of those pinku films I never want to watch), I expect the American version to be less bloody.

    Let’s not forget, the Ring Series, wasn’t American either. Someone want to draw a red dot on white paper.

    And let’s

  81. Where's Alice? wrote:

    If this, the 21 miscasting, was an isolated incident then I think it might be overlooked by APAs, but it is soooo not.

    And how can Asian American men ever hope to get into a position where they can carry a movie if they are so rarely seen in the media? It is asinine. If we ask why wasn’t an Asian American actor cast in the lead we are told that it wouldn’t be profitable. There is no big box office Asian American stars. White audiences won’t go for it. So, Ok how does one become a big star then? It is obvious. People get to know you, like you, want to see your work. Then how do we get known if we are never put into movies? By magic? We really need to start supporting one another and stop this “so what?” nonsense.

    Look at all the TV shows set in hospitals. Where are the Asian American men? That is like setting a show around the NBA and having an all white cast with one black actress in the mix. Would that be OK?
    And the three most prominent AMs in the media are NOT portraying Americans. They are once again foreigners. Can only Asian American WOMEN be Americans?
    And for those who say that what’s this big deal?

    - If a majority does not consider a minority group a legitimate (see: foreign) member of society, then they will be less likely to: Vote for them for political office; promote them above a perceived legitimate member of society; care if that minority gets equal protection under the law; care if that minority enjoys the benefits of a higher education., etc. This is relevant because an outsider status is the most dangerous status that a minority can hold in society. If the society is threatened, either externally, internally, politically or economically…guess who gets the blame? And guess who suffers because of it? The foreigners, the outsiders. Especially ones with higher education, higher incomes and who are small business owners. They are prospering within a society that doesn’t see them a fully part of that society. Easy targets.

    And for those who say that I am mixing apples and oranges….media representation vs. real life experiences. I would argue that throughout history people have controlled the people through the media. It is not a coincidence that the first thing that dictators take over is the source of information. Media is very powerful.
    And the faster we become part of the mainstream media the faster it is that the larger society will begin accepting us as true blue Americans.

  82. Andre wrote:

    I hate to say it, but in these days people believe in media, more than God

  83. Adam wrote:

    I just want to say, that in addition to the racial problems that I’m plenty steamed about with this movie, nothing that the MIT Blackjack team did in real life is or was illegal. They did not “steal” this money. Card counting is NOT illegal and a lawsuit against card counters would never stand-up in court. Card counters do NOT change the inherent odds of the game, stacked as they are in favor of the house. The MIT blackjack team, and teams like them, have just devised a system in order to compete on fair ground with the casinos. If a person uses an artifical aid, like a computer to count and track the cards, then that’s cheating and illegal. Using one’s brain is not illegal and the winning weren’t stolen, they were earned. Maybe not in the way that the casino likes, not that they “like” giving away any winnings.

    Sorry to get off track, but all this talk of stealing was really annoying me.

  84. jen h wrote:

    the way to change it is to support the indie asian american films at film festivals and see them when they go to theaters or on DVD now- those like Better Luck Tomorrow or Saving Face- or coming out later this year- American Zombie or Never Forever or Ping Pong Playa.

    Even putting your money for tickets for Harold and Kumar 2 (instead of 21) will help those actors become more “bankable” if the film does well…. they only made a sequel because the film did well on DVD and grew a cult audience.

  85. Vee wrote:

    I’m glad I read this article. There’s no way I’m going to watch the movie now!

    However, I will check out the book.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared.