Categories
Arts

Minari and the immortalization of one family’s American Dream

The 2021 Golden Globes Winner for Best Foreign Language Film is about a Korean-American family in rural Arkansas

“She’s the reason I made this film,” said Lee Isaac Chung as he held his daughter in his arms.

It was an opening line to an acceptance speech for a bittersweet victory.

Minari (2020) is a semi-autobiographical film written and directed by Denver-born director Lee Isaac Chung. It tells the story of a Korean American family’s relocation from California to rural Arkansas in the 1980s, where its patriarch is determined to start a farm. Despite its universally relatable storyline, debates over the film’s eligibility to compete amongst other American films persist.

Minari’s Golden Globe nomination for Best Foreign Language Film has stirred up a complex, painful awareness of rejection and alienation for Asians across America and Canada, like myself. 

Minari was written, directed, filmed and produced in America; it tells the story of an American family in the midwest, and stars a predominantly American cast — yet its win for Best Foreign Language Film has punctuated the chasm between what is offered to American families of colour, and what is demanded of them.

The Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA) rejected Minari’s bid for Best Picture because the film is predominantly in Korean. However, as film journalists have highlighted, the HFPA nominated Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds — which also features foreign languages — in the main category of Best Film in the past. The HFPA’s rejection of Minari as an American film is representative of the open rejection of the Asian diaspora and their place in North America.

Minari stars the Yi family — parents Jacob and Monica are chicken sexers from California who have an opportunity to pay off their debts if they can successfully get their small farm started in Arkansas. 

As the family struggles with supporting Jacob’s parents as well as managing the heart condition of their eight-year-old son, David, a decision was made for Monica’s mother to come from South Korea to live with the family.

First and second generation Asian immigrants are all too familiar with the layered complexities of filial piety in the same ways that the Yi family experiences — living in multigenerational homes while navigating their obligations between the generations before and after them.

David complains throughout the film that his grandmother isn’t “like a real grandma.” That she “smells like Korea” and should be baking cookies. Instead, David’s grandmother brings him to a creek deep in the woods near their trailer home, and introduces him to a Korean plant called minari. She tells him that “Minari grow anywhere,” and that “Rich or poor, anyone can enjoy it and be healthy.”

The film’s cultural significance is a universal language of the rooting of our ancestral tapestry — from which every American-born Asian child and grandchild blossom.

Much like David, the young boy in Minari, I grew up with varying degrees of shame and pride for my dual identities as both American and Chinese. As an adult who later immigrated to Canada, learning French and settling into life in Montreal has been a natural extension of my existing immigrant identity. So natural, that when I was interrupted mid-conversation with a friend on the STM to be complimented for my “good English,” I was vilified for calling out this problematic behavior.

Language has been a particularly sore subject for me — I speak English with perfect fluency, and French with a barely detectable accent. But try as I might, everywhere I went, I was reminded that no amount of assimilation would ever be enough.

In the film, Jacob toils away at a piece of cursed land, negotiating his priorities against his dreams throughout the film. It is perverse that this universally relatable story of resilience and perseverance is categorized as foreign. 

What Asian Americans heard was a message we’ve heard throughout our lives — you may speak perfect English, know no home other than the United States, be born and raised on American soil, tend to a piece of the American dream, and still be considered an outsider.

Perhaps narratives like the struggling farmer or western cowboy trespasses into the kind of American identity that immigrants and BIPOC are restricted from. We are only allowed to be Americans with a hyphen — because the full American identity isn’t available to us.

Asians born in rural Quebec and densely populated New York alike live a shared reality — a constant interrogation of both our roots and our allegiances, as if our only choices are one or the other. Perhaps the most revealing nuance for immigrants in North America is the silent understanding that as we commit to a lifelong embrace of our western home, its institutions will continuously fail to embrace us.

Nevertheless, Asians in North America will honour films like Minari for the ways it immortalizes our stories — offering a long overdue perspective of ethnic Americans in an otherwise predominantly white western narrative.

Categories
Arts

1917: A beautiful film on the tragedy of war

An immersive technical marvel with no shortage of emotion and intensity

The film 1917 is one of the best movies I’ve seen in the last few months. Everything from the tragedy the characters faced to the illusion of a long-take left me in astonishment. It’s a film that is absolutely fantastic on every technical level while also exploring the trauma of war.

I believe that 1917 can credit its emotional effect on audiences to two reasons: the performances by Dean-Charles Chapman and George MacKay, and the bold choice by director Sam Mendes to make the film look like one single shot. The Film has a very simple concept: two British soldiers are given a mission to deliver a message across enemy territory in order to stop an attack. However, there are rich visual details and emotional tones surrounding the story, which is what really builds the movie.

First, the performances by Chapman and MacKay were absolutely phenomenal. They inhabited their characters so well, creating people that were perfectly realistic, tragic and beautiful. Even though I only knew their characters, Blake and Schofield, for two hours, they offered the audience such an intimate connection during that time that it makes you feel like you’ve known them for a lot longer.  For two “unknowns” — which was why Mendes wanted to cast them in the first place — they make themselves not only known, but embedded into your mind and your heart. Their performances will haunt you in the best way possible.

If you’ve already heard a thing or two about 1917, you might have heard the word “seamless.” When describing 1917‘s editing and cinematography, that word is used accurately. Mendes approached his film with the idea of it being in real-time and it was an excellent choice. Following the characters during every minute of the film made it thrilling, tense and, above all, an immersive experience. You feel like you’re witnessing the lives of these two young soldiers, and brought along to experience the horrors of war yourself.

The film’s editor, Lee Smith, stitched together every shot seamlessly. Additionally, it had an incredible score by Thomas Newman that only added to the film’s powerful emotional effect. Even listening to the score without the visuals has the power to tell this tragic story. The striking and beautiful cinematography, done by the remarkable Roger Deakins, in addition to the musical score, completely engulfs you.

In the end, I was grief-stricken by the film’s events, but in awe of its technical wonder. I do believe that it deserves the hype it has in terms of its Golden Globe win for Best Drama Motion Picture and Best Director of a Motion Picture, and its 10 Academy Award nominations including Best Cinematography, Original Score, Director and Production Design. If you can see 1917 in theatres, do it whether it’s in IMAX or a regular theatre. The experience is worth every penny.

 

Graphic by @joeybruceart

Categories
Opinions

Michelle Williams, what do you mean “vote in your self-interest”?

Michelle Williams first won my heart not too long ago.

Her role in The Greatest Showman, more specifically her performance of “Tightrope,” embodied everything a complete hopeless romantic like myself feels when in love: faith, devotion through highs and lows, “mountains and valleys, and all that will come in between.”

The 2019 Golden Globes honoured Williams with a Best Actress in a Limited Series award for her role in Fosse/Verdon. Although I didn’t watch the show, reviews were great: Rotten Tomatoes gave it an 81 per cent rating, while IMDb had a 7.9/10 rating. Knowing her — loving her — I will say she deserved it, and that’s that!

Except that it isn’t.

Much like the popular tendency of celebrities to get political at award ceremonies, Williams took the opportunity to emphasize the importance of voting for women. She spoke beautifully about the importance of choice, and how thankful she was for being acknowledged for the choices she has made as an actress and as a person. She added that she’s grateful to “live in a society where choice exists, because as women and girls, sometimes things happen to our bodies that are not our choice.”

In a way, this is all anyone ever wants — to live where, once you look back, you recognize your own handwriting, as she put it. Now, I think it’s important to note that Williams was not at all addressing an international audience in her speech. She was specifically speaking to American women, encouraging them to employ their right to vote. Even more so, she urged women to vote in their own self-interest.

“Wait, what,” was my exact reaction. To this day I’m unsure if I misunderstood it, or she really meant it that way, but to me, “self-interest” should never be what fuels a democracy. A modern society is a collection of different people coexisting in the same place — asking each and every one of them to think of their own self-interest when it comes to matters that will unquestionably and unequivocally affect the other is not only wrong, it’s absurd. As Williams pointed out in that same sentence she preached for self-interest, “it’s what men have been doing for years.”

Since when do we want to do what men have been doing in matters of democracy and the world? I mean, two World Wars, literally countless acts of colonial violence, and abuse of power historically led by men, why would we ever want to do what they have been doing?

Women, exercise your right to vote. Do it so the world “looks a little more like us,” but also make sure that “us” isn’t just an inverted version of the selfishness and cruelty that a world led by white men has brought us. The world looks so much like men because they’ve chosen so selfishly that there was no room for otherness — instead of self-interest, how about public-interest?

 

 

Graphic by @sundaeghost

Exit mobile version