On "The Class (Entre les Murs)"

So - you've got this white teacher, right? And he's teaching at an urban school with a diverse population of students. A lot of these students come from poverty and rough backgrounds, a number of them immigrants. He's teaching Language Arts, so they end up doing a self-portrait about themselves. Things are learned.

We've most definitely heard this story before, right? We've seen this movie - "Freedom Writers," "Dangerous Minds" (they're always Language Arts teachers, no?). White savior comes in and - in their first year of teaching - they "save" all these kids of color who aren't capable of saving themselves. We've seen it.

But what we have not seen is "The Class." It's set up so much like these other films, but it's so very different. The first "why"? Probably because it's not an American film. It's French. When Mr. Marin (the teacher in the film) teaches Language Arts, it's called "French." And when François Bégaudeau (the actor and writer and once-teacher) wrote this screenplay, he had no intention of following the b.s. American formula - and in so doing he created something so incredibly original simply because it was real.

This is not a movie for good-feelings. It won't uplift you in the end. There are no answered questions or pat morality tales. The movie ends as murky and frustrating and awkward as it begins - and that is its brilliance. Because - in that - it perfectly mirrors the actual teaching profession.

The movie starts on the first day of school with Mr. Marin (in his fourth year of teaching) and ends on the last day. There is not a single scene played out outside the walls of the school (hence the French name, "Entre les Murs," which means, "Between the Walls"). It's semi-documentary style let's us see exactly what the students and teachers see: a class full of kids from a variety of backgrounds, sometimes learning, often challenging. We get hints of what's going on in their lives, but we do not have the luxury of trite peeks into their home-lives, we are left only with hints - just as in real life.

And the teacher? We see him in staff meetings, as the teachers bicker with each other over how to "punish" the kids effectively. We watch one teacher melt down in frustration in the staff break room. We see Mr. Marin leave late at night, fatigued and worn-down. And then we see the next day of class. Even for Mr. Marin, there is no home-life, no romantic interest down the hall. Nothing to show us his outside world that the students wouldn't know about.

And that's the beauty. It perfectly captures the classroom experience. This strange world where people who don't know each other outside of a very artificial setting share their lives with looks, and shouts, and closing down. People who would never connect in the outside world, who don't understand each other's cultures or perspectives. Sometimes, beautiful things happen. Sometimes, tragedy. Both sides learn from each other (arguably, more so the teacher from the students in these types of situations than the other way around). Nobody leaves fully satisfied.

Mr. Marin screws up. A lot. But he also has strong moments. He cares, but he doesn't understand (even four years in - just like most teachers). He stereotypes his students. He picks on some of them (perhaps unknowingly - perhaps not). He tries his damnedest to do his job under ridiculous circumstances. And the kids? The same. They try. They question. They don't understand, either.

Finally, a film about teaching that doesn't try to glorify. That brings up all the questions and gives no answers. There is no "saving" kids. Teachers come from a different world and judge without understanding - and it frustrates everybody involved. There is so much opposition (from the top on down), that it's amazing that anything positive happens. It only makes sense that a movie like this could only have been written by - and acted by - a former teacher. And I don't know the background behind the actors that play the students - but they are absolutely brilliant. It seemed so real, even though I knew it wasn't a documentary, I often questioned that fact.

This movie is painful on a lot of levels. It brings up issues of class, and race, and sexism without carefully tying off any loose ends. It's raw. And that rawness is what makes it so worth seeing. You want to get a real glimpse into the world of public-school teaching in America? Watch this French film.

And that's the only problem with the movie. That people who do not know any better will watch this and take it as just that: a French film. Allowing the fact of its origin to keep them from understanding its absolute truth to an American education system. I can already imagine all those Freedom-Fry lovin' patriots dismissing the veracity of this film because - Americans wouldn't do that. Trying to think that the system and mentality is different (when it is - at least from what I saw in this film - exactly the same).

And then they'll go back to watching "Dangerous Minds" and think about teaching Language Arts.

When they should be taking this lesson - think twice about teaching. You're probably not going to be good at it. Because, in this system, so few people are.*

* I'll be following up on that statement in a post about "the Myth of Good Teaching" soon.

Big Trouble In Little China: Then and Now

When I was 6 years old, I went to see a movie with my family: Big Trouble in Little China. This was a big deal for me on multiple levels - first, because my family hardly ever went to see movies in the theatre; and second, because this proved to be my newest favorite movie EVER!!!

And it kind of still is.

As a 6 year-old (and later years, when I kept watching over and over to the point of obsession*), the movie offered me all the exciting action I could ask for. There were cool martial arts stunts, explosions, guns, magic and an exciting adventure. There were monsters and gods. And there were a TON of Chinese main characters! Badguys, sure, but also the goodguys - and ALL of them were total badasses. Lightning (pictured above - one of the "Three Storms," who were god-like villains) was probably the coolest character ever created, and he didn't even speak English!**

Of course, Kurt Russell was the focal protagonist, but he was one of only three white people in the entire film. And - better yet - he was totally out of his element and needed massive help and support (or, really, leadership) from the Chinese guys all around him. Equally focal to the story was his best friend, Wang, who was all kinds of awesome. As a kid, when I was playing with my best friend (a white kid), he would be "Jack" (Kurt Russell's character), and I would be "Wang" - and I definitely thought I had gotten the better end of that exchange.***

I watched that movie so much that I can almost recite the whole thing word-for-word, even now. And I've found myself wondering - why that movie? There have been so many martial-arts-type movies since my childhood - why was that one so special to me?

And so I now turn my adult eye and mind to the film, and I think I get it. Because, considering it came out in 1986, that movie was revolutionary in its depiction of minorities. The Chinese people weren't the weirdos and extras in the movie. Instead, Jack - the muscle-bound white "hero" - is the stranger. He constantly "talks the talk" while being exposed for his cluelessness. He's totally out of his element, and it's the Chinese characters who have to bring him along for the day to be saved. Some of the plot-line is drawn from ancient Chinese mythology, and it is treated with relative respect. Again, Jack's questioning of the "myths" is depicted to show him as the unbelieving barbarian - while the Chinese folks who know their truth go about taking care of business.

Even better - the one strong white character in the movie? A woman (played by Kim Cattrall of Sex in the City fame). She's familiar with Chinatown and its subculture. She's strong. She mocks Jack's ridiculous attempts to hit on her. Granted, she ends up getting captured and "saved," but she takes a leading role in her own rescue (while Jack botches it up numerous times).

And then let's go to the one interracial romance - between a Chinese guy and a white woman. And the guy is hardly exotified in this one.

Shall we continue? Outside of the one Chinese guy who ends up with the white woman, every single other Chinese guy in the movie is a complete and total badass - and the dork even gets his badass moment. There are no dorky Chinese nerds running around. All the stereotypes depicted in so many movies before and since - absent.

And - yeah, yeah, yeah - there's a lot of martial arts, but still . . . "Forbidden Kingdom" is a mockery. "Big Trouble in Little China" says - those Chinese dudes can more than hold their own.

And, of course, I'm not trying to make this out to be the perfect movie - it's still a ridiculous action-adventure at the end of the day. The few Chinese women in the movie aren't exactly shining beacons of strength. But - for when it was made - it's kind of amazing. Hell - even compared to present-day movies, it still holds its own.

A movie about a ridiculous, macho white trucker. But a ridiculous, macho white trucker who just so happens to like to hang out in Chinatown after making his deliveries, playing fan-tan (a Chinese gambling game) with his Chinese buddies, and whose best friend happens to be a Chinese guy. In fact, they are such good friends that - without a thought - this macho white trucker gets himself involved in a deadly adventure to help his friend get back his girl.

You think that concept didn't grab a hold of me? You think - even as a 6 year-old - I didn't notice how his Chinese friend imparts wisdom and fights like a badass while trying to keep the confused white guy from getting himself killed? You think I didn't soak in all the various cool Chinese heroes (and even cooler villains) filling the screen at all times, even if I was too young to really digest it all on a conscious level?

Because there were no other movies like it. Not before. Arguably - not after. A big, crazy American action-adventure movie where the Asian guys completely stole the show and were meant to. And this was a movie starring Kurt Russell and directed by John Carpenter! A movie that just sunk its claws into my 6 year-old heart and never let go - even 23 years later.

Of course, it bombed in the theaters. Kurt Russell even noted going into it that it was going to struggle, "This is a difficult picture to sell because . . . It's a mixture of the real history of Chinatown in San Francisco blended with Chinese legend and lore . . . There are only a handful of non-Asian actors in the cast".****

But it has lived on. Even prevailed to become a huge cult classic. Kind of like a minority who doesn't let him/herself be silenced - if you stand up for yourself long enough, somebody's going to take notice.

So I suggest that all of you go check out the film. See if you can combine the joy of your six-year-old self with that of your conscious adult mind and rejoice that a movie with all this goodness was made two decades ago. And then ask yourself why so few like it have been made since . . .

* I remember watching the entire film all scrambled on tv when the pay-per-view channels were somewhat discernible at random times throughout a showing.

** He was the only Storm with no speaking lines, and - judging from Thunder's thick accent - it had to be because he didn't speak English at all . . .

*** When I was alone, I was "Lightning."

**** This particular quote ripped from Wikipedia (I swear I do real research on my own time . . .)

On "Baby"

On the box for the movie, "Baby" is compared to both "Boyz n the Hood" and "Scarface." And, since those movies are so completely different in style and general themes, that pretty much sums up how hard it is for movie critics to stay away from ridiculous generalizations and stereotypes.

They could have at least compared it to "Better Luck Tomorrow" (even though "Baby" isn't really like that, either) - except for the fact that nobody's ever heard of it (look it up).

So why did the critics have such a hard time having any legit movie comparisons for "Baby"? Because it's about Asian Americans. Gangsters. Asian American gangsters. Right. A lot of movies like that out there.

The movie is set in the early 90s (with flashbacks into the 80s), following the (brief - he's only 18 at his oldest in the film) life of Baby - a Cantonese American, son of a drunk, no mother - drawn into gang life for lack of other, healthier family. Let's just say it's not exactly an uplifting film.

And it's not a bad film. At all. The start is a bit rough, but by the middle of the movie, I was drawn in fully. It does a pretty solid job of depicting the quicksand-like fall into trouble that urban gang life represents - as well as the fact that juvenile justice facilities pretty much only guarantee that kids come out as criminals (whether or not that's how they went in) with no skills for living clean once out.

Of course, for me, I had other reasons to appreciate this film. First and foremost, obviously, was the fact that the majority of the characters (and all of the major roles) were portrayed by Asian Americans. How many American movies out there can say that? Better yet - different Asian ethnicities were portrayed by - sit down before you read this - different Asian ethnicities! Seriously. The Chinese folks spoke Chinese (Cantonese, actually), Vietnamese spoke Vietnamese, and there were Koreans, as well. Hell - there were multiple fight scenes where not one of the characters performed a spinning jump kick or any other form of martial art. I mean - damn. Is that even legal!?

And I'm not done yet. Being set in the 90s, the "Asian Gangster Chic" styles represented in the film were all too familiar (as I was a 90s teen, myself). Baby's hairstyle for the second half of the movie alone gave me a little bit of "back in the day" nostalgia for the days when all the Asian Gangstaz at my high school gave me shit for being an "Asian sell-out." It seriously made me miss them.

And, finally, it addressed something that gets absolutely NO attention in the media or otherwise - there are Asian American gangs. Lots of them. And I'm not talking about the freaking Triads or Yakuza, I'm talking Asian Americans. Kids who speak English just as well as (or better than) their ancestors' dialects. Kids who grow up in the same segregated poverty that the better-known, darker-skinned gangbangers come from. Different in a lot of ways, but so very much the same.

Of course, not so much the same that it's not insulting that the San Francisco Chronicle called it the "Asian American 'Boyz n the Hood,'" or that the SFist.com said that, "For Asian American movie watchers, 'Baby' is going to become their 'Scarface.'" Seriously?

We're not following the clean kid whose father is teaching him how to be a man. There is no glorification, no rise to power here. And why is it that this movie is obviously expected to be seen only by Asian Americans?

Oh, right - because it is. Trying to find an image to put on this post, I found the Korean baby singing "Hey Jude" instead about 8 out of 10 times. The only sites that reference it are Asian American film sites (or blogs).

Hell - the only reason I picked it up was because it had a picture of a bad-ass Asian dude, guns blazing on the cover. Probably the same reason most other folks will put it back down. It makes me wonder if non-Asian folks could even watch this movie without feeling like they had to totally suspend their disbelief the whole time ("yeah right - like Asian-Americans live like that - this isn't Thailand!").*

I don't know. This was a piss-poor movie review, but what else can I say? There's nothing to compare it to. Maybe it kind of was like "Boyz n the Hood" . . .

* I remember my brother telling me how, when she saw "Better Luck Tomorrow," my Chinese aunt said that she didn't like it because "Asian teens don't do that kind of thing." Ai yaa!!!

On Freedom

I swear my brain shuts down halfway while I'm home visiting the parents. At least halfway.

Did I mention I watch a lot of movies when I'm here?

Anyway, I just finished watching the movie "Shooter." In a really small nutshell, "Shooter" is an action/suspense movie about an American ex-military sniper fighting against corrupt government officials, including a U.S. senator, who do a lot of bad things to foreign countries in the name of oil and money. I have to admit, I kind of enjoyed it (I also happen to be a Mark Wahlberg fan - he will always be "Marky-Mark" to me).*

And by no means was this movie anything other than a big-budget Hollywood action movie. With themes on government corruption and the U.S. thirst for oil. In a big-budget Hollywood action movie.

And - sure - it wasn't done extraordinarily well. It didn't point the finger at any real-life folks. But it asked questions (and gave its own negative answers) about U.S. foreign policy. In a big-budget Hollywood action movie. Hell - it even mentioned Abu Ghraib (and a very direct condemnation of how that all played out). In a big-budget Hollywood action movie.

And that's kind of amazing. In spite of all that's wrong with this country, all the questionable actions of our government, and what we do to other countries and governments - this movie was made. Made, and put on the big-screen in every major city in America. Made available on DVD to any American citizen (as well as foreign citizens) who want to pay to watch it. And nobody was arrested for that. Nobody was threatened, the film wasn't stopped. Nobody labels the director, writer, or producer a "dissident." In fact, nothing was said in the movie that doesn't seem even somewhat cliche because it's been said so often publicly in recent years.

And that's something I am very thankful for. I can complain and call out "the System" for all that's wrong with it. I can have a publicly-read blog challenging the history lessons we are fed in the classroom (inspired by other books that touch on similar topics), and I am not harassed, arrested, or threatened by my government (maybe I'm on some sort of "watch list," but I'll take what I can get).

And there are so many places where that is not possible. Places where finding the information that I disseminate in my own rants would be virtually impossible. There are plenty of places (and, perhaps, one of those places is the past for this country), where doing what I would do would mark me as a "revolutionary" or a "national threat." But here? Now? I'm just one more random U.S. citizen with a blog talking about race and the institutional racism that's part of our current system. And that banality is something that I will do my best to never forget.

While I continue to point out the flaws in the system.

* "Can you feel it baby? I can, too . . . Vibrations good like Sunkist, makes me wanna know who done this?"

On "In the Name of the King" Being the Greatest Movie Ever

I watch A LOT of tv when I'm home visiting my parents over the Winter. And so I was led to the movie pictured (and mentioned) above.

Taking into consideration my recent post (On Escaping Race) about how white-washed fantasy/sci-fi books and movies tend to be, the photo above is a breath of fresh air. It's an image taken from the film "In the Name of the King" - a fantasy film that actually has a large number of actors of color in it. And not just as token characters meant to die, but rather major characters (on the side of good, no less), as well as being sprinkled throughout to make a positively DIVERSE fantasy landscape. There are even Asian ninja-warriors who are the king's sort of elite guard. Wonderful.

The problem is, this is one of the most ridiculous movies ever made. Seriously. So much so that it feels almost insulting that this is one of the few sci-fi movies with major PoC representation (and with no Rock to make up for it, Sis). The effects are awful (about 10 years behind its release date in terms of technology), and the acting is even worse (with a storyline to match).

But then I let it percolate a little bit. And I soon began to appreciate this amazing film. From Burt Reynolds as a heroic king (the way he delivers commands is captivating) to the evil warlock played by freaking RAY LIOTTA (he wears a leather trenchcoat that I keep expecting him to pull a sawed-off shotgun from) the fun and hijinx are non-stop. In a medieval-type setting, I really can't explain how funny it is to see Ray Liotta wearing an outfit that would be perfectly natural in one of his contemporary roles as a crooked cop or a mobster (and delivering his lines in a similar manner).

And when we're talking about line delivery - half the cast are young actors and actresses (one such being the obnoxious friend -murderer from the original "Scream" movie) who deliver their lines in such a manner as to have me constantly expecting a "dude" or "man" to be uttered with every-other sentence. Unfortunately, that did not happen (or maybe it did, and it was so natural that I didn't even notice). And of course, half the characters have British accents, some have American "dude" accents, and the rest of generic mid-west American accents. All from the same country . . .

There are also a race of "wood-nymphs" who fly around on vines a la Cirque du Soleil acrobats - which is just so very breathtaking; jiggly rubber suits galore; awkward grunting and hopping by said jiggly rubber-suit-wearers; and a soundtrack that is to die for.

In a nutshell? Mind-blowingly hilarious, and subsequently quite enjoyable. I honestly can't do the movie justice with the written word, as so much of it must be heard (or at least mimicked). "Dude, your comportment doth be so below your dignity. Man."

If only you all could be here with me, watching this film, laughing uproariously - a diverse audience for a diverse film.

Because, in the end, what makes this movie so fun for me right now is the fact that my "race-radar" hasn't screamed out once the whole time, and so - in spite of the horrendous nature of the actual film-making - I can actually relax and just enjoy it for what it is - the unintentionally funniest movie ever made. And thus - the greatest.

Go forth and view it.

Dude.

On "Miracle at St. Anna"

This photo kind of sums up how Spike Lee must have felt about the end-product when he finished putting together his film, "Miracle at St. Anna."

I'm not a film critic. And I do admire Spike Lee and the responsibility with which he has pursued his film career and subject-matter. But all I can say is, "What the f---!???" Seriously.

The back-story to this film is something powerful: the so-called black "Buffalo Soldiers" serving in WWII; fighting for a country that still gave them no rights; soldiers obtaining more power and freedom in the military than they had in their civilian life. And yet . . . and yet this film was so full of cheese-ball B.S. that I wanted to cry. WHY!!?? WHY!!??

How could Spike Lee have made this film? It has just as much in common with the ridiculous slap-stick "Life is Beautiful" as any other war movie. If anything, it probably sets back the story and respect for the Buffalo Soldiers of real life, as opposed to doing them justice and honoring them.

And I just don't get how that happened. Spike Lee is a big deal. He had the final say on all of this. He is the one who chose the terrible, soap-opera soundtrack. He's the one who directed the "Chocolate Giant" to play a Bubba-Gump stereotype of a black man. He was the one who filled the movie with ridiculous "oh-so-cute" ABC Family moments of a scruffy-haired white child that talks to his imaginary friend and works miracles.

So how? How? This is the same man who directed freaking "Malcolm X." The same man who called out Clint Eastwood for the lack of black soldiers in "Letters from Iwo Jima" and "Flags of our Fathers." And his response? Disney Films meets . . . meets what? I don't even know.

I wanted this movie to be good. I wanted it to convey its message with strength. I wanted the poor reviews to be just another indication of white America's inability to stomach racial truth.

Damnit.

On "Hellboy" as a Vehicle for Race Relations

I just got home from watching "Hellboy II: the Golden Army," and - oddly enough - I find myself thinking about race. I find myself thinking about this fantasy/scifi/action movie as an allegory for race relations in the United States. Do I think that was the intention? Not likely.* But does it work? Absolutely.

This may seem like a pretty strange post to have on this particular blog, but you'll see where I'm going with this soon enough.

For those out there with no idea what this movie is about, I will give as brief of a synopsis as I can (without ruining the film).

In a nutshell, "Hellboy" is the offspring of the devil. He was found as a baby by the U.S. army (to prevent Nazis from getting him) in World War II. Since that time, he has become a "good guy" and serves the FBI as a member of an elite (and non-human, or super-human) task force charged with saving humankind from all things alien or fantastical. On this task force are his girlfriend (a human woman who catches fire when angry) and "Abe," a sort of fish-man with psychic abilities.

Whoo! Wondering where race is going to come in yet? Soon. In "Hellboy II," the basic plot is that there was a battle thousands of years ago between humans and non-humans (elves, trolls, and beyond). It was brutal (human-caused), but it ended with a truce, where humans promised to take care of the natural earth as part of the deal.

Okay - truce violated, there's about to be another war by the - until now - pride-swallowing non-humans vs. the humans. Hellboy and his gang find themselves protecting the human side.

Right right. Now here comes the racial undertones (to me). Throughout the film, Hellboy and his friends keep finding themselves the subject of random hate and disrespect from the "normal" humans that they are trying to protect. At one point, Hellboy saves a baby and all sorts of random New Yorkers from a nature-god, only to have the people accuse him of trying to hurt the baby, the police try to arrest him, etc.

Later, when Hellboy is with his crew in the secret underworld of non-humans - where all sorts of strange creatures abound - he tells his girlfriend, "You would love it here - nobody stares at us at all, we just blend right in."

Now you see where I'm going with the race thing? Throughout, Hellboy is constantly reminded by the (ambiguously) bad guy that he's playing for the wrong side (the humans) - that they don't even like him. And the movie is gray enough that there's no point where - as an audience member - I found myself overwhelmingly rooting for the human side. In fact, the movie is set up in a way such that - basically - humans kind of deserve annihilation.

It was interesting, especially for an action movie - a sort of family movie, really - a genre that doesn't really specify in ambiguity and gray areas.

The scene with the baby made me think of how often non-white folks (black, especially) find themselves in a position where their good intentions are mistaken, in fear, by white folks. How easily cops will assume that they are the "bad guys." The regular references to how out of place the heroes feel amongst the people they are trying to help. How good it feels for them when they no longer stand out. And the whole concept of "race-traitors" - fighting for the side that would hold them down. And the flip - those on the non-majority side that feel cornered, with no other option but violence (or war) to set things straight.

Of course, I imagine few people came out of this fun, sometimes funny, action-adventure with racial struggle on their mind. The "hero-as-loner/outsider" subplot is not new to movies (or any other sort of story). But something about this one struck me differently than others. It just seems that superhero movies are such a great vehicle for addressing human intolerance for each other. How fear and the unknown turn to hatred so easily (and predictably). And it was nice to see that angle pursued in a blockbuster summer movie without it being tied up in a neat little bow at the end.

Because, at the end of the film - let's just say it doesn't leave us with a final message of "the human side is right." We are very intentionally guided to feel for the "bad guy" at the end. And we are also left with a bad taste for the full humans on the heroes' "side."

And I appreciate that. Again - I don't know how many people will take what I did from this film - but I find it hopeful that a director (Guillermo del Toro, of "Pan's Labyrinth" fame) of clout in Hollywood was able to sneak this message into his film. Maybe it will latch on to its viewers' sub-consciousnesses and wreak some thoughtful havoc.

Now wouldn't that be something? The media brainwashing us to think more.

Here's to future big-budget movies taking their audiences into the gray area - and to the interesting changes that could come as a result.

* Off the top of my head, there is no obvious actor of color in the entire film, so maybe I give the director far too much credit.