I think it's important not to be misled into binary thinking. old model=bad, new model=good; the concept of "oppression" is too "old school," identity politics are essentialist and thus may be easily dismissed, blah, blah, blah.
"Transnational capitol" and "third world labor" are much more than "silly old tropes."
In ethnic studies it's important to interrogate issues like oppression, power, citizenship, and male privilege. Yet, they are complex and deserving of more than a knee-jerk reaction
David Eng is drawing from Mark Chiang here, but he's saying that he finds Chiang's argument disturbingly convincing. That on the one hand, it's very easy to embrace the "queer multicultural millenial family" posed at the end of The Wedding Banquet, but that it would be a mistake to see Wai-Tung, Wei-Wei, and Simon as having equal access to choices, to power, et cetera.
The "marriage of convenience" that ends in love is prob'ly one of the top five romantic plots of all time. So the film is working within a [compulsory heterosexual] expectation that Wai-Tung and Wei-Wei will fall in love. That they come to another arrangement, that Wai-Tung and Simon are able to recommit to their relationship, and that they'll be forming a different kind of family is one of the great things about this film.
However, it's important to recognize what goes on on the other side of the "marriage of convenience" in the US nation-state. There are real people, like my friend Y, a lesbian of color who entered a green-card marriage. When she was raped by her legal "husband," she couldn't do anything about it. Yes she was "playing the system" but in that system she was especially vulnerable.
Wei-Wei, we may frankly and happily say, does not get raped by anyone. She initiates sex when she wants it. Additionally, the film goes out of its way to show Wai-Tung and Simon respecting her "right to choose."
Far from being perceived as daring for its time, The Wedding Banquet was widely criticized in the queer communities for being so "mainstream." For one thing, it's a story about gay men, but the only on-screen "sex" is between Wai-Tung and Wei-Wei. Simon and Wai-Tung try to have sex but are frustrated by the appearance of the family patriarch.
In terms of transnational capital: this does end up being relevant to the story. When we first meet Wai-Tung, we see him as financial successful. When his parents (Mama Gao and Baba Gao[the general[]) appear on the scene the father makes it clear that Wai-Tung's money for the building is HIS, money, his investment in his son, implying that there may be economic as well as personal consequences to Wai-Tung coming out.
An important argument that Eng is making has to do with Queer Diaspora. This is a whole field within Queer studies, American studies, and Ethnic studies. What role do queer identities play in decisions to emigrate? How do US immigration's amnesty laws exclude people persecuted on the basis of gender and sexuality?
One of the things about reading the whole article by David Eng is that he maps out the history of Asian American studies, why it developed the way it did, and how much who makes up "Asian America" has changed in the past forty years. He even takes Queer Nation seriously: although he criticizes its reliance on "nation" (which is how most scholars completely dismiss QN), he also recognizes that there were people of color who were extremely active in that organization, that it was neither all-white nor hegemonic, that it was an important site of contestation about queer identities.
All of the films that we're watching are "messy," and it's important to take criticisms such as Eng's seriously, instead of getting seduced into the "finally a happy ending" positioning. I remember arguing with a friend about The Amazing True-Life Adventures of Two Girls in Love and all the criticism about race and class that film. One thing question was raised was "why do lesbian films get held to a higher standard than mainstream films?"
The Wedding Banquet is a lot more complex than the American Express ad showing two white lesbians adopting an Asian baby, but that doesn't mean we should ignore what they have in common.
I didn't mean for this to turn into a lecture: I just think it's important that we not take off our "critical glasses" just because a film is fun or has a happy ending. I'm now going to avoid a long diatribe now about Ugly Betty and stereotypical portrayals of women of color, because I've already gone on longer than I intended to.
"Transnational capitol" and "third world labor" are much more than "silly old tropes."
In ethnic studies it's important to interrogate issues like oppression, power, citizenship, and male privilege. Yet, they are complex and deserving of more than a knee-jerk reaction
David Eng is drawing from Mark Chiang here, but he's saying that he finds Chiang's argument disturbingly convincing. That on the one hand, it's very easy to embrace the "queer multicultural millenial family" posed at the end of The Wedding Banquet, but that it would be a mistake to see Wai-Tung, Wei-Wei, and Simon as having equal access to choices, to power, et cetera.
The "marriage of convenience" that ends in love is prob'ly one of the top five romantic plots of all time. So the film is working within a [compulsory heterosexual] expectation that Wai-Tung and Wei-Wei will fall in love. That they come to another arrangement, that Wai-Tung and Simon are able to recommit to their relationship, and that they'll be forming a different kind of family is one of the great things about this film.
However, it's important to recognize what goes on on the other side of the "marriage of convenience" in the US nation-state. There are real people, like my friend Y, a lesbian of color who entered a green-card marriage. When she was raped by her legal "husband," she couldn't do anything about it. Yes she was "playing the system" but in that system she was especially vulnerable.
Wei-Wei, we may frankly and happily say, does not get raped by anyone. She initiates sex when she wants it. Additionally, the film goes out of its way to show Wai-Tung and Simon respecting her "right to choose."
Far from being perceived as daring for its time, The Wedding Banquet was widely criticized in the queer communities for being so "mainstream." For one thing, it's a story about gay men, but the only on-screen "sex" is between Wai-Tung and Wei-Wei. Simon and Wai-Tung try to have sex but are frustrated by the appearance of the family patriarch.
In terms of transnational capital: this does end up being relevant to the story. When we first meet Wai-Tung, we see him as financial successful. When his parents (Mama Gao and Baba Gao[the general[]) appear on the scene the father makes it clear that Wai-Tung's money for the building is HIS, money, his investment in his son, implying that there may be economic as well as personal consequences to Wai-Tung coming out.
An important argument that Eng is making has to do with Queer Diaspora. This is a whole field within Queer studies, American studies, and Ethnic studies. What role do queer identities play in decisions to emigrate? How do US immigration's amnesty laws exclude people persecuted on the basis of gender and sexuality?
One of the things about reading the whole article by David Eng is that he maps out the history of Asian American studies, why it developed the way it did, and how much who makes up "Asian America" has changed in the past forty years. He even takes Queer Nation seriously: although he criticizes its reliance on "nation" (which is how most scholars completely dismiss QN), he also recognizes that there were people of color who were extremely active in that organization, that it was neither all-white nor hegemonic, that it was an important site of contestation about queer identities.
All of the films that we're watching are "messy," and it's important to take criticisms such as Eng's seriously, instead of getting seduced into the "finally a happy ending" positioning. I remember arguing with a friend about The Amazing True-Life Adventures of Two Girls in Love and all the criticism about race and class that film. One thing question was raised was "why do lesbian films get held to a higher standard than mainstream films?"
The Wedding Banquet is a lot more complex than the American Express ad showing two white lesbians adopting an Asian baby, but that doesn't mean we should ignore what they have in common.
I didn't mean for this to turn into a lecture: I just think it's important that we not take off our "critical glasses" just because a film is fun or has a happy ending. I'm now going to avoid a long diatribe now about Ugly Betty and stereotypical portrayals of women of color, because I've already gone on longer than I intended to.
4 comments:
"why do lesbian films get held to a higher standard than mainstream films?"
Lesbian films, and I believe queer films in general, are most definitely picked apart more than your average mainstream blockbusters, or even, I could say, the majority of heterosexual films. This, I believe, is because of the lack of representation of queers in the media. Many people, myself included, are at least a little bit bitter, and rightfully so in my opinion. Queers see heterosexual images in tv, on the radio, in print, on ads, and just about everywhere we turn. There is a desire to see ourselves portrayed in the media. So we wait, and we wait, and we wait. Then, something finally comes along, a new gay movie! Queers are happy, they go in flocks to see this movie, to see themselves portrayed on the screen. I think this build up is what leads to the harsh criticism of queer films. It seems that there is always something wrong with them! I noticed, and yes it bothered me a bit, that the only sex shown in the film was between a male and a female. There were other things that bothered me about the film too. However, I think it is easier for people (and maybe more specifically queer people) to focus on what is wrong with a queer film, because they (especially more mainstream films) don't come around all that often.
With that said, I don't mean to exscuse the arguements Eng makes, as I believe they are valid. It's too easy to dismiss film criticism as being "too harsh" or "too critical" in order to dimiss the fact that problems do exist in our world, and these problems are often mirrored in the dipictions of our community in the arts.
I would agree with Prof. Esquibal's analysis of The Wedding Banquet and David Eng's article. Although the film insinuates a “happy” ending I’m sure in reality things would be quite different. The untraditional or contemporary family is possible in the U.S. but unfortunately they would not get the same rights and respect as a traditional nuclear heterosexual family. In all I think that the film’s plot is possible and I’m sure many people live their lives under these ideas. I cannot imagine how hard it is to “live” knowing that your family cannot or will not accept your lifestyle. Not only do Asians have these strict guidelines of family and marriage but it is seen in other people of color communities, African American, and Latinos. I also knew of a situation where a woman married a man to help him obtain citizenship in the U.S. and I remember how hard it was for her. The fact that she was living a lie was difficult for her. I enjoyed the films ability to present many issues including: class, gender, and sexuality. On a side not, I wonder if Ang Lee is an open gay man of color or just a fan of queer culture?
Along these same lines, perhaps the heterosexual sex shown in the movie (but more importantly, the lack of homosexual sex)was put in to "soften" the gay overtones of the movie. In other words, I am highly critical of the way queer people are portrayed in film or on tv. It seems that quite often, such game-themed venues are either "watered down" so that members of the straight community are not turned away, or the opposite; gay characters are shown to be completely flamboyant, like clowns (ei. Jack from Will and Grace). It brings up a dilemna, is such portrayals good, because it exposes members of the straight community to gay and lesbian people (albeit fictional), or is it bad, since the portrayals are inaccurate and/or representative of only one type of queer person? (In the Wedding Banquet, the main character is shown as being somewhat passive, ie, not wanting to stand up to wei-wei, not wanting to tell his parents that he is gay, etc. This perpetuates Richard Fung's concept of the passive, gay Asian male)
Mao seemed to be so dependent on the men for everything, even her livelihood. Only in the end did she begin to show more of herself in making her own decisions. I thought that was an interesting power play. She seemed desperate for Wai Tung's affection for her own sexual validation or something.
Post a Comment