Now there is something very special that I am presenting to you. An anonymous writer wrote a piece to be contributed to my blog. I am posting it now because the subject matter it deals with is relevant right now, and if I wait till October then it won't be as important. So without further a due here is what really chaffs the writer's nuts.
So maybe I'm missing the
point. Maybe I'm not understanding. Maybe I'm playing devil's advocate. And who
knows, maybe I'm just purely ignorant. But let's talk about the new Owen Wilson
film, No Escape.
For those not aware, the film
is about Owen Wilson's character, Jack, taking his family with him when he
moves to “Asia”, in the middle of an uprising, for a job. I'm a firm believer
in avoiding as many spoilers as possible, so all I'll say is that Jack's job in
some way impacts the lives of the citizens in this unnamed Asian country, the
impact isn't all good, and as a result, a lot of the citizens have become
hostile towards American influence and, as such, Americans.
A lot of people are accusing
this movie of being racist, xenophobic, and other race-driven buzzwords to stir
up click-bait interest in their reviews. To which all I can ask is: Did you
watch the movie? Did you only watch the trailer? Did you just sit in a dark
room for an hour and a half?
It mostly seems to be an
instance where people are looking for an excuse to get upset and riled up. In
one scene in the movie, Jack is essential to helping some of the civilians get
away while the protestors and riot squad close in on each other on a small
street. But if you read around, people get upset because clearly the movie is
implying that the civilians are helpless on their own and need a white man to
protect them. However, there are several other instances in the film where Jack
winds up protected by natives and civilians, and, again, if you read around,
there are people complaining because the movie implies that these civilians,
the natives, exist solely to protect a white man. So it's wrong if Jack
protects the natives, but it's wrong if the natives protect Jack. This may be a
bit of a strawman argument here, but I'd be willing to bet that, if there was a
moment where Jack could have protected a civilian but, for whatever reason, he
didn't, there would be some sort of communal complaint about how that implies
that we as Americans consider ourselves more important. And if the opposite had
played out, and a civilian didn't protect Jack when he needed the help, this
same strawman would argue that the movie implies that foreigners are
empathy-devoid savages.
So the only safe assumption
seems to be that there be no “foreigners” in this movie that takes place in a
foreign land. Which brings us back to a well-known and frequently seen problem
in Hollywood: cast white-washing. You can't put out a fire by starting another
fire. So then what are the filmmakers supposed to do from there? Part of the
fear, the tension, that comes from this movie is that our main characters do
not speak the language. At one point in the film, they find a map of the area
to aid their escape, which proves useless. Why? Because the map is written in
the language of the land. And the people who live there speak that language.
And our main characters, Jack and his family, do not speak that language. So
their map is of little use (at first). Set the movie in a country where English
is spoken, and half the tension of the movie is gone. Everyone speaks the same
language, communication is simplified, and presumably something can be handled.
But there's also the fact that we're given a glimpse into what the problem is,
and it's a problem that is seen mostly in the third-world. And there aren't too
many third-world countries where the primary language is English. Had the movie
taken place in a first-world country, or in a country where English was the
primary language, and a lot of the “fish out of water” tension that the
filmmakers were more than likely aiming for is completely lost. So that leaves
one of three realistic options: either the movie gets made the way it was, it
doesn't get made at all, or it gets made in a way that appeases all of these
“no-win scenario” complaints, and we get a movie that's so unrealistic that
we've only wasted everyone's time.
As for complaints about the
film being xenophobic, it is. But not in the sense that it's perpetuating an
American fear of “Asians”, but more in the sense that most of the world should
be in fear of us weaseling our way into their homes. The entire premise is that
there are these rebels who are mad at the Americans who are coming in and
taking control of the land. Big corporations who set up systems in countries
that can't afford it, and then take control of whatever they can or want in
exchange for pardoning the debt. It's not exactly like this is a new or
unfounded story, and it's certainly not like this happens. Throughout history,
there are plenty of stories of the powerful gaining control over the weak
through promises of a better life. If there's any sense of xenophobia here,
it's that most of the “poorer” countries should be afraid of allowing us inside
their borders, not the other way around. Hell, at one point, the rebels who
Jack and his family have been running from are excused by Brosnan. He explains
that these rebels aren't bad people, they're probably not the kind to just take
up arms and begin a bloody revolution in the streets because they feel like it,
but instead are family members of all different types who want nothing more
than to fight against an opposition like this, and are doing what they do
because it's what they see as their best case scenario for securing a better, more
free, tomorrow. And at no point is there a generalization or stereotype from
any of the characters, but instead, Jack shows an understanding and
appreciation for where he's coming from. It's clear that nobody in this story
wants to be doing what they're doing, but are forced into it.
Last but not least, some
people have complained that we never get an explanation of what was happening,
nor do we ever get to see it from the point of view of the natives, to
understand their story. First of all, we do get an explanation. One that is
relatively thorough, albeit brief. It's not an explanation that holds your hand
and guides you through the narrative. It's an explanation that assumes most
people old enough to see an R-rated movie can piece together clues. As for the
complaint that we never get to see the build-up or watch the story through the
narrative of the local. Admittedly, that would have been interesting. After
all, watching the build-up of this revolution would have been fascinating, and
to maybe get a chance to see one of the natives awkwardly agree to start
fighting, not because they want to, but because they have to, would have put a
nice spin on the story. But this isn't a story about a rising underdog, nor is
it a story about changing the world. It's a story about a fish out of water.
It's a story about a person thrust into a situation he couldn't imagine, in a
brand new locale where nothing is what he's used to, and having to survive
completely on his own, learning as he goes. If someone had argued that his
family exists mostly as an emotional crutch to build drama to the story, it
would have been a more valid argument. The movie does fail the “Sexy Lamp”
Test. But to say that the movie is lackluster because you don't get to see
every side of a story, when there's one set narrative is pointless. Not every
film is City Of God. I don't recall seeing Peter Jackson giving the Orcs
all that much of a background, and yet those films were so well-received that
most of us can look past those Hobbit movies making Sir Ian McKellan cry. And
before any assumptions can be made, this isn't to compare the natives of this
mostly-unspecified Asian country to Orcs. The point is that, in this film, the
rebels specifically are seen as the antagonists, because the narrative is told
through the eyes of the American foreigner (presumably because the film was
made by Americans, for Americans, so it seems apt to assume that focusing on
the Americans' point of view would sell best to American audiences). That's how
storytelling works: there's a protagonist, with whom you watch, associate, and
justify everything they do because you understand their motives, and then
there's the antagonist(s), with whom you only see at their worst, picturing
yourself in the shoes of the protagonist having to deal with these antagonists.
And yet still, No Escape goes ahead and makes a conscientious effort to
humanize their antagonists as people who are only doing what they think is
right, and not acting out of anger, spite, or any other negativity.
Now here's the part that
probably most bothers me. Most of the reviews I've read, whether they be film
critics, bloggers, or anything else, have cited that most of their malcontent
with this movie stems from the racist and xenophobic attitudes that are portrayed.
At least through my experience, which is the only one I can speak from, very
few people have said anything negative about the film itself. Not a whole lot
of griping that the script is poorly written (although it's best if we ignore
the final two minutes of the movie), or that the cinematography is lazy, or the
acting is poor and unmotivated. Very few gripes even about the directing as a
whole. Let's put it on the record, I'm not saying that this movie is perfect;
it's not. It does have its flaws, it does have its weaker moments, it certainly
could have been a little bit better. But all in all, it's a pretty solid film.
When I went to go see No
Escape, 6 of the 8 trailers that played before the film included the phrase
“True Story” in some context. Some of the most successful movies of late have
been sequels, reboots, or comic book movies. Now I'm not knocking that. I'll
watch Vin Diesel and his crew do Fast & Furious movies until they're
drifting wheelchairs. I'll pay full price to watch the Justice League pummel
Calendar Man because Snyder and Nolan ran out of villains. And I honestly could
not care less what you're rebooting or bringing back for the next sequel in a
mostly forgotten franchise so long as I get to watch Tom Cruise running
somewhere or Chris Pratt being overjoyed at the thought of his own charisma.
But seriously, I hear it and read it all the time. People complaining that they
want some originality in their movies, but most of what everyone goes to see,
and by extension, most of what's being made, is reboots, sequels, comic book
movies, young adult-novel movies, and “True Story” movies. And when something
comes out that doesn't fit into one of these five demographics, nobody goes to
see it, and everyone who does finds something about it to pick apart and tear
to pieces. And now we're at the point where we're accusing films of racism and
xenophobia because we literally have nothing else about it to bash (because
we're bandwagon hopping, not because it's a perfect movie.) Just remember these
moments next time you want to complain that there's no originality in
Hollywood.
Keep chafing my nuts about No
Escape, and in the mean time, I'll just start picking out random news
headlines and gluing them together until I have a “Based On A True Story”
script.
With that I will leave you. Until the next rash,
Lou Ford
FIN
P.S.
I want to thank the writer for his contribution. Thank you.
