GES1023 Essay on Crazy Rich Asians (Term Paper)

GES1023 Representing Singapore Term Paper (Question 1)

(Tutorial D3)

"Crazy Rich Asians' representation of Singapore is objectionable not because it is inaccurate, but because it is incomplete." Do you agree with this assessment of John Chu's Crazy Rich Asians (2018)? Substantiate your point of view with close reference to examples from the film.

In dealing with the question at hand, one must first define that the word objectionable might have a negative connotation, suggesting distaste and unpleasantness. Seah (2018) details the objections made by Singaporeans in her article, focusing on points of conflict such as the lack of non-East-Asian actors in starring roles, or the distinct lack of Singaporean accents in the entire film. Whilst these are, in their own way, valid opinions, it is important to note that my view disagrees with the premise of the question: that the film’s representation of Singapore is objectionable at all. However, assuming the premise’s standpoint, this essay aims to discuss why- although the film’s representation of Singapore is objectionable due to its incompleteness to a large extent-other factors also have a part to play in forming the audience’s opinion of Singapore. Furthermore, the inaccuracy of the representation of Singapore can be debated, and is therefore not the main cause to why some might have received the film badly. I believe that the film was never intended to be a conscious representation of Singapore, let alone an accurate one in the first place, which suggests that the objectionableness of Singapore’s representation largely stems from a largely untrue assumption or unfair expectation attributing the film’s setting to an imagined agenda.

First and foremost, the Singapore of Crazy Rich Asians appears largely romanticised, especially when it is first being introduced to the audience as the film’s setting. The choice of locations of filming echo those posited by the government/Singapore Tourism Board to show off the economic status of the country, remaining largely in the territory of ‘tourist spots’ such as Marina Bay Sands, Gardens by the Bay, CHIJMES and the Singapore River. Hence, there is a distinct lack of visual representation of what most middle-class Singaporeans are seeing on a daily basis eg. MRT Stations, HDB blocks, industrial office hubs etc. Add to this, the montage of the hawker centre- one of the only heartland scenes visible in the movie- which features quick cuts and some shaky camera movements to suggest a lighthearted, carefree atmosphere and furthering the effect of mimesis in the film. The equivalence in this deceptive mimesis leads the viewer to buy into the atmosphere created in the montage by associating Singapore as a country with both highly developed architecture, and the humility of roadside stalls selling traditional food. Add to this the dramatised screaming whilst driving with balloons, which further demonstrate the director’s attempt to make Singapore seem like an idyllic metropolis. This underpins the narrative of the film through Nick, who must choose between staying in New York with Rachel or returning to the country where he was raised. His decision appears difficult due to the portrayal of Singapore through a romanticised lens, as well as through Nick’s nostalgia for it. I would argue that this view of Singapore is both inaccurate and incomplete, if the assumption is to be made that the characters should represent the life of an ‘average’ Singaporean.

The setting of the story also seems to be somewhat inconsequential to the plot of the film, which centers around value clashes due to the east-meets-west aspect of the narrative, as well as the social tensions arising between members of different social classes/economic status. Arguably, the setting could have been replaced with Thailand or Indonesia, with little changes to the main narrative. However, Singapore’s economic success does have a role to play in emphasizing the value placed on money, education and reputation by Singaporeans. The values of the characters also stem from some uniquely Singaporean traits, such as the emphasis on Meritocracy, Reputation and Self-Sacrifice. This can be seen from the fact that most, if not all the characters who earn university degrees do so in highly-ranked universities outside of Singapore, which can be seen as a sign of intellect being linked to one’s prestige and wealth. There is a paradox in this fact lying in the implication that western education is somehow superior to Singaporean education, which contradicts Singapore as a nation that pushes its citizens to the heigths of academic and economic efficiency. However, the theme of reputation as manifested in one’s materialism permeates the film, and seems to override the importance of meritocracy as the priority, in contrast to what the government of Singapore is trying to portray Singapore as. Reputation is also manifested in the somewhat conservative views of the film’s Singaporean characters regarding family. The montage of Rachels’ encounter with Nick’s relatives, her conversations with Eleanor, as well as the climax of the conflict of the film all revolve around Rachel’s status as being raised by a single mother, as well as her significantly lower economic status. The impression created is incomplete in that it posits the staunch and unforgiving nature of Singapore society regarding alternative or non-traditional family structures. This can be perceived as inaccurate due to the fact that not all Singaporeans hold this opinion, and some are willing to deviate from the norm of a traditonal nuclear family.

A large point of tension in the film comes from the clash between ‘Western’/ American Values with Asian values, most notably, in Eleanor’s words, the pursuit of one’s individual ‘passion’ vs. The ‘self-sacrifice’ needed to build ‘things that last’. This very much plays into the motivations behind Singapore’s emphasis on Meritocracy and Reputation, which stem from years of living with a siege mentality and the impression of constant vulnerability created by the government. In some ways, this power dynamic manifested through the conflict between Eleanor and Rachel is accurate in generalisations of western vs. Eastern thinking. Eleanor even blames Nick’s intention to stay in New York on being away from home for too long, saying something to the effect of ‘when children are away for too long, they forget who they are’. The idea of collectivism and alienation also feature heavily in this power dynamic, as Rachel is constantly being ostracised due to her American-ness or lower social economic status. It therefore provides the effect of associating being Asian with being Singaporean, through the equivalence created by most of the characters sharing the same views.

The film’s representation of Singapore is incomplete in the sense that it does not capture every aspect of the nuances of what it means to be Singaporean – which in itself is a complex and ambiguous subject of discussion. However, I would argue that this is not necessarily objectionable due to the fact that that was not the intention of the film to begin with. The film attempts to provide the illusion of objectivity through the intentional subversion of age-old asian stereotypes, such as the introduction of Goh Wye Mun as having a comedic accent. The illusion of film as a reproduction of our lived realities is constantly disrupted in the film through the use of the cariacature characters first introduced in fast-paced and somewhat unrealistic scenes such as Kitty Pong, Bernard Tai and Eddie Cheng’s family. This overt essentialisation of characters contrasts the more subtle major characters eg. Nick, Rachel, Eleanor etc. At times, this juxtaposition might be seen as a way to make the major characters seem more realistic and relatable in comparison, until one realises that the main characters also fulfil certain stereotypes perpetuated by the media, such as of Eleanor as a ‘Tiger mom’, and Nick as a one-dimensional Prince-Charming-esque character, thereby naturalising Singaporeans as these stereotypes, rather than subverting them.

It is important to note that the notion of something being ‘accurate’ can sometimes be a matter of perspective, such as whether or not what is being represented aligns with what the recipient believes to be true. Since all representations are necessarily political, it is difficult to be absolutely objective about the accuracy of representation. Yap (2018) highlights that some of the criticism surrounding the film revolves around the under representation of some of Singapore’s minority races, by featuring mainly East Asian Actors in the primary roles, excluding prominent ethnic groups in Singapore such as the Malays and Indians from focus. However, I would argue that the film has more of the intention to represent Asians as a whole, rather than Singapore in particular, hence the tiny inaccuracies and (more significant) incompleteness of the film’s representation of Singapore does not need to be seen as distasteful. Many forget that the film is a hollywood-produced romantic comedy, which needs to dramatise certain aspects to further the story/market itself. Hence, to claim that the film is objectionable at all would be a stretch in the direction of depriving the makers of the film from their artistic license.

Word Count: 1429 Words

References/Bibliography

Jacobson, N.,Simpson, B. and Penotti, J. (Producer), & Chu, J. M. (Director). (2018). Crazy Rich Asians [Motion Picture]. United States: Warner Bros. Pictures.

Seah, M. (2018). Commentary: Not Singaporean enough? Are we expecting too much from Crazy Rich Asians?. Retrieved from: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/lifestyle/crazy-rich-asians-trailer-singaporean-singapore-representation-10178338

Yap, A. C. (2018). ‘Crazy Rich Asians’ Doesn’t Represent All Asians Everywhere, and That’s Fine (Column). Retrieved from: https://variety.com/2018/film/columns/crazy-rich-asians-representation-1202905965/