[Last edited: March 16, 2012]
Gran Torino. I didn’t like it at all as a representation for Asians and Asian-Americans to popular audiences. I wrote about how the Hmong ”characters” were nothing more than walking wikipedia entries. They were nothing more than lifeless, passive victims. They lacked any character or individuality at all.
Today, at a public screening and lecture in Long Beach, I actually got to meet the actor who played the lead character in Gran Torino, Thao, Bee Vang.
As I was sitting there in the mini auditorium, it took me a while to process that the young person speaking, Bee Vang, was the actual lead character from the movie.
A quick glance at the wikipedia entry on Gran Torino wouldn’t help you know this at all. Notice how Clint’s name is all over the place. Apparently, he’s the only one “starring” in the movie.
This wikipedia entry is actually symbolic of Bee’s experience working on Gran Torino: he felt invisible, silenced, disconnected, while participating in the production of this movie. He seemed more than happy to deconstruct the stereotypes and poor representation of the Hmong and larger pan-Asian community.
Bee Vang is a young, but sharp 19 year old, first-year undergrad in International Politics at Brown University. He’d grown up in Fresno, Minnesota, and actually had been on various panels discussing Gran Torino. He made the movie when he was 16 in the Summer of 2008.
He started by recalling an episode when the Gran Torino production crew had a baseball game. According to Bee, none of the Hmong actors were invited to the game because the crew assumed that the Hmong actors were Hmong immigrants. As immigrants, they would have no idea what baseball was, so the production team thought.
Hollywood R & D FTW. Not.
Kinda shocking unfolding of events given that Hollywood is considered to be “liberal”, the production that they were working on was ostensibly about the Hmong.
He said that the power of the Hmong actors to portray their own story as Hmong people was severely limited. He said that some of the rituals were blatantly wrong, which the actors tried to point out. In one scene involving a ritual, Bee talked about how the Monks were not supposed to touch a baby on the head at all. What did they do in the scene? They touched the baby’s head!
sarcasm
No matter, said the Gran Torino production team. People in the audience would probably miss it, and it wouldn’t matter in the long run, right? And besides the angle of the camera looked pretty! No need for cultural accuracy when you got shots that look all Asiany and ritually and East-y and superstitious-y.
/sarcasm
He also talked about how as mostly amateur, young actors, their suggestions were likely to be met with negative, dismissive responses.
Even though they had a “cultural consultant” on set, it doesn’t seem like she had much influence.
I gathered that she was probably around to make sure that the production team didn’t blatantly, obviously eff anything up, but that would be it. She wasn’t there to actually participate in the making of the story.
Professor Louisa Schein, a professor of Anthropology at Rutgers, who has been working with Hmong communities for over 20 years was also at this screening and public forum. She talked about how she’d kept an eye on the script. She gave suggestions to the Hmong actors about how to “complexify” or add personal depth to their characters. However, she reported that those suggestions and concerns were not taken into consideration. There were other priorities.
You know, like Clint Eastwood’s burgeoning career as a director and savior of weak ass AzNs.
After the movie was made, Bee would scoff at the director and writers’ suggestions that ”we did our best to represent Hmong culture.”
Bee talked about the restrictions to developing his character. He recalled a particularly resonant line that embemized the experience of shooting Gran Torino ”I’ll take whatever you throw at me” or something to that effect. It’s a quote that embodied an invisibility, and struck on the annals of the invisible Asian male in American media.
He talked about how the movie shooting was rushed: they were expected to shoot for 37 days, but cut it down to 27 days. He’d found out he got the part in July 2008, and was told within a week to be in Detroit. The speed at which the production moved made it difficult for the actors particularly for himself to “get into” or develop a character.
Hearing him describe the speed of production synced pretty well with my initial observations of the movie. In my initial watching of the movie, the characters seemed to be nothing more than vacant walking stereotypes. Sure enough, that’s all they really had time to perform: a series of lines written by some white guy’s idea of the Hmong experience.
Whenever he asked for suggestions from Clint himself during filming, he talked about how Clint told him merely to “act naturally.” He wasn’t sure what he meant by that. “Act naturally” was code for “just be Hmong” as if all Hmong were the same and/or that there is a way to actually “be” Hmong. When he attempted to add his own interpretive spin giving his character deeper complexity, he was told by Clint to “stick to the script.”
This stick-to-the-script mantra kind of contradicted what Bee Vang noted was Clint’s post-production bragging about ”letting” Hmong actors “improvise their lines.”
I gathered that Bee and the Hmong’s working conditions were probably less than ideal relative to standards in Hollywood blockbusters. The Hmong, a people that get very little attention in the media, if at all, theoretically had an opportunity to educate and let people know about their subjectivities. However, thanks to Clint and crew there might as well not have been any opportunity.
After the screening and forum, I was able to get closer with Bee Vang. I asked about the chemistry during filming, Bee talked about how Clint maintained his distance from him. Clint isn’t known for being talkative, he thought. Despite this projected persona and reputation, Clint was quick to meet and talk with other people in the production team that weren’t Hmong.
As a result of this systematic stunting of this stultifying of creativity, stunning invisibility he talked about mini-resistances he employed during the movie. He talked about giving “extra snap” at Clint Eastwood in a scene where he was taken to a barber shop where Clint trades misogynies with some other white actor.
Also in that vein of resistance, he talked about how a grandmother’s quote in Hmong was left untranslated in a DVD version. The quote explained the complexity of the Hmong condition. Essentially it was a quote critical of the premise of the movie that said “well our men are gangsters and/or non-existant maybe because you made them that way.”
Calen
March 3, 2011
This was a real eye opener. Never saw the movie, but I always assume Hollywood can’t get anything right…or even decent in that respect. There is a lot of work to be done if brown folks are going to be represented in the way they should.
- M
September 29, 2011
Your interaction with Bee Vang is interesting, but it is “fake.”
It is not fake in the sense of “the meeting having taken place or not,” but in “Vang’s stance on the story, characters, and director of Gran Torino.”
But before we dive on the flip-flopping Vang, let’s go over your article structure:
WRITER INTERGRITY
Your article has very little actual quotes from Vang, but uses a lot of paraphrasing. This kind of quoting makes it confusing as to whether certain words belong to Vang or to the writer speaking to Vang (you).
Paraphrasing is standard in articles. It helps the writer make things play out to their own personal script, often to help make things more clear in an informative article or to make things side with a bias in a commentary article.
Sticking to a script.
The very thing Vang purportedly “complained” that Clint Eastwood made him do when filming Gran Torino. Yet in making this point, you write Vang’s quote in the paraphrasing format. You are putting words in his mouth…creating a script. Take this as you will, but as a writer of sorts myself, this destroys credibility of the article.
Speaking of scripts, it is the script writer’s choice of who is the star in a screen play; it is not a reviewer’s choice. In the case of Gran Torino, the writer is Nick Schenk.
Schenk is the “white guy” from the line of your article that follows through as: “Sure enough, that’s all they really had time to perform: a series of lines written by some white guy’s idea of the Hmong experience.”
Hopefully, you can make this more clear next time because your writing and paraphrasing makes it looks as if Vang is referring to Clint Eastwood as the writer.
Another issue to review as a writer is the fact that you are specifically quoting Wikipedia.com as a factual source. The site’s articles can be edited by any person with access to the Internet as long as they make a Wikipedia account.
Because Wikipedia understands that any posted information can be misleading or flat-out incorrect, they have the option for readers to mark articles in their degree of the following:
Trustworthy
Objective
Complete
Well-written
Wikipedia is great to reference for quick information, but it should never be used as de-facto information. Wikipedia understands this as well, and it is why the creators of the site ask writers to reference their information. The reference section is something that should be familiar to any Wikipedia user that bothers to scroll down to the bottom of a searched item on the site.
There happens to be a site that contradicts you assertion that Clint is the only star of Gran Torino: “The wikipedia entry on Gran Torino wouldn’t help you know this at all. Notice how Clint’s name is all over the place. Apparently, he’s the only one “starring” in the movie.”
The site is IMDB. If you speak to anyone with that has worked in the American entertainment industry, you would know that IMDB is a de-facto source for Hollywood entertainment information. In the case of Gran Torino, IMDB clearly states Bee Vang second to Clint Eastwood as the star of Gran Torino (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1205489/).
With that said, let’s go into Vang’s flip-flopping.
BEE VANG DOES NOT MEAN WHAT HE SAYS
Your meeting with Vang ended with Vang complaining that “He felt invisible, silenced, disconnected, while participating in the production of this movie.”
This was seemingly done through three primary points:
1. “This stick-to-the-script mantra kind of contradicted Clint’s post-production bragging about ”letting” Hmong actors “improvise their lines.”
2. “Bee talked about how Clint maintained his distance from him.”
3. “He talked about how a grandmother’s quote in Hmong was left untranslated in a DVD version. The quote explained the complexity of the Hmong condition. Essentially it was a quote critical of the premise of the movie that said “well our men are gangsters and/or non-existant maybe because you made them that way.””
It’s great Vang revealed these truths to you, yet is is pathetic that he was afraid to say said truths in any sort if public forum aside from your blog.
Let’s go through the list above:
1. “This stick-to-the-script mantra kind of contradicted Clint’s post-production bragging about ”letting” Hmong actors “improvise their lines.”
Yet, there is no proof of Clint’s post-production bragging referenced in your article. Perhaps it was just bragging amongst the film’s crew, and this sadly, cannot be proven aside from witness testimony.
In this case, the witness is Vang himself. This makes your paraphrasing seem reliable. That is, until a reader is made aware of various Bee Vang quotes that he was treated well during the filming of Gran Torino and that he thought the lines in the movie were good:
Bee Vang states, “The reason why it appealed to me was because (uh) this, Thao’s character reminded me a bit of myself. I saw myself in in Thao. And I thought it was such a powerful story when I was reading it the first time.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J95qicwHCPQ).
Vang straight-up says he saw himself in the character. He said that since the character was essentially him, it made him interested in the film. And Vang also more-or-less commends the script. Yet now, Vang feels lines in Gran Torino do not ring true?
Bee Vang lied to you or he lied on tape. Whatever the case, he did not speak up during a chance to make a difference.
2. “Bee talked about how Clint maintained his distance from him.”
This is where your interaction with Vang makes you look like a non-thinking hater. You are “not thinking” not because your conclusion that Clint treated people of a different background with less respect, but because on the Gran Torino DVD and other media outlets, Vang has nothing but praise for Clint as a person:
“”He’s just (a) down to Earth Regular Guy. I feel like I’m in good hands. And I feel like I am right now too…” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rMsJQXQxeY0)
“Clint is a really wonderful person. He’s really humble. And I’m glad I got to meet him. He’s really down to earth. He’s a really nice guy.” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J95qicwHCPQ)
Again, Bee Vang lied to you or he lied on tape. Whatever the case, he did not speak up during a chance to make a difference.
3. “He talked about how a grandmother’s quote in Hmong was left untranslated in a DVD version. The quote explained the complexity of the Hmong condition. Essentially it was a quote critical of the premise of the movie that said “well our men are gangsters and/or non-existant maybe because you made them that way.””
Finally, an objective complaint in which Vang has not flip-flopped his stance.
However, any person of a multilingual background knows that certain things often do not translate well. In this particular instance, you have the translation from Vang: “The quote explained the complexity of the Hmong condition…well our men are gangsters and/or non-existant maybe because you made them that way.”
That translation appears to any standard reader of English that Hmong people blame white ethnics for Hmong men becoming gangsters or non-existent. It is an interesting argument, but one that is too complicated to be argued here.
The main point here is of an untranslated quote.
Yet, as it has been pointed out multiple times, Bee Vang openly and (from the videos) happily fails to translate any wrongdoings on the set of Gran Torino. He has no right to complain about missing translations about Gran Torino when he does it himself.
As for my point on the last point, Vang has obviously not complained on a large forum about any issues when filming Gran Torino to ensure he can get other Hollywood jobs. People do not complain about about issues on any job title, Hollywood or not, just to ensure they keep connections.
However, in Vang’s case, there is supposed mistreatment of multiple people, not just him. When one person complains, their cry may be go unnoticed, but when people unite as one, their voice is more likely to be heard.
In the case of Gran Torino, Bee Vang and all the other non-white ethics on set decided not to complain. They decided on their own to remain silent. They were non-existent not because of white ethnics, but because of their own desire to stay in the protective bubble of said oppressor.
Arun
March 16, 2012
Now that people appear to be coming to this site based on the strength, breadth, and depth of your comments, I feel the need to clarify.
He wasn’t personally revealing truths to me; he was speaking before an audience of about 20 people at Cal State Long Beach, so he was trying to be seen in a public forum. He gave a lecture, and even a lesson about the movie. Sorry for not giving a clear sense of setting.
I wasn’t quoting wikipedia as a factual source, just used wikipedia as the source for which people will likely go towards for background information, though IMDB is also widely used. I was just using the entry as an example, a symbol of the invisibility of Bee Vang in this movie about Hmong people, which you could even see in the promotional poster; it’s not about Hmongs or Bee Vang, it’s a movie about good ole Clint Eastwood saving the day.
About the on-set bragging…it can’t be proven, it also can’t be disproven — but he was saying this to an audience with the backing of a Professor in Anthropology, Louisa Schein.
Also, the youtube links you posted: he was 16 when he gave those interviews about seeing himself as that character and talking about the greatness of Clint. Perhaps he was contracted to promote the movie while the going was good. He was 19 and in college when I saw him, perhaps some time to change his mind and use his work as a conversational piece.
John Doe
March 17, 2012
In that case, it looks like, on that Wikipedia article, the Hmong are not so invisible now. Somebody did a big addition to the article, and all this stuff about Hmong this and Hmong that were added.
X
February 22, 2012
I am Hmong. But let’s get this straight. Bee Vang is now bashing the movie he was featured in?! Man! I should’ve tried out for the role! If i was given that opportunity, I would be making other movies by now. Bee Vang failed to study and examine the script, purpose of the film, etc before he accepted his role. It’s his own fault for putting himself in a position like that. Do the production members, etc get some criticism for that way they treated the Hmong members? Sure. I mean, if all you wrote is true and what Bee said is true then thats wack. Why would a production team, producers, etc want to make a film about the Hmong and completely disengage themselves from the very people who they are filming about? At the end of the day though, Bee and other Hmong participants should have examined the film, script first before even accepting roles. Otherwise, shut up and capitalized on your opportunity.
Arun
March 15, 2012
Responding to M and X, they had an Anthropologist consultant on the film, the thing is that the people ultimately making the decisions (Clint Eastwood) chose not to go along with her suggestions.
I’m not sure why the production team would want to make a film about the Hmong and disengage them, maybe they just wanted something “exotic” or “new”, but didn’t completely understand how to go about that. They’re filmmakers wanting to show something from their vision; no matter how well intentioned they might be.
I was happy Bee Vang was speaking out rather than shutting up and being happy with it, otherwise that just gives license for people to run over you. Just because someone gives you an opportunity, doesn’t mean you give them license to do whatever they want with you. I think he was trying to make the best of his opportunity, and he was in the same boat as the other Hmong cast members. You should call them out too, it’s just that Bee has been the most vocal about it.
I mean he could’ve resigned, and it would’ve given some other Hmong an opportunity, but what would that accomplish in the end? He would probably be called a quitter.
John Doe
March 17, 2012
I don’t think Vang’s plan was particularly effective. To me it sounds very strange to decide to have the film made, and praise it at the time, and then wait several years and say that it was very, very hurtful. It just sounds incoherent, and it makes people confused. On another forum somebody said that this effectively means he is damaging his film career potential by “burning bridges.” I can imagine other companies/people can look at it and say “We don’t want to hire this guy.”
During production, he should have decided if the film was a net positive, or a net negative. Either he should have tried to unite all of the Hmong behind him *during production* to make changes made (I.E. if he felt things were *that* hurtful), if he believed it was a net negative…
Or, if he thought it was a net positive, he should have decided to save face for himself and the production, and more diplomatically point out cultural errors and/or say positively-worded statements like: “it’s nice that we have a film with Hmong, but why not try one with a Hmong protagonist?” In fact I thought, Why not take it *further*? Why not make a sequel where Thao grows up, surpasses the master, and uses Hmong culture to save White Americans and/or other American groups? If he’s unable to get the rights to the characters (i.e. Thao), he could see if an “expy” could be made…. I think he could have been able to maybe have a graphic novel or something made. But personally I think he blew it.
I would like to write a fanfiction sequel to GT where Thao saves a White kid from negative influences. Although I thought of rural Michigan, I know Hollywood also bastardizes and/or looks down at rural America, so maybe it could be an upper class household where a rich White kid is in deep trouble with drugs or something. That way it truly does come full circle.
John Doe
March 17, 2012
I would make sure Sue would be included in the sequel story, and that there would be an explanation of how the events inspired her to choose her career paths/goals.
John Doe
March 17, 2012
Speaking of GT, I found these really strange MS Paint comics.
“I’m working on a Gran Torino comic strip which will chronicle the daily lives of Walt, Thao, Sue, and the gangster kids. Just don’t mention to the fat kid that he looks like Eric Cartman. He hates it when people tell him that.”
http://buridans-paradox.xanga.com/709052327/item/
Arun
March 18, 2012
I don’t care where he’s flip-flopped, I’m just happy he spoke out.
Basically you seem to be saying that if he was going to play this game, he should’ve played it more rather than giving these presentations. I’d probably do that too.
I doubt however that he’d get much support from the same people making that sequel because that movie was just predicated on propping up Clint.
During the presentation he did show us a video response that he and friends crafted. I didn’t think it was the greatest response, so you can friend him on facebook and let him know what you think, perhaps you can produce something on your own with your idea — I think what Bee Vang pointed out is mostly a subtle, but important point trying to make — his folk, his faces, but ultimately under their ideas that win out, unless he develops a Barack Obama-like smoothness to him.
I’d be happy to see your ideas go through and encourage you to friend Bee Vang on f-book and message him either on his wall or privately.