1. Introduction and Claim People often refer to the United States as a “melting pot” of various cultures, a term coined by Jewish immigrant Israel Zangwill in 1908. While this idea is commonly referenced in describing America’s current racial state, in reality, it oversimplifies the complex nature of American culture and altogether ignores the historical construction of America; that is, it overlooks, even bypasses, the discrimination, racial violence, and bigotry that are an undeniable part of America’s history. By calling America a “melting pot,” people deny agency to various cultures that are independent from this projected idea of one assimilated America; cultures are unique and cannot be categorized under a single descriptive entity. Thus, others have depicted America as a “mosaic,” a term that grants more agency to individual cultures, asserting that the nation was formed by many “pieces” of cultures that could then flourish in American society as a whole. While the “mosaic-America” supports the existence of different cultures, it assumes that the American mosaic is already complete—that no pieces of the puzzle are missing. The lack of Asian American national identity through American history highlights the incredible flaw in this colloquial terminology. Wayne Wang’s film Chan is Missing directly addresses this mistaken notion, concluding that America is indeed missing pieces from its mosaic—pieces that were never even recognized as missing. This paper, through Wang’s 1982 film Chan is Missing, will articulate a case for the aforementioned claim in order to shed light on the realities Wang urges viewers to consider. It will first discuss two key concepts evident within the film, visibility and legibility, and the dramatization of their relationship. This will then serve as the basis for the film analysis, which is separated into two sections: 1) film presentation, and 2) film text. In these sections, this paper will show how the inability to “see” and “read” in Wang’s film points towards the lack of Asian cultural identity in America and the refusal of society to recognize this culture as American. 2. Visibility and Legibility Wang’s film explores the concept of visibility and legibility in order to construct his claim. These two terms, at their most basic level, have very different meanings. Visibility is often related to the physical sight of something; legibility is the comprehension of that something. Thus, visibility serves as a precondition for legibility; that is, in order for something to be legible, it has to first be visible. Wang dramatizes the relationship between these two concepts, using visibility as a metaphor for legibility. That is, in his film, things unseen may point to the inability to comprehend those things and that things unseen may also point to the basic inability to recognize those things. These ‘things,’ in the context of Wang’s film, relate to Asian identity and thus, the recognition and comprehension of Asian culture. 3. Film Presentation The film itself represents an argument for this idea of visibility and legibility. Although the film was shot and released in the 80s when color film was already seen as commonplace in the film industry, the director shot the film in black and white. Thus, this action can be seen as a stylistic choice rather than one of necessity. Because of the desaturated and antiquated color of the film, images are often obscured; people’s faces are shrouded in shadow and the setting blurs with the background. At 26:41, the two friends walk up the stairs in search of the missing protagonist, Chan Hong. The carpet is unclear and the details become muddled and indistinguishable. The faces of the two friends are blurred by the black and white color. They effectively become shapeless, unidentifiable objects as they proceed up the stairs. As a result, they are not visible to the audience and, in effect, not legible. Wang uses the character’s lack of clear visibility to symbolize the lack of clear legibility of Asians in America. In other words, Wang argues that Asian Americans struggle to achieve agency. Just as the two friends are blurred amidst an unclear background, Asian Americans live without a recognized identity and clear place or sense of belonging in society. They are illegible and invisible; society not only refuses to comprehend their culture but also fails to recognize them as a people of a separate, independent culture. 4. Film Text The film’s repeated focus on reflections off of Jo’s taxicab also provides a pointed critique on American society. In the opening minutes of the film, the audience only sees Jo partially through the windshield of his taxi—Chinatown reflects off of his face as he drives through the city. This scene lasts almost a whole minute before the narrative begins. The idea of visibility and legibility is evident in this first minute. The audience sees Chinatown and Jo, but it is unclear who or what the focus should be. Jo is again invisible to the audience and thus illegible. Immediately, director Wang juxtaposes Jo with the white man in his taxi. Jo drives to earn a living. This man travels for entertainment and luxury. Jo’s identity is subject to a cruel hierarchy rooted in the subjugation of Asian immigrants in U.S. history. Although Jo is free in this world, he lacks agency in that he still serves the white man. While this is the only interaction Jo has with a white person, it subtly represents the invisibility of the Asian American. Jo’s identity is unclear and incomprehensible. In the end, he is still subservient and caged under the hierarchical structure of white supremacy; he is unrecognized and misunderstood. It is no surprise, then, that Chan Hong remains missing, and that nobody really cares to find him. He is an Asian immigrant and clearly did not belong in Wang’s perceived America. In the end, the audience is shown a picture of Chan Hong and Jo. Jo comments that he can barely see Chan Hong. Chan is not only a mystery to white Americans, but also to Asian Americans. Director Wang provides a scary conclusion; Asian Americans cannot even understand and comprehend their own origins. They have lost visibility and recognition of their heritage and culture; they have failed in the preservation of personal cultural authenticity and instead assimilated into a non-identifiable culture controlled by white authority. 5. Conclusion Chan Hong is neither visible nor legible; he has no identity in America. Jo is partially visible and only partially legible; he struggles to find his identity within Chan Hong. These characters are mere representations of the unrecognized, missing piece in America’s incomplete mosaic. While the current racial state vastly differs from even the time this film was released, director Wang highlights an issue still present within society—many individuals are still left out of American culture and denied agency and identity. Most interestingly, however, is the fact that the white American is also not visible, and thus also illegible in this film. Is he denied agency as well? Perhaps Wang wants viewers to construct their own identity, separate from societal concerns and opinions, all while accepting, understanding, and recognizing the multi-various cultures that define America’s mosaic. Works Cited Chan Is Missing. Dir. Wayne Wang. By Isaac Cronin, Terrel Seltzer, Michael Chin, and Robert Kikuchi-Yngojo. Perf. Wood Moy, Marc Hayashi, Laureen Chew, Peter C. Wang, and Presco Tabios. New Yorker Films, 1982. DVD.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
writersSamuel C Archives
September 2014
Categories
All
|