21

By Kate Xian
March 28, 2008

In recently learning of the racial debate surrounding 21 (the MIT students are in fact Asian, thus both the starring roles are Asians, but studio executives and so forth decided to cast against Asians) I thought it important to now preface this review. It is important to note when reading this review that it was written without any knowledge of the actual true story and was viewed with unbiased eyes in a strictly filmmaking perspective. I leave it as is, unedited, and it is ever more prevalent to take note of one of my comments regarding the two Asians cast in supporting roles.

Many have argued that the Asians, Aaron Yoo and Liza Lapira are nothing more than bafoon sidekicks without an ounce of the cool/selling factor. I on the other hand saw it slightly differently, but now knowing that Ben Campbell and Fisher in fact are psuedonyms of real life Asians, Jeff Ma and Mike Aponte, I feel the need to take that statement back. It has also been argued that we Asians are playing the race card and should quit our whining, when truthfully, if we are so called playing the race card then so are the studio executives, producers, director (Robert Luketic), and those that support the casting of Jim Sturgess, Kate Bosworth and Jacob Pitts as playing the same card. If race shouldn't matter to Asians, why does it matter to the decision makers of the film?

It is not reverse racism in any means because if race doesn't matter then why did the thought even occur to change the colour of skin of people who are historically recorded as being of Asian descent? The race debate began upon the single thought of "I think the three main characters should be White not Asian" for whatever reason it may be. Asians here aren't pulling any kind of race card, all were asking for is simply - don't rewrite history!

In the article "Did '21' Bet on Being Called Racist?" it cites a poster who used the example of the race change in the film version of I Am Legend as receiving no public outcry from the White audience. I don't believe this to be useful evidence in the argument because it is fiction entirely. The MIT Blackjack Team are real people. If you were to sit and put yourself in those shoes, can you imagine the person playing you in your biopic be so far off in similarity that your not even the same ethnicity? If you were a white man can you imagine an Asian man playing your life out onscreen as you? If you were a black woman can you imagine a white woman playing you? Chances are unlikely. So why is it being asked of us?

It would be completely absurd if a studio executive or whomever with casting power, presented the idea that Biggie Small in the upcoming biopic be cast by a white male. Why? Because history is being rewritten unneccessarily. Imagine the public outcry from the black community should this event take place. If such a casting decision is completely unjustifiable, then why do Asians get chastised for trying to stick up for themselves? We've seen this before in past Hollywood films such as Ghandi starring a non Asian, Ben Kingsley. Yet in Malcolm X it was important to be historically accurate and cast Denzel Washington. Are Asians just being picked on?

The way I see it, is that the stereotype that Asians are passive are fully being taken advantage of here. We are expected to sit here and not say a thing, but are we not living in the 21st century where we all claim we are equal? If we are equal why are being made to feel less than others? We're being called out as shit-disturbers when all we're trying to do is simply exist but others around us won't let us. Are those trying to keep us quiet trying to pacify the Asian community? We are being snuffed out and swept under a rug. If such racial liberities can take place in the media when it comes to history, where will it end? Can we delve back into our history books and say the Civil Rights movement didn't happen? If so, can we also go back and add the anti-Asian riots? The Gold Rush and its involvement of thousands of Asians? Or how about Angel Island? And if these liberities can be made in film, why didn't they go a step further? Why not cast a black female in Jim Sturgess' place? Are these thoughts as absurd as casting an Asian male in a role that was truthfully and historically lived out by an Asian male?

This type of casting choice in 21 only succeeds in one thing: making Asians feel like freaks, abnormal and unwanted. Jeff Ma himself has even been recorded as being not bothered by the fact that a white man is playing his role. Thus the rest of the Asian community should feel the same. But we have to step back and ask ourselves why does Ma feel this way? My case in point - 21 demonstrates that in Hollywood's eyes we're not even good enough to play ourselves so Ma has been conditioned to believe that being Asian is worthless, all through the power of suggestion.

Cited in the "Did '21 Bet" article, another poster has argued that the White casting choice is justifiable for marketing purposes. How so? Jim Sturgess far from brings the same type of audience that say George Clooney can. I, in fact, had to look up the film on imdb.com to find out who he is. So clearly it's not star power that will bring in the money at the box office. This same poster has also claimed that Sturgess was a sound marketable decision to make because there is no Asian male that holds the same star power or attractiveness that Sturgess has. Now if that's not racist I don't know what is. This poster successfully snuffed out over a billion people, over a dozen cultures all of Asian background by saying not a single one of those males from a billion people can hold up to Sturgess in sex appeal. Beauty truly is in the eye of the beholder because Sung Kang is pretty damn sexy and I'd much rather be romantically involved with Kang than Sturgess.

Marketing is also an incredibly poor excuse for the casting decisions made. It is unfounded to say that Asians cannot bring the same amount of money/numbers that a White cast can. The Asian market hasn't even been tested. And Better Luck Tomorrow is also a poor example to bring into this argument. It clearly didn't have the same financial backing as 21. It is like comparing Michelle Branch to Mariah Carey in financial support. Let's not forget that the American public is also made up of the Black community, the Indian community, the Hispanic community, the West Indian community and the Middle Eastern community. Who is to say that any of those communities would prefer to see 21 with White people over Asians? By casting the MIT Blackjack Team as White, alone suggests that they are more valuable than a Black, Asian, Hispanic, Indian, West Indian or Middle-Eastern, because the assumption is being made that these ethnic communities would still prefer to see White casting in their entertainment. Anyone can justify the casting however they choose, but when it comes down to it, does it make it right to smother out a racial identity? Shouldn't we as a society be moving forward not backwards?

The marketing argument has also pointed out that there simply are no Asian stars. Who makes the stars? The movies. Who hires actors? The studios. It is true that the Asian talent pool is a fraction of the size of the White talent pool in terms of working actors. But it is a dangerous cycle that studios have created. There aren't enough Asian actors therefore we won't write Asian roles. There aren't enough Asian roles so Asian actors leave to find other career opportunities. Therefore the pool gets smaller. Then we return to, there aren't enough Asian actors therfore we won't write Asian roles. And so forth...The pool will get bigger once Asians know they can get work. Isn't that what all actors desire? To be a working actor? It is only survival for an Asian actor to leave the industry if they aren't getting work.

Finally, the casting decision to change race is simply irresponsible filmmaking. It was an uneccessary compromise with a clear subliminal statement asserting a value to one's skin colour. It is important to remember that the Asian community didn't make 21 to be about race - the studio, producers, filmmakers and the supporters did by changing skin colour in a story that had nothing to do with race to begin with. The Asian community didn't point it out, the studio/supporters did as they felt so uncomfortable with the race of the real life people who made the story they are now exploiting for millions of dollars in profits.

Other important supplementary articles:

Trans-Racialization in "21"

MIT Alumnus and 'Busting Vegas' Author Describe Experience of Beating the House

Deep-focus.com

MIT Blackjack Team

21

21. It’s a magical number. A number that opens doors at your feet, puts drinks in your hands, a killer combo at Black Jack. The Kevin Spacey and Brett Ratner produced film opening this weekend is a stylish, somewhat sexy film revolving around money, brains, and guts all put to good use in Vegas. With Spacey, Laurence Fishburne and Kate Bosworth all on board, it’s bound to be a hit. Bosworth does have an astounding 52% on the Tomatometer after all.

The fresh faced British born Jim Sturgess stars as the impressionable Ben Campbell, a nobody pursuing the free ride only a prestigious scholarship can offer in taking care of all of his expenses to live out his dream as a Harvard pre-med student. The film is bookended with Ben’s conversation with the Powers That Be that would determine his Harvard future. “Dazzle me,” the professor before him requests.

Ben sits, mulling over his (lack thereof) life experiences. He’s trapped in geekdom, a nowhere job, and pining over a girl he could only have if his social deficiency were surgically removed. But Door Number 2 changes it all. A simple mock gameshow in class leads Ben to three doors where only one holds the keys to a brand new car. He wins the car and the adulation of his professor Micky Rosa (Spacey). Inspired by a true story (but of course ‘somewhat’ fictionalized for dramatic purposes) of five MIT students who trained in card counting and took Vegas for millions, Ben is the latest to be recruited by the impeccably articulate, quick witted ring leader Rosa. And lo and behold, his dream girl also happens to be in on it too.

The following hour and a half (or what seemed like it) we follow the six as they live out their lives as normal, genius MIT students in Boston, and moonlight as high rollers, pharmaceutical heirs, and dot com geeks dressed with impossible exquisite style that no self-respecting geek can muster, over weekends in Vegas. They rake in thousands and fly back to Boston better dressed and seeping with a confidence only Hollywood can fabricate.

Alright, enough of my witty and sarcastic ramblings. Let’s get to the meat, the juice – is it worth your time? 21 isn’t at all bad. But it is neither great. It will be exactly what you expect and that is precisely the problem. As stylish, cool, sexy or whatever you want to call the youthful indulgent fantasy film, it still suffers from mediocrity. Probably about a half hour too long and predictable outcomes, it defies both logic and common sense. Relentlessly pursued by the card counting consumed “loss prevention” expert, Cole Williams (Fishburne), Ben undoubtedly gets caught. No crying “spoiler” here. Now what kind of story would it be if the stakes weren’t raised and the hero got everything he wanted? Needless to say, Williams beats Ben to a bloody pulp. Exciting!

Expecting this turn in fate, my head was constantly screaming one word: “pattern!” As brilliant as these young minds and the mastermind are, they failed to see the one thing that would get them caught. Patterns. Routine is highly suspect. Now I’m no genius or MIT alumni, but aren’t tells obvious? Any card player knows that – hell anyone who’s played cards would know that. The child’s card game Cheat feeds off of tells. There goes MIT logic out the window.

As always Spacey performs brilliantly as the card counting daddy. I’m even tempted to say that Spacey’s talents are wasted on 21 but I have to remind myself that 21 is a rise above the rest per se. Spacey in many ways has elevated the film – Spacey is Rosa. And Rosa is clever, astute, and temperamental. When Ben bites the hand that feeds him, Rosa is vengeful and Spacey plays it out beautifully.

Sturgess too is also a great casting choice for one simple reason – there’s no baggage that other young Hollywood actors bring, say like Shane West. He’s an everyman but his transformation from stuttering, nervous bookworm to cool, sexy, confident high roller is a little bit of a push too far over the edge. Fishburne is, well Fishburne. If you’ve ever seen any of his prior films you can expect the smoldering intensity that only Fishburne can bring. Bosworth as always plays a sexy seductress. As boxy as this all may sound, the only one who excited me in this film was Aaron Yoo as the wisecracking kleptomaniac Choi. Having only seen him in Disturbia prior to 21, Yoo naturally plays off the clown and I wanted to see more. I’m thankful to say that 21 is successful in promoting a new image for young Asians with two prominent roles on the cast. Neither kung-fu kicking, or accent-ridden, they are exactly what I know – just two regular college kids looking to make some money. But of course if their skin colour weren’t marker enough of their ethnicity, their names had to be (Choi and Liza Lapira as Kianna). Hey I can’t get everything at once can I?

Is it entertaining? Entertaining enough. Despite its flaws, it had the audience laughing, and an MTV type of appeal that usually trumps any other groundbreaking film and will likely cash in this weekend.

House wins.

Wide Release Date: March 28, 2008
Running Time: 2 hours, 3 minutes
MPAA Rating: PG-13
Director: Robert Luketic
Producers: Dana Brunetti, Michael De Luca, and Kevin Spacey
Executive Producers: William S. Beasley, Ryan Kavanaugh, Brett Ratner
Music: David Sardy
Screenplay: Peter Steinfeld and Allan Loeb
Director of Photography: Russell Carpenter
Editor: Elliot Graham