100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

February 06, 2015 - Image 5

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

The Michigan Daily — michigandaily.com
Arts
Friday, February 6, 2015 — 5

‘Off the Boat’ and
into our hearts

New ABC comedy
explores Asian-

American experience

By KAREN HUA

Daily TV/New Media Editor

Just yesterday, ABC released

a new comedy series that we may
truly call ground-breaking tele-
vision. It’s the
first sitcom in
over 20 years to
feature
Asian-

Americans
in

primary
roles.

This year, ABC
sought to diver-
sify
its
audi-

ence, with new
sitcoms such as
“Cristela”
and

“Black-ish” drawing huge ratings
and critical acclaim.

“Fresh Off the Boat” is based on

Chef Eddie Huang’s best-selling
memoir, which details his expe-
rience growing up as a first-gen-
eration American with Chinese
immigrant parents. The show’s
premise revolves around Huang as
an adolescent, whose eponymous
character is played with charis-
matic candor by Hudson Yang
(“The Sisterhood of Night”). The
series aims to provide a humorous
lens from which to view immi-
grant families, but it simultaneous-
ly tackles many the complexities
of being American-born-Chinese
(abbreviated ABC).

“Fresh Off the Boat” is the story

of every “FOB” family’s pursuit of
the American Dream. For Eddie’s
father, Louis (Randall Park, “The
Interview”), this means moving
to Orlando to open a western cow-
boy restaurant, and for Eddie, this
is simply the wish to fit into with
suburban American normalcy. In
the pilot episode, we jump into
the life of Eddie, who is happily
assimilated to American culture,
and also a devout hip-hop aficiona-
do more “white” than he is Asian.
However, though well-acclimated
to the U.S., he has trouble adapt-
ing to his new school where he is
called out for his lack of “white
people food” – and finally called
out as a “chink.” The pilot perfect-
ly paints the conflict between the
devotion to the American Dream

and the Chinese ideal of “family
first,” especially when Eddie’s par-
ents defend their honor and their
children first.

Though the writing too explic-

itly relays exposition at points, it
certainly has a humorous flair,
which is even funnier if you under-
stand the occasional Chinese
inserts. If developed in future
episodes, the grandmother char-
acter could become more than an
outlet for one-liners – and more as
a platform to discuss the junction
between generational cultures.

Refreshingly, Eddie’s mom, Jes-

sica (Constance Wu, “Stephanie
Daley”), does not fall prey to the
hackneyed “tiger mother” persona
stereotypical of a Chinese parent
on television. Rather, she embod-
ies a candidly portrayed mother
who is tough on her children, but
only to bring out the best in them.
Wu relays an admirable vulner-
ability that allows us to reflect
on how our parents’ tough love is
purely out of care.

Meanwhile, Eddie’s narrative

voice depicts him as an endear-
ing (albeit ignorant) character,
with resemblance to the insight-
ful but naïve Scout Finch from
“To Kill a Mockingbird.” How-
ever, unlike the youthful nuances
Scout offers, Eddie’s voice is auda-
cious in speech but semantically
meek. Just because the narration
is from a child’s point of view
does not mean the show cannot
dig deeper into racial issues. Nev-
ertheless,
Eddie’s
shallowness

demonstrates the difficulty of lim-
inality between cultures – he’s not

comfortably Chinese, but also not
quite accepted as purely American
either. In this manner, the series is
able to expound upon the cumber-
some navigations around discrim-
ination.

Ultimately,
the
series
has

commendable intentions to dis-
play a different side of race, but
these lofty goals inevitably carry
the burden of representation
for the entire Asian community
in America. Unfortunately, in
their attempts to debunk Asian
stereotypes, they place other
pejorative generalizations onto
Caucasians. In the show, the rest
of white society is portrayed with
a quasi-acceptance of diversity, a
xenophobic undertone that over-
simplifies Caucasians as myopic.
The white women are stereotypi-
cally shallow housewives with
pretty-face facades, while other
white individuals are played with
scripted crudeness. While it is
crucial to highlight the struggles
Asian-Americans face, the show
does not need to equate Caucasian
ignorance to idiocy. The series
should aim to enlighten instead of
to place pointed blame.

When buying perfectly pack-

aged Lunchables to help her son
fit in, Eddie’s mother asks him, “So
you want to fit inside a box?” Like-
wise, the show tries to break out-
side the walls of sitcom tropes that
are running dry. Just as Eddie’s
father epitomizes the importance
of constantly improving and tak-
ing risks, “Fresh off the Boat” has a
premise with potential to be grow
deeper and develop.

It’s Shonda’s world,
we’re just living in it

By JORDYN KAY

Daily Arts Writer

I would like to consider

myself a resident of Shondaland.
I know I’m not on one of her
three shows that air every
Thursday, but I’ve been there
from the start for all of them.
Ask any of my friends what
I’m doing on a Thursday, and if
they know me at all, they’ll tell
you I’m sitting in front of my
television watching three hours
of
Shonda-made
television.

Shonda Rhimes has become a
phenomenon.

I started watching “Grey’s

Anatomy” when it first came
out in 2005. I was only 12 years
old. Some may argue this show
was inappropriate for a 12-year-
old, but it’s was what led me to
my Rhimes obsession.

But what is it really that

had myself and so many others
counting down the weeks until
the return of #TGIT Thursdays?
Why is it that I’m so enthralled
with these shows that I forget
I’m able to fast forward through
commercials on my DVR? For
me, it’s the realness of the
emotions and characters that
lures me to come back week
after week.

Many shows have simple

characters.
Simplicity
often

mean heroes and villains, good
and bad – but not in the shows
Rhimes creates. Her characters
have depth, and even more
than that, they struggle to find
what is right. These characters
are believable, and the shows’

return last week made that even
clearer than ever.

In “Grey’s Anatomy,” Derek

and
Meredith
don’t
simply

end their marriage because
Derek has decided to go to
Washington, D.C. – they decide
to fight for their relationship.
However, at the same time, the
audience is forced to recognize
that both of these characters
are flawed. Derek and Meredith
have
made
mistakes,
and

Shonda holds no reservations
in pointing this out. She has no
problem making her characters
real, even if that reality looks
ugly.

In
early
episodes
of

“Scandal,” Olivia Pope seemed
to
be
fearless.
Though
it

appeared like nothing could
bring her down, she slowly
unraveled
throughout
the

next few seasons. In the most
recent episode, while she’s held
captive, we see a side to Olivia
that is not just Gladiator Olivia,
but a weakened Olivia. This
Olivia is one with a myriad of
emotions, not just Olivia Pope
wearing her white hat. She’s
evolving as a character, and the
show is even stronger for it.

That is truly the beauty of the

shows created by Shonda. Her
ability to force viewers to not
solely care about the characters
on her shows, but to become
emotionally invested, is what
makes us become addicted to
her shows. “How To Get Away
with Murder,” “Scandal” and
“Grey’s Anatomy” have me
returning every week because

Shonda Rhimes has managed
to evoke emotions I didn’t
know I was capable of feeling,
even though the characters are
fictional.

“How to Get Away with

Murder” features a similarly
complicated
and
fascinating

female
lead.
As
Annalise

Keating turns on her own
husband, helping to cover up
his murder, I see a desperate
woman who I know is breaking
the law. Regardless, I feel for
her. I am able to empathize and
sympathize with a fictional
woman who I have never met.
That is why these shows bring
back viewers each week. It
is because of the emotional
connections that we are forced
to bond with these characters,
and we count down days and
weeks until the next episodes.

I’ve always been emotionally

invested in the characters in
book and television shows,
following
along
with
their

stories and feeling what they
feel.
That’s
because
they

provide me with an escape.
For three hours each week,
Meredith Grey, Olivia Pope
and Annalise Keating are real,
emotional people. I am able to
forget my troubles and focus
on their lives. After all, it has
always been the purpose of
television and books to allow
an escape into a world that
isn’t your own. Shonda Rhimes
allows us to escape into worlds
with
characters
that
have

multiple layers, and she does it
better than most.

Where did Fraser go?

By BRIAN BURLAGE

Daily Arts Writer

You saw him as a large, goril-

la-like caveman. You saw him as
a volcanologist hurtling toward
the center of the earth. You
definitely saw him as a quippy
adventurer warding off accursed
mummies in the heart of Egypt.

But perhaps you saw him in

the Oscar-winning film “Crash”
or the movie adaptation of the
beloved children’s novel “Ink-
heart.” Maybe it was in “G.I.
Joe: The Rise of the Cobra” or
in 2003’s live action “Looney
Tunes: Back in Action.”

If you’ve seen a movie in the

last 20 years or so, chances are
you’ve seen Brendan Fraser. He
looks like a typical Hollywood
actor: tall, blue-eyed, strong-
jawed, long brown hair. While
he’s not particularly striking or
imposing, the subtle air of awk-
wardness and silliness that he
produces in his performances
makes him, somehow, memora-
ble, endearing, even.

In the span of 23 years, Bren-

dan Fraser has performed in 48
feature films. Of them, 18 were
fantasy-adventures.
The
rest

were some variation of com-
edy, and a few dramas here and
there. He’s been once nomi-
nated for the Saturn Award for
Best Actor, twice nominated for
the Blockbuster Entertainment
Award for Favorite Actor, twice
nominated for the Chicago Film
Critics Association award for
Most Promising Actor and, as
part of the ensemble cast for the
movie “Crash,” won the Screen
Actors Guild Award. His films

have garnered over $2.5 billion
in the box office.

Brendan
Fraser
undoubt-

edly fulfills each of the major
archetypes that would (in any
other case) distinguish him as
a highly successful movie star.
He’s got looks, he’s prolific,
award-winning,
he’s
carried

several mega-franchises and his
films consistently make a ton of
money.

And yet, for all his charm

and proven track record, Fra-
ser seems to have disappeared
from cinema in recent years. He
rarely appears on talk shows and
his cameos are fewer and fewer.
Oddly enough, the few success-
ful movies he has made in the
last few years – “Escape from
Planet Earth” and “The Nut Job”
(both generic kiddie flicks) – did
almost nothing to restore his
leading man status.

Even
more
oddly,
Fraser

hasn’t done anything that would
normally jeopardize a famous
actor’s reputation. He’s avoided
controversy, politics and bad
relationships all together. He
speaks fluent French, serves
on the Board of Directors for
a
non-profit
humanitarian

organization
called
FilmAid

International and he’s even
a
well-respected
amateur

photographer. In other words,
he’s the same talented, fun-
loving actor now as he was in his
blockbuster days.

So where is Brendan Fraser?

What happened to George of the
Jungle? The slayer of pharaohs?
The actor who didn’t – couldn’t –
make a huge flop or stir any kind
of anger in Hollywood or self-

destruct?

Most would say, “Well, the

truth of it is he just got old. Age
and movie star status don’t cor-
relate. He must’ve aged out of
the spotlight.”

To them I would answer: he’s

the exact same age as James
Bond star Daniel Craig. He’s
only two years older than two-
time Academy Award nominee
Jeremy Renner and he’s only got
Bradley Cooper beat by six years.
Meanwhile, Fraser’s three years
younger than Robert Downey
Jr., five years younger than Brad
Pitt and seven years younger
than George Clooney. Age has
little to do with it.

But others would say, “Oh,

he’s done too little in the past
few years.”

He made six films in 2013.
Still others would say, “Oh,

he’s done too much in the past
few years.”

He made one movie in 2012

and one in 2014.

The Brendan Fraser Puzzle

(as it should be called from now
on) is troubling. The numbers
and the context don’t add up: he
should be as popular today as he
ever was. In light of the relative
success of his most recent films,
in light of the fact that he was,
and still is, a fantasy-adventure
Hollywood staple and in light of
the fact that he practically lives
and breathes the same spirit of
enthusiasm that he portrays in
his movies, Brendan Fraser’s
gradual slip from the spotlight
just doesn’t make sense.

And so, sadly, the question

remains: Where in the world is
Brendan Fraser?

FILM NOTEBOOK

TV REVIEW

ABC

“I heard what you were doing last night.”

ABC

“It’s handled.”

WHAT’S NEW ON

FOR INTERVIEWS, TV RECAPS,

FILM RETROSPECTIVES AND THE
LATEST ENTERTAINMENT NEWS

























CHECK

OUT

B

‘Fresh Off
the Boat’

Tuesdays
at 8 p.m.

ABC

TV NOTEBOOK

Back to Top

© 2024 Regents of the University of Michigan