I wondered about the casting too. It did throw me off, seeing actors I knew were not really Chinese-American or Vietnamese-American playing those roles. But was it because they didn't "look" the part (which is a whole different question), or because I knew they weren't the part? But I do think it's different from "Geisha" because as Asian-Americans playing Asian-Americans, they were all speaking English and not say, fractured Chinese or Japanese with different accents.

I'm viet-am, and a major (hostile even...) hater of MEMOIRS / GEISHA for deeper underlying RESEARCHED reasons behind the book's conception / white point of view in the film / systematic hackery by the level filmmaking so typically assigned to Asian cultural depictions in hollywood. All long before the notion of American pop-cultural conceptualization trends of "equal opportunity" or "color-blind" ethos from the 1960 civil rights movement (dealing in white / black issues without eevn discussing Asian dynamics). Byler -whom I know- tells the story of CONTEMPORARY IDENTITY ISSUES shared by *all* Asian Americans on planet earth, and not some contrived orientalist New Age "pan-Asian" rich white people's projection humanity in Asian cultures. Contemporary Asian Americans are commonly in a shared experience of sexual issues driven BY WHITE SOCIETY weighing upon us. As opposed to a fictionalization by WHITE CREATORS interpreting FROM THE OUTSIDE - no less in a period era piece relating politics between CHINESE / JAPANESE history that still go on this day... So the perspective here to be accurately made pertains to an ability to RESPECT DEEPER STORY-TELLING ethics - which I know that Byler is qualified to do. Not only as a filmmaker, but as a person conscious of his arena in real life - which his filmwork pertains to. - WYN NGO

I too specialized in South Asian Studies and
found that this movie was truly a waste
of film. it seems like nothing more than an
adolescent masturbatory ego fantasy.

I mean come on... a white teenage girls throws herself at Raymond Ding, he makes a sexually scarred vietnamese woman incapable of orgasming - SUDDENLY ORGASM... and the entire
movie centers around a hapa chick who
can't get over him.. Can anyone think of a more
preposterous situation? While it might pose
the Asian male as a sexuallly desireable
object, I found it so totally
unrelatable and uninteresting. A steaming
load of crap would have held my interest longer
than constipated looks off frame. Should have
spent all that money making Asian male
pornstars humping white chicks.. that would have
been both more succinct and cogent.

While the last writer spoke of how this film
tells of contemporary identity issues shared by
"ALL ASIAN AMERICANS ON THE PLANET EARTH",
I mean who can argue with the racism present
with cogently crafted dialogue like:
"I married an Asian Woman, how can I be racist?"
Truly this film merits the attention of the
widespread pandemic racism Asians experience.
O.. wait its supposed to be a subtle racism?
I see... I can't seem to decide between identifying
with my TRADITIONAL ASIAN SIDE and my HICKSVILLE Tenessee side. Maybe I will just
piss in the wind, because I'd probably figure
out a lot more after doing that than watching
this film. (ya see, when you pee on yourself,
you become more yellow).

IN SUMMATION, PRO QUID PRO, QED...
the only reason you would want to see
this film is if A). You are Hapa and like to learn nothing B). You like to see ugly asian dudes get it
on with girls that look like Michael jackson.
or C). You want to throw money at into a
huge void, hoping that it will promote
ASIAN Cinema.. while the last part is partially
true.. you can only hope to receive more
of the same stuff you've been getting...

"I too specialized in South Asian Studies". But are you particpating in life through a CREATIVE PROCESS as an artists engaged in complex -often painful- courageous INTROSPECTION of yourself away from the alibi commonly offered to Asian American acamedia? Because those are not Asian watching non-Asian cinema along with these films we hope for them to see (in the history of world movie watching) seem pretty free of claiming any alibi of "Studies" for their opinions and projections read into Byler's film. Byler is not at all interested in abstract notion of political perfectionism so typically pandered by those using "studies" as an alibi for their hostility drawn from deeper INIDIVUAL PERSONALITY ISSUES hidden behind the alibi....

I applaud the efforts in delving into
a personal story and dealing with race
in a non-hostile manner. I think this
is an attitude that is unfortunately
taken up by a small but vocal Asian
minority, that leaves a distasteful
afterthought in the majority of Asians.

Hopefully you can sense my ambivalence
toward the much NEEDED vocal AZN's
and the distaste we have for their tactics. If you think about it carefully, you will never see an AA feature length film that takes a hostile stance on race. Which is unfortunate. There's always the fear that this wouldn't sell,
become tiresome and overly didactic,
and is just TOO IN YOUR FACE for
attention avoiding Asians.

In all honesty, I'd rather film take
a dramatic controversial stab and get people talking instead of delving into
mindless personal indulgences of characters that are total wastebin fodder. I'd rather the film take
a huge risk and fail, rather than
be more CORRECT and fail at doing anything at all, except
for more on the nose one-line
commentary's on asian racial relations
that lacks so any subtlety and reveals
so much of the directors 1-dimensional
intent, that it leaves everyone not
thinking at all, except how bad the film is.

Film is a expensive, big medium. not
suited for bad filmmaking.

The director's notion is commendable, but the film ultimately gets a consolation prize.
Both in concept and excecution.
It's a terrible film, and until the
popular press is willing to admit
that instead of touting this film's horn
about the supposed controversy it brings, and resting on the laurels of his past success, we are simply settling into
our old "everything is good, let's not
talk about it" Asian attitude, where
nothign ever gets fixed complacency.

This isn't a medium for wimps..
The afterschool special is over and
it's time to go to work.

Jim, props for tearing this film a fine new asshole.

I do think the movie was a huge improvement over the book, though, and that the stink you think about the movie is actually bad smells from the book that Byler didn't manage to mask. Why he chose to turn this particular book into a movie at all is the most questionable thing about his work. Since besides being an "adolescent masturbatory ego fantasy," the book is also a weird, plot-less collection of AsAm 101 debates. Efforts to remake the image of the Asian male should not be so transparent as to be pathetic, since that backfires. Much like Darryl Hamamato's attempts at Asian male porn. (shudder)

When I read the book in my 20s, I thought it was great. I guess it's because I was tired of reading stories about the first generation immigrating to America. This was the first Asian American book I read that seemed contemporary, sexy even.

Now that I'm older though, I do find the book, as the reader above points out, as a collection of AsAm 101 debates and identity politics. Yawn.

Also, someone asked Shawn Wong during the film's Q&A if it was hard for him as a straight Asian American man to write from the point of view of a hapa woman. He said no. I thikn that's part of the problem. It should have been hard. And it would have been better if it had been hard. The story does seem like male fantasy. And as a woman, I don't find Aurora entirely believeable.

I agree with penenlope, it's really
just juvenile for Asian men to
re-sexualize themselves in such vulgar
and objectifying ways. Does not having
any Asian male porn in American public
distribution really do anything for
the Asian male image, does it necessarily equate to being an asexual
being in representational discourse?
Do you really want to engage in a debate
about big black cocks? Not really and
I'm betting black people don't need
it either. although it is pretty damn
funny.

I question the intent of many
Asian males, who give "props" to one
another for seeing Harold get with
a hispanic Chick in "HAROLD AND KUMAR".
the tactic in general basically reinvents a good ol' boy's club mentality at the level of non-mainstream cinemas, reinscribing
patriarchical values outside of
the dominant discourse.

I think Asian American cinema has the
opportunity to explore other voices
and themes beyond sexual objectification
and domination of women. Going back
to something so 1-dimensional, however
noble the intent or radical need to change perception is a very shallow go nowhere - hey did you see/hear about that asian porn film - and becomes more of a random spectacle rather than a serious exploration or line of thought
that can be followed.

Ang Lee makes stories that aren't simply
a forum to debates, but rather
are stories that pick up the particulars
and touch on these bases. They don't
really seek to judge so much as cast
a reflect the popular perception and
history of significant events. This
isn't to say that all Asian Cinema should be all like that, but actually
do something worthwhile.

I found Americanese extremely boring. The forced and cliched Asian Am male/female dialogue, Chris Tashima's attempt at emoting but coming off at best what?--acting without acting?, the aesthetic reminders of the cheap erudition and dryness of "Charlotte Sometimes," the total disappointment in its potential to create any kind of meaningful discussion about Asian American male masculinity beyond mainstream concepts of patriarchy, and so much less made this film nearly unbearable to sit through at the Castro Theater at opening night. I remember the book being quick witted and funnier. However, I would not like to compare the film to the book since the film--and its director's interpretation of the book as he pleases--deserves criticism specific to film as a medium. That being said, I did not like the book. So why did I see the film? Because I had so much hope in it, AND an expectation (which is always dangerous) that I'd find something at least mildly interesting in the project as an adaptation. But who cares.

I find it hypocritical to argue against
miscasting of Asians of different cultural heritages, ie Koreans playing
Chinese, etc etc. I mean it really
doesn't matter since the Mongols probably inseminated every single Asian race at some point in their long and prosperous plundering of Asia.

But i guess that's besides the point. It's all acting and make-up anyway. I find it too bad that Asian people will cry about their inability to suspend
their disbelief or just get over the fact, and yet when a white guy plays
a different race, we just let it go. Isn't it hypocritical to judge a person's performance on the basis of Race, Racist? I didn't hear any hispanics crying when Lou Diamond Philips played La Bamba.. in fact I think most filipino's were proud of him.. cuz one of their own had made it. I didnt hear anyone saying, HA HA we deceived those racist bastards and slipped an Asian in the mix.

Maybe it all goes back to the Yellow-facing back in the golden age of cinema.
At the same time, we also had James Shigeta doing real roles... Today all
we have are the Long Duck Dong Guy and John Cho... I'd rather have the two extremes than the bland median.

i dunno wtf im talking about.. but screw you all.

WTF did them folks in Austin see in this flick that compelled them to give it TWO awards? Unbelievable. This flick was humorless and sexless, which were the two saving points of the novel and the two things that ostensibly made the novel a standout in AA lit ten years ago and kept us reading. What was this director THINKING trying to turn a still-sexy forty-year old AA administrator (from the novel!) into a frumpy, clueless, BORING gen-X dufus? No chemistry between the lead actors at all. Their kiss at the end of the flick just grossed me out. Byler succeeded in reprising the streotype of the ugly, repulsive Asian Am male.

Is it true that most of the money for this movie came from Allison Sie's father, and that he would only fork it over if his daughter played the lead and her ex-boyfriend (Byler) directed it? Wouldn't surprise me at all.

I dunno but those two awards sounds
like consolations prizes.. come'on
best ensemble cast acting?

Short Cuts, Magnolia, Boogie Nights,
Crash... those are ensemble pieces..
Americanese is more like michael jackson
and the jackson five...

Hey, Ebert's got a review up-

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060330/REVIEWS/603300302/1023

He seems to like it. Counting the ones I've seen on Hyphen, the reviews so far are mixed.

Is it just me.. or was reading
Ebert's review just a synopsis?

I guess it does reveal a slight
hole in my entire thought process
of this film... I think for those
who've never seen race talked about
this way, it's a very accessible film.
For those of us who've heard this
same old shit and don't give a shit,
this film is contrived as shit.
(i should be a rapper).