No Escape - Intense Racism

[gandhi the peacemake]

I would be interested in a movie about the Partition of India in the Punjab area and the hundreds of thousands, potentially a million by high estimates, of people that died from the violence and riots. I miss Gandhi.

If I remember my history right, and it's been a long time so I probably don't, you're referring to the breakup of the India-Pakistan British colony into the separate countries of India and Pakistan (the latter of which wished to establish itself as an Islamic sovereign state).

Again, if I remember my history right, Gandhi was wholly against this separation, as he saw a government based on religious principles to be morally unjust. His fault in the conflict, however, was that he did nothing to stop it (and the preceding riots) from happening despite his influential status, preoccupied as he was with ongoing talks with the British.

That would make for prime historical fiction material.

Me, I personally would prefer moving up a few decades to the Vietnam War, and especially the covert "Secret War" conducted by the CIA: tens of thousands of Hmong were conscripted to operate what would eventually become the busiest airstrip and second largest city of the war, only to be abandoned by the US at the war's end and hunted down en masse over the next fifty years by the now-Communist Lao and Vietnamese governments.

But that 1) doesn't have as egregious a body count as the Partition of India story (though the estimates of Hmong killed is a bit of a crapshoot given the lack of attention), and 2) is only higher up on my list because I'm Hmong myself.

 

[Kwak]

I would be interested in a movie about the Partition of India in the Punjab area and the hundreds of thousands, potentially a million by high estimates, of people that died from the violence and riots. I miss Gandhi.

See the movie Midnight's Children, based on Salmon Rushdie's book. It's a bit of a magical realist allegory with the events as a framing background for the journey of the characters. It's not great, but interesting none-the-less and visually beautiful.

 

[GhostHunter]

So that article is crap. He apparently thinks mob mentality is a myth *cough* http://blackfridaydeathcount.com/ *cough* and completely ignores all the non-white people who get killed.

Spoiler

natives he ignored(roughly in order):
The Coup itself
50 or 60 cops with riot gear and guns
The band of victims from something( a war or accident?)
The Hotel staff and fellow tourists who are from several countries both Asian and European
a room full of office workers
4 people who are executed via truck
a looter/narc who is killed by the main character
The Embassy staff and whoever was inside
the mob almost kills an old man they think is helping Americans
Kenny Rodgers (may or may not actually be a native)

So yeah its not racist, but if you do think its racist, you should think about how you value minorities.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Reading the reviews on this movie, critics talk about how racist it is, but still capable as a thriller movie. Audiences point out that it's a very effective and well put together thriller movie. I don't think the racism goes far enough to ruin the movie...

 

[KissingSunlight]

Having read a few other reviews of No Escape where the critics are saying, "Derp. Racist!" I think I understand what they are trying to say in their awkward, self-righteous way. These critics believe that the movie would be better if it's focused on the struggle of a native family caught in the rebellion. However, that is not the kind of movie that was made. It's a fish out of water being caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. That concept can be a great setting for a thriller like this.

To say it's racist, because we don't understand the motivation of the rebels. That's implying that there is a rational explanation why the rebels are singling out white people to execute. Claiming there is an understandable reason to kill a group of people because of their race, makes the people saying that racist. I really don't believe that all these critics are racist against white people. It's just in their effort to be politically correct. They sound like idiots who are divorced from the real world. They also reflexively consider anything that a white person says and does to be racist. Which makes these critics come off, ironically, racist.

 

[cleric of the order]

That was quite something, I just have to wonder what kind of something it was.
And I will enjoy getting a bit of flak for this but...
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something but, if the majority of a population is a specific ethnicity, then by nature belligerents from population will be in the majority that ethnicity.
Furthermore I think I'm going to need a bit more of a description of their representation of the majority population in question for it to be blatant, the description i got reads more as a sociological or internationalist idea of racism.
on top of that it makes sense for most of the country to turn against them for a number of reasons, be it popular sympathy for rebel causes, the want to get a quick buck during the chaos or fear of the rebels themselves.
Perhaps because I have not personally watched the film itself but it seems mystifying to suggest that by this description alone that this film is "blatantly racist" because as I see it this is over exaggerated. Particularly when one of the complainants is about the race and citizenship of the persons in question.
As a thought experiment if the movie would cease to be racist if the race of the protagonists were switched?
Say, if they were Asians, African, from Asian minor/Indian, or what have you. Or the citizenship either?
Would it still be racist if they were the protagonists?
If no then perhaps what is racist is the dynamic, not the film itself which would almost necessarily fall under the sociological definition (e.i. institutional) of racism?
If yes, then is it the method in which they are depicted, is the violent, one tone mob offensive? Did they given them exaggerated, racist features (be they physical, cultural or otherwise)that is clearly racist? Otherwise what is it that makes this racist?

In essence I think this is bollocks.

 

[AngryPuppy]

Weird, I see no racism but OK.

 

[KissingSunlight]

Snip

In Marter's defense, he judged this movie based on it's narration, plot device(s), driven characters with their screen time, and so on. While the audience simply gets to relax and enjoy the movie as a thriller (which I totally see where you're coming from) .. our Film Critic here is doing more than simply watching it. Marter's job is to determine how well the director managed the film via how it was set up, what makes the characters / territories stand out, and how it works together.

If multiple critics are calling this movie racist, I can't simply imagine they're simply trying to make a fuss over nothing. We also have to remember the fact film critics tend to watch a lot of movies, so they're probably seeing this one in a different prospective than ours. To us, it's a white family trying to escape a hostile location where people want to kill them, thus because our protagonist is a family man .. he has to deal with vicious mobs while looking after kids whom aren't used to 'death'. But to the critics, it can be seen as the director throwing American citizens into the mix and portraying Asia in a bad light. I mean, it kind of is cliche' having the all white American family thrown into the fray with a country of other people and tell the audience by leaving your homes- you're going to deal with savagery from all sides. After watching the trailer and looking into some spoiler clips, I can't blame the critics.

There aren't any Asians whom are shown to be 'bystanders' in this movie. They're all murderous people, so of course without having a single Asian person to show compassion / sympathy / innocence is going to make the critics believe this movie is labeling a culture with a bad rep. You're totally free to disagree with me, and I know my points aren't really backed up... but i'm going by mere observation.

Looking at the comment section for this review, I can see people have two ways of going about this movie's aim. Either you see it as a thriller with people trying to escape hostile men; while disagreeing with the critics or you see the typical white family forced into a movie with a director having no creative alternative other than sending a race of people to kill off this white family for 'tension', but without a clear case in why the mobs are after this family. Without a backstory, or scene to explain things, or any 'civil' Asians in the background of course the critics are going to ponder about the director's intentions. They're paying more attention to the movie's story than the audience, for we're just watching it to be entertained. Hopefully i'm explaining myself well enough, and I apologize for any confusion.

I agree with most of what you are saying. White people in danger from people who aren't white is a cliché. What Marter and other movie critics didn't do well enough is to explain how the movie cross the line into being racist. Other than the fact, that the movie was focused on the survival of a white family. Would the movie still be racist if it was an African-American family in danger in an unnamed Asian country? Or a Mexican family? Or an Israeli family?

Few years ago, videogame critics and journalists have discovered a great way to generate clicks to their articles and website. Just accuse what you are reviewing or writing about as being sexist, racist, and any other kind of bigotry you can think of. After a while, even people who are really concerned about equality have started to get annoyed with those kind of articles. It is just really disappointing that it has spread to movie reviews.

 

[anthony87]

It had a white British kid as the protagonist,

And that white British kid grew to be...................

Spoiler

DUN DUN DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUN!

 

[rcs619]

I think the film makers wanted to use ISIS originally but because having muslims be terrorists is "racist" they used asian country No. 43 instead.

Which is quite an unfortunate and, frankly, stupid decision. If they thought portraying ISIS as bad guys was racist, they'd be wrong; ISIS really are "bad" people. This sounds far more racist than if you used an actual group who does actual horrible things to the Americans (and anyone not on their side.)

I think the issue, at least in the US, is that there is a moderately prevalent anti-muslim sentiment. A lot of people, mostly the conservative and far-right crowds, think that a much larger chunk of muslims want to murder them and their families than people say, so they're scared of most of them. To the point where we have had armed militia groups doing armed protests outside of mosques in 'response' to attacks perpetrated by other muslims. There have also been more than a few cases of sikh temples being vandalized and sikhs being attacked because they were mistaken for muslims. Hell, there was a recent case in Louisiana of people calling the local police in panic because they confused a sign written in hebrew (put up by a local jewish family to welcome a family member home) for something written in arabic.

So, where there would be absolutely no 'racist' issue with using an islamic extremist group in this sort of movie (because they're all terrible people), I think the concern is that a decent chunk of people are not necessarily mature/sophisticated enough to make the distinction. The people who really hate/fear muslims would be trumpeting about what a great movie it is, then you get the inevitable blow-back from the people who want to defend muslims, but in their well-meaning knee-jerk'iness, they wind up kind of escalating things and making it worse. Then the whole movie is kind of bogged down in this big mess.

It's far easier to just go with something that doesn't have any strong political sub-text one way or the other, so that people can focus on the movie instead of what it may or may not be trying to say about the people involved.

 

[mecegirl]

That was quite something, I just have to wonder what kind of something it was.
And I will enjoy getting a bit of flak for this but...
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding something but, if the majority of a population is a specific ethnicity, then by nature belligerents from population will be in the majority that ethnicity.
Furthermore I think I'm going to need a bit more of a description of their representation of the majority population in question for it to be blatant, the description i got reads more as a sociological or internationalist idea of racism.
on top of that it makes sense for most of the country to turn against them for a number of reasons, be it popular sympathy for rebel causes, the want to get a quick buck during the chaos or fear of the rebels themselves.
Perhaps because I have not personally watched the film itself but it seems mystifying to suggest that by this description alone that this film is "blatantly racist" because as I see it this is over exaggerated. Particularly when one of the complainants is about the race and citizenship of the persons in question.
As a thought experiment if the movie would cease to be racist if the race of the protagonists were switched?
Say, if they were Asians, African, from Asian minor/Indian, or what have you. Or the citizenship either?
Would it still be racist if they were the protagonists?
If no then perhaps what is racist is the dynamic, not the film itself which would almost necessarily fall under the sociological definition (e.i. institutional) of racism?
If yes, then is it the method in which they are depicted, is the violent, one tone mob offensive? Did they given them exaggerated, racist features (be they physical, cultural or otherwise)that is clearly racist? Otherwise what is it that makes this racist?

In essence I think this is bollocks.

It's exactally because the population is mostly a specific ethnicity that critics are speaking of racism. Lets get real here, we all know the only reason why the protagonists family is White is so that a White audience can identify with them. Some of that is natural because we all identify in some way with people who are like us. It's similar to how victims tend to be women or children in films because of course an audience wouldn't feel sympathy for a man being victimized. Its just a cop out because, especially with children, the writers don't have to do much to build the victim up before the audience is invested enough to are about their fate. Its a child and children are to be protected. But an adult, especially an adult male character, will take work on the authors part to get us to care. We can what if until we are blue in the face but the odds of this family being some random Black family or random Mexican family is zero. It wouldn't change much as far as the dynamics of this story goes,but it wouldn't happen. That's just the reality of the industry right now.

Folks talk all the time about forced diversity when it comes to adding characters who aren't White. Even in settings like New York city that is booming with diversity. But here out of all the families that we could watch survive a tense situation its the White family that we follow? And that's not forced diversity? Furthermore it's not telling some new story, there is no new angle to see. We aren't learning more about the politics of this fictional place because we aren't seeing events from the eyes of someone who is invested in the future of said place. Its just a family that happens to be there. So what we are left with is just a mob. There isn't an opertunity to see the population as nothing but a mob and as such it pushes them to the background. It makes them caricatures instead of characters. Which in any other industry would be fine from time to time but it isn't from time to time. Its institutionalized. It's near always either the sidekick character,the mob, or the mystical martial artist.

This movie could have had its cake and ate it too. There would be just as many thrills with an Asian family as there would have been with a White family trying to survive. And as it has been said the title of the film would have more impact. Because there would be no escape. This is their home that is being torn apart. Not only would they have to find a way to endure the current coup, but find a way to live on after it. They would have to find a way to repair the damage and possibly a find a way to ensure that such things didn't happen again in the future.

The mash up of forced diversity and the institutionalized racism as it concerns Asian roles in Hollywood is what the critics are picking up on. In a perfect world this would not be so, but we don't live in that world. Until we do movies like this or even Lucy(which faced similar complaints)will get the side eye. That's not to say that the writers and casting directors are racists, just that its obvious that they aren't thinking beyond what has always been done in order to make a quick cash grab.

 

[Gorrath]

I think the film makers wanted to use ISIS originally but because having muslims be terrorists is "racist" they used asian country No. 43 instead.

Which is quite an unfortunate and, frankly, stupid decision. If they thought portraying ISIS as bad guys was racist, they'd be wrong; ISIS really are "bad" people. This sounds far more racist than if you used an actual group who does actual horrible things to the Americans (and anyone not on their side.)

I think the issue, at least in the US, is that there is a moderately prevalent anti-muslim sentiment. A lot of people, mostly the conservative and far-right crowds, think that a much larger chunk of muslims want to murder them and their families than people say, so they're scared of most of them. To the point where we have had armed militia groups doing armed protests outside of mosques in 'response' to attacks perpetrated by other muslims. There have also been more than a few cases of sikh temples being vandalized and sikhs being attacked because they were mistaken for muslims. Hell, there was a recent case in Louisiana of people calling the local police in panic because they confused a sign written in hebrew (put up by a local jewish family to welcome a family member home) for something written in arabic.

So, where there would be absolutely no 'racist' issue with using an islamic extremist group in this sort of movie (because they're all terrible people), I think the concern is that a decent chunk of people are not necessarily mature/sophisticated enough to make the distinction. The people who really hate/fear muslims would be trumpeting about what a great movie it is, then you get the inevitable blow-back from the people who want to defend muslims, but in their well-meaning knee-jerk'iness, they wind up kind of escalating things and making it worse. Then the whole movie is kind of bogged down in this big mess.

It's far easier to just go with something that doesn't have any strong political sub-text one way or the other, so that people can focus on the movie instead of what it may or may not be trying to say about the people involved.

While I agree with the issues you bring up, I don't think they are a good reason to shy away from making the film. People with any ideology will see what they want in the art they look at; audience interpretation is part of the artistic process. Racists will see reinforcement of their racism just as people who are sensitive to portrayals of people of their race, color, creed, religion, ect. will see attacks on their demographic where none are intended. I believe it is cowardice and artistically bankrupt to avoid creating art because of fear of how this or that group of people will interpret said art. Art should challenge us, provoke us and even offend us.

Running away from truth in art so that racists aren't emboldened and people are not offended is no different to me than running away from truth in science because people are offended by evolution. The racists will be racists, the knee-jeerker's knees will be jerked and people will talk and argue. That, I'd say, is a far better outcome than homogenized blandness that draws nothing but shrugs from all sides with nary a word needing to be uttered in response to its blandness. If this harms people in the deepest feelings, they jump to piss-poor, unfounded conclusions and make asses of themselves, it's well worth the price.

 

[Gorrath]

Other than the fact, that the movie was focused on the survival of a white family. Would the movie still be racist if it was an African-American family in danger in an unnamed Asian country? Or a Mexican family? Or an Israeli family?

If what's being said is true, then yes. The movie isn't racist (or racially insensitive, for those that wish to split that difference) because the protagonists are white, it's racist because of how the Asian people in the movie are portrayed. Regardless of who the family is, if you've made a whole race of people in your movie into slavering, blood-thirsty lunatics and give next to no gradiation or nuance to them, it really doesn't matter who they are chasing.

Take for a hypothetical example a movie about a black soldier in the cavalry during America's westward expansion. If you portrayed all the natives as blood-thirsty scalpers no better than animals it wouldn't matter one whit that your protagonist is black; you've still got a racist issue with your film.

 

[rcs619]

While I agree with the issues you bring up, I don't think they are a good reason to shy away from making the film. People with any ideology will see what they want in the art they look at; audience interpretation is part of the artistic process. Racists will see reinforcement of their racism just as people who are sensitive to portrayals of people of their race, color, creed, religion, ect. will see attacks on their demographic where none are intended. I believe it is cowardice and artistically bankrupt to avoid creating art because of fear of how this or that group of people will interpret said art. Art should challenge us, provoke us and even offend us.

Art yes, not so much with an ancillary plot point in a Hollywood thriller. If their movie was intended to have some sort of message about the strife in the middle-east, or the fall of governments in general beyond "it would kind of suck to actually be stuck in the middle of that, yo," that'd be one thing. But that doesn't seem to be the case in this movie.

They needed a homogeneous, antagonistic force that was different enough from the white, American family caught up in the middle to be suitably alien and foreign to the intended American (and beyond that, western, audience). It could have been muslims, it could have been asians, it could have been zombies, aliens or a giant, mutated wasps. It would have been the exact same movie regardless. Who the homogeneous, unfamiliar antagonistic force wound up being was a completely unimportant plot-point in the grand scheme of things, and I don't blame people for adjusting a unimportant plot point to avoid potential complications (although, thinking about it now, it would have been such a better movie with the giant, intelligent, mutated wasps).

If we were talking someone's clear, specific, deliberately-chosen vision being ripped away from them by a controversy-averse studio, I'd be right there with you. But they got to make the exact same movie, in the end. They got to tell their story. The only difference was who they wound up casting as the badguys and where they did the filming.

 

[Gorrath]

While I agree with the issues you bring up, I don't think they are a good reason to shy away from making the film. People with any ideology will see what they want in the art they look at; audience interpretation is part of the artistic process. Racists will see reinforcement of their racism just as people who are sensitive to portrayals of people of their race, color, creed, religion, ect. will see attacks on their demographic where none are intended. I believe it is cowardice and artistically bankrupt to avoid creating art because of fear of how this or that group of people will interpret said art. Art should challenge us, provoke us and even offend us.

Art yes, not so much with an ancillary plot point in a Hollywood thriller. If their movie was intended to have some sort of message about the strife in the middle-east, or the fall of governments in general beyond "it would kind of suck to actually be stuck in the middle of that, yo," that'd be one thing. But that doesn't seem to be the case in this movie.

Ancillary plot points in Hollywood thrillers are still writing and movies, which makes them still art. The argument that this or that isn't actually art because someone doesn't think much of the genre, quality of writing, [insert other personal objection here], is not a compelling argument. You can poo-poo the quality of the piece all you like and I will happily agree but to re-categorize it as "not actually art" just so we can play a no true scotsman/special pleading game with it isn't fair.

They needed a homogeneous, antagonistic force that was different enough from the white, American family caught up in the middle to be suitably alien and foreign to the intended American (and beyond that, western, audience). It could have been muslims, it could have been asians, it could have been zombies, aliens or a giant, mutated wasps. It would have been the exact same movie regardless. Who the homogeneous, unfamiliar antagonistic force wound up being was a completely unimportant plot-point in the grand scheme of things, and I don't blame people for adjusting a unimportant plot point to avoid potential complications (although, thinking about it now, it would have been such a better movie with the giant, intelligent, mutated wasps).

If the antagonists in the movie are such a minor and unimportant thing then there shouldn't be a worry about so much backlash, yes? I'd argue that the choice of antagonist and how they are portrayed is a major point of importance. Playing on zombies or an alien invasion creates a far different feel and atmosphere than using a group that actually exists and actually kills people. This movie seems to have failed because it didn't put enough thought into its antagonists. Much of the movie's big problem is exactly this "minor" point.

If we were talking someone's clear, specific, deliberately-chosen vision being ripped away from them by a controversy-averse studio, I'd be right there with you. But they got to make the exact same movie, in the end. They got to tell their story. The only difference was who they wound up casting as the badguys and where they did the filming.

I don't like this point any more than the first one. There is a really great episode of The Simpsons that illustrates how a group of people working together on a creative project can be just as much, if not more, invested in their product than a person working on their own. Just because the movie isn't one person's vision, or isn't very good, there's no reason to act as if it isn't art and shouldn't be thought of or treated like art. And just to circle back a bit, I do think this movie had issues that could have been remedied with a change of antagonist, so you and I are right there together on that point but I don't agree that they could have just tossed anything in there and the movie would have been essentially the same.

Using a group like ISIS gives you all the "this could actually happen" punch that they wanted with this movie without the problem of making a name-less, face-less mob out of a race of people. ISIS is a distinct group with a distinct identity. If racists fail to see that by attributing all ISIS acts to all Muslims, that's their failure. If some Muslim does exactly the same thing by thinking that the use of ISIS means the studio thinks all Muslims are responsible for ISIS, they are engaged in the same kind half-baked thinking as said racist. Avoiding either of those people's personal failures by changing it to alien zombies from the rings of Saturn does not give you a movie with the same feeling but no controversy. A big part of the suspense in this kind of movie is the feeling that these events are plausible. Alien zombies from Saturn do not give you that, ISIS certainly does.

I don't think you and I are that far apart on this either way and I am quite enjoying unpacking the problems with this film or these hypothetical films with you. Thanks for taking the time!

 

[cleric of the order]

This is quite a doosy, bit of a shame you got me a couple days after my original post and I'm rather tired so forgive me if this is not very lucid

It's exactally because the population is mostly a specific ethnicity that critics are speaking of racism.

I figured that was the case and frankly i think it to be vacuous moralizing, and it goes back to my race dynamic statement so as far as I know this is still the sociological/intersection racism, which may or may not be bunk, it's sociology. Not, however common speak racism.

Lets get real here, we all know the only reason why the protagonists family is White is so that a White audience can identify with them.

I do not believe this to be the sole case, there can be a number of reasons why they are.
maybe they wanted the biggest names for their money, I don't know acters that well but they are well enough known to have wiki articles.
Or It could break down to contracts, time, money, directorial choices, etc.
There are a number of factors why these specif people were chosen to star other than appeal to a majority.
Furthermore while not proof against the high degree of Asian actors in the film it's good to point out that, as the white community has the greatest deal of establishment within Hollywood, is the greatest population demographic, so on and so forth boils down to things like that.
Though I understand what you're saying, cynical production companies are by nature cynical companies, I just don't assume they are the sole factor.

Some of that is natural because we all identify in some way with people who are like us.

I don't know how to react to this, yes THINGS like us, things that can feel, or act with some form of intelligence.

It's similar to how victims tend to be women or children in films because of course an audience wouldn't feel sympathy for a man being victimized.

They probably wouldn't if a man was constantly being stepped on, shat on or victimized.
In general victims are uninteresting, trust me I've lived with one, don't tend to garner sympathy.
however from what I understand with women and children it hits an innate need to protect them, as per our sexual dimorphism. And with men, well there's a reason why men have throughout history numbered less then women.

Now suffering is different, suffering implies agency and it's engrossing to watch people suffer and react in a emphatic sense but that is a fine line between turning them into a victim.

Its just a cop out because, especially with children, the writers don't have to do much to build the victim up before the audience is invested enough to are about their fate. Its a child and children are to be protected.

Lazy I will credit it that much, a writer can play on many other biological responses interestingly to provoke people but it serves the slouch that is hollywoo. (no that is not a typo)

It wouldn't change much as far as the dynamics of this story goes,but it wouldn't happen. That's just the reality of the industry right now.

Give it naturally a generation or two, even if the system remains the same the demographics will change so will the movies

Folks talk all the time about forced diversity when it comes to adding characters who aren't White. Even in settings like New York city that is booming with diversity.

See there's a reason why that is, the so called token. IF a character only exists to be a demographic, is defined by their demographic, so on and so forth then it is largely unnecessary. There's an ebb and flow to it.

But here out of all the families that we could watch survive a tense situation its the White family that we follow? And that's not forced diversity?

Are they selling it as "we have white people", are they only characteristics they are white people. Because if it is tokenism then they can't really be switched out for any other ethnic group.

Furthermore it's not telling some new story, there is no new angle to see. We aren't learning more about the politics of this fictional place because we aren't seeing events from the eyes of someone who is invested in the future of said place. Its just a family that happens to be there. So what we are left with is just a mob.

I see your point and well not to be rude it's a bit of floppy. The premise of the movie seems to be to prey on the fears of vacation going families, give them a thrill ride and focusing on the popcorn action type of thing. They weren't going art house or trying to tell another story, it's the one they wanted to tell and that falls to more art and less social criticism as we've established that the race of the family does not matter. this really doesn't fit the discussion.

There isn't an opertunity to see the population as nothing but a mob and as such it pushes them to the background. It makes them caricatures instead of characters.

Again, they really don't have to tell that story.
in some ways it would make the movie a bit harder to organize, changes the tone, messes with the overall piece.

Which in any other industry would be fine from time to time but it isn't from time to time. Its institutionalized. It's near always either the sidekick character,the mob, or the mystical martial artist.

when dealing with the institutional theory of racism you are more or less dealing with Marxist/conflict/critical/double plus analytical theory. Not, however racism as an actual ideology. Again that means this is sociological and not actual racism.

This movie could have had its cake and ate it too. There would be just as many thrills with an Asian family as there would have been with a White family trying to survive.

See, it's good to point out that again the white people are actors, lots of films strive for as big a name as they could to draw a crowd, the the whole show business thing breaks in, its a shit show out there(read this in rick's voice, morty).

And as it has been said the title of the film would have more impact. Because there would be no escape. This is their home that is being torn apart. Not only would they have to find a way to endure the current coup, but find a way to live on after it. They would have to find a way to repair the damage and possibly a find a way to ensure that such things didn't happen again in the future.

Again forgive on this, but do these people actually full on live there, more importantly is not one of the premises about being an outsider in the worst case scenario. Personally I would have preferred a Cuban setting because I've heard they did much the same thing in the 20s.

The mash up of forced diversity and the institutionalized racism as it concerns Asian roles in Hollywood is what the critics are picking up on.

Again it seems to me that the entire thing, is sociological, where the only dynamic that matters is the whiteness of the protagonists, not actual portrayals that could be consider offensive, not some sort of stormfront, white power shit going on?

Until we do movies like this or even Lucy(which faced similar complaints)will get the side eye.

I am not familiar with lucy, but that's very dangerous language man.
I'm a bit of a country boy so forgive my blindness to this issue but the need to change/shun/judge a film, and to do so under a moral pretense because of what amounts to lazy people made lazy movie but placed white people in it or failed to expand on the minority personalities is frankly scary to that liberal in me.
It's vaguely authoritarian, like some looming social taboo.

That's not to say that the writers and casting directors are racists, just that its obvious that they aren't thinking beyond what has always been done in order to make a quick cash grab.

It's not their job to be moral, progressive or otherwise.
And as far as I understand the population is still pretty heavily white in America with the majority of them having the preexisting resources to support artists. statistically more white movie stars, and more white protagonists.

as an aside I have a number of problems with the theory of institutional racism, most because I see the events as more akin to serendipity, demographics, and simple inheritance.

 

[KissingSunlight]

Other than the fact, that the movie was focused on the survival of a white family. Would the movie still be racist if it was an African-American family in danger in an unnamed Asian country? Or a Mexican family? Or an Israeli family?

If what's being said is true, then yes. The movie isn't racist (or racially insensitive, for those that wish to split that difference) because the protagonists are white, it's racist because of how the Asian people in the movie are portrayed. Regardless of who the family is, if you've made a whole race of people in your movie into slavering, blood-thirsty lunatics and give next to no gradiation or nuance to them, it really doesn't matter who they are chasing.

Take for a hypothetical example a movie about a black soldier in the cavalry during America's westward expansion. If you portrayed all the natives as blood-thirsty scalpers no better than animals it wouldn't matter one whit that your protagonist is black; you've still got a racist issue with your film.

What I was mainly responding to was this part of the review that keeps popping up in other reviews.

They(Owen Wilson & Lake Bell's characters) can't just go into Action Mode and save everyone; they're scared for themselves and for their children, and they're not ever sure exactly what to do. That is, until it comes to murdering Asians, which they do with glee and without any psychological trauma - despite the fact that they're "normal people." Oops! We're back to the film's racism again. That keeps popping up for some reason. Sorry!

Wouldn't it water down the tension of an action movie? If they took the time to give a disclaimer to say "Not all Asians" everytime they get attacked by a native of that unnamed country. I am not unsympathetic to your point of view. The fact that made the setting of the movie in an unnamed Asian country. That should be a hint that delving into the politics of a 3rd world country was not the main objective for this thriller. Again, if a group of people try to kill you because of your race, would anything they say make you sympathetic to their cause? "Golly! If you put it that way, I have been a rude guest in your country trying to avoid getting killed. All right then. Shoot me and my family."

 

[Gorrath]

Other than the fact, that the movie was focused on the survival of a white family. Would the movie still be racist if it was an African-American family in danger in an unnamed Asian country? Or a Mexican family? Or an Israeli family?

If what's being said is true, then yes. The movie isn't racist (or racially insensitive, for those that wish to split that difference) because the protagonists are white, it's racist because of how the Asian people in the movie are portrayed. Regardless of who the family is, if you've made a whole race of people in your movie into slavering, blood-thirsty lunatics and give next to no gradiation or nuance to them, it really doesn't matter who they are chasing.

Take for a hypothetical example a movie about a black soldier in the cavalry during America's westward expansion. If you portrayed all the natives as blood-thirsty scalpers no better than animals it wouldn't matter one whit that your protagonist is black; you've still got a racist issue with your film.

What I was mainly responding to was this part of the review that keeps popping up in other reviews.

They(Owen Wilson & Lake Bell's characters) can't just go into Action Mode and save everyone; they're scared for themselves and for their children, and they're not ever sure exactly what to do. That is, until it comes to murdering Asians, which they do with glee and without any psychological trauma - despite the fact that they're "normal people." Oops! We're back to the film's racism again. That keeps popping up for some reason. Sorry!

Wouldn't it water down the tension of an action movie? If they took the time to give a disclaimer to say "Not all Asians" everytime they get attacked by a native of that unnamed country. I am not unsympathetic to your point of view. The fact that made the setting of the movie in an unnamed Asian country. That should be a hint that delving into the politics of a 3rd world country was not the main objective for this thriller. Again, if a group of people try to kill you because of your race, would anything they say make you sympathetic to their cause? "Golly! If you put it that way, I have been a rude guest in your country trying to avoid getting killed. All right then. Shoot me and my family."

It really depends on how you do it. If your movie goes to show that the group chasing and killing Americans has a reason for doing it, even if that reason doesn't lead to sympathy, that's a good first step, doesn't detract from the movie at all and helps the viewer differentiate between the people chasing the Americans and the other native people just trying to survive.

I suppose it would help if we had some perspective though. Imagine a movie made by North Korea where a Korean family was being chased by blood-thirsty Americans (Or some facsimile thereof.) The family spends the whole movie running from and killing every American in sight with little to no context as to why the hell the Americans in the movie are even chasing them other than "Americans are bad." The father of this family is just some regular factory worker who somehow becomes a badass perfectly capable of killing dozens of Americans anytime they happen on-screen, showing just how much better the average NK man is than this horde of evil, murderous foreigners. At best, such a movie would be thought of as a propaganda piece meant to reinforce distrust of Americans and at worst, a racist diatribe meant to show how even the most average NK citizen is just plain better than white people. This movie could be an epic thrill-ride masterpiece of tension but that wouldn't make up for the fact that whole thing would feel racist as crap.

I'm not usually one to get all up in arms over stuff like that. I think people have knee-jerk reactions to any negative portrayal of someone who looks like them in media and that such reactions are very often unwarranted. But damn if this isn't a case where I think the critics pointing out the racist stuff might really have a point.