A Response to Michelle Yeoh’s Win at the Oscars

Plus a Few Movie Recommendations

Last Sunday Michelle Yeoh won best actress at the Oscars for her performance in Everything Everywhere All at Once. While I don’t care much for the Oscars, I do like Michelle Yeoh. I’ve been enjoying her old movies on the Criterion Channel, so I was quite happy for her when she won the award. I’ve also had the following thoughts in response to her victory.

Diversity v. excellence. It isn’t news that Hollywood has become increasingly progressive over the years, and this has resulted in the increased importance in diversity. Hollywood wants to recognize actors or roles associated with certain “underrepresented” groups of people (i.e., non-white, non-straight, non-male), and the more diversity checkboxes that an actor or role ticks off, the better. Many will see this as a good thing, but I have my doubts. I’m imagining a scenario where two actors put on comparable performances, but the one wins out because he or his role ticks off more diversity checkboxes (e.g., he plays a gay character, or is himself gay). This is a problem since awarding an actor should be based on the merits of his performance, not on his, say, sexual or racial identity, which are irrelevant. Here is another scenario: an actor who in fact deserves to win is awarded, but the decision to confer the award is based on considerations of diversity. Although the right actor receives the reward, the reasoning is dubious, if not insulting—we want to recognize an actor precisely for his talent and excellent performance, not on irrelevant factors. Given the present state of the film industry, these problematic scenarios have a likelihood of occurring that isn’t negligible, and so I become doubtful of some the decisions that the Academy makes in awarding certain people. Did Michelle Yeoh win because of her excellent acting, or because she’s an Asian woman? Or because lesbianism is a theme of Everything Everywhere? Did Brendan Fraser, to include another winner from last week, win best actor because of his acting, or because his character in The Whale is a morbidly obese gay man? Don’t get me wrong—I like both Yeoh and Fraser, and I want them to be deserving of their awards. I don’t want to have doubts about the quality of their performances. But the Academy does a disservice to its actors for giving such doubts a degree of plausibility.

Racial v. national identity. I don’t care too much that Yeoh is the first Asian woman to win an Oscar for best actress, but I like that she’s the first Malaysian woman to do so. I’m not sure to what extent race is a meaningful or useful category. It’s not a biological category (there aren’t significant biological differences among the groups that we classify as races), and some would argue that it’s not a social category either, but a social construct (but even if a construct, it doesn’t follow that there aren’t objective criteria for it). And I worry that race might be too broad to be a useful concept, since it groups people who differ—or are even opposed—in very important respects, such as culture and fundamental values (e.g., “Asian” refers to both the Catholic Filipino and the atheistic, Communist Chinese). National identity, however, is something more specific and easier to pin down, given that nations are typically bound together by common history, economy, laws, social norms, language, religion, art, and so on.

Asian representation in cinema. Besides not being sure about what race is exactly, I’m also not sure that representing a race (i.e., by being a member of that race while participating in, say, some work of art) is as meaningful or desirable as it might seem. When I consider differences in shared beliefs and values, for example, racial representation seems a bit strange. By being Asian and starring in films, Yeoh supposedly represents every Asian everywhere all at once. But then what if she stars in an anti-Japanese propaganda film? Is she still representing the Asian race (if there is such a thing), of which the Japanese would be considered a part? Or would a Catholic Filipino represent Hindu Indians by starring in a film about Christian missionaries in the Philippines? (Are Indians Asian, by the way, or are they “brown”?) National identity might be more useful here. Also, why should actors and directors from Asia feel that they need to be represented or validated by Hollywood via awards like the Oscars? When we consider the history of film, excellent and groundbreaking cinema has already been produced in the Orient (Is this a racist term?). Directors, such as Akira Kurosawa, and actors, such as Toshiro Mifune and Setsuko Hara, are some important examples of talent that has come from Asia—mainly, Japan. Kurosawa in particular has had a profound influence on American cinema. And Michelle Yeoh herself is an important figure in the history of female action movies in Hong Kong. For those interested in Asia’s contributions to film, one need not wait for Hollywood to validate Asian actors and directors. Asians have already made significant contributions to cinematic history.

Anyway, these are just some thoughts I’ve had since Michelle Yeoh won at the Oscars. I haven’t thought too deeply about the issues I’ve raised here, but I think they’re worth considering.

Also, since you’ve made it this far, I suggest checking out some of Michelle Yeoh’s older movies if you’re a fan. Royal Warriors (1986) and Police Story 3: Supercop (1992) are solid police action films, where Yeoh displays her talent for choreographed fights and stunts, alongside other celebrated actors (Hiroyuki Sanada, Jackie Chan). And of course, you should also watch the classic Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)—Yeoh’s duel with Zhang Ziyi is one of the best sword fights in film.