by

A few years ago, I had the misfortune of seeing The Impossible. The film, which had a stellar cast starring Naomi Watts and Ewan McGregor, explored the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami and how it affected Khao Lak, a coastal region in Thailand. The issue was that rather than having the courage to tell the story of the native population, who were most dramatically impacted by this disaster, the film tells the story of how the tsunami ruined Christmas vacation for a Western family. To make matters worse, the narrative has been anglicized and white-washed by replacing the Spanish family whose experience was the basis of the story with a couple of English speaking Caucasians (as if a pairing of Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem would not have sold tickets). Being a kitsch melodrama designed to appeal to white America, the film went over well with little criticism, but the focus on tourists over natives never sat well with me. Upon watching the trailer for No Escape, I was immediately reminded of everything that was wrong with The Impossible: a white family flies out to an Asian country and disaster strikes. The premise is the same in No Escape, where the narrative focuses on the plight of a white family while ignoring the impact of the cataclysm on the indigenous population. In place of a tsunami, the film’s writers invent a violent coup, a much worse premise which draws on the violent and terrifying ‘other’ to elicit sympathy for the Caucasian leads and fear from the audience. For this reason, I cannot, in good conscience, waste any time seeing this film or cast my capitalist vote by paying for it.

The biggest issue is the use of other cultures and other nations as a backdrop for melodrama. By placing this narrative in an Asian country, but not placing any Asian people as the central characters, the film essentially creates a stereotypical culture and then employs it as the backdrop for some kitsch filmmaking. A similar tactic was done in the Angelina Jolie/Clive Owen film Beyond Borders, which employed starving children of Africa as a means to facilities a love story between two white people who were acting as saviours of the starving Africans (ugh). This was appalling in Beyond Borders because the reason that most people are starving in Africa is because of the effect of colonization, which was perpetrated by white colonizers. The trailer for No Escape likewise suggests that the ‘other’ culture is used as a prop. With masked and unnamed Asian people firing indiscriminately at anybody who opposes them, and executing any white person they see, the trailer seeks to capitalize on America’s xenophobia to sell tickets. Even if the dialogue of the film makes an effort to frame this violence in a broader context, the fact that they are promoting the film in this way is appalling. In addition, the film, or at least the trailer, draws on cultural differences at the beginning, seemingly in an attempt to foretell the coming violence and illustrate just how different this culture if from America’s. From women belly dancing, to live animals being beheaded in the street, the film’s trailer unabashedly embraces what Edward Said termed ‘Orientalism’, framing the other as exotic and taking their culture out of context. Topping this off is Owen Wilson’s opening line, in which he bemoans, with tentative optimism, that he would have never imagined moving his family across the world, as if such a journey were undesirable. This framing of an entire culture and people as a prop only serves to marginalize them and reinforces the xenophobic tendencies that foster nationalism and impede the breaking of nationalistic boundaries and conflicts.

By making the Caucasian characters central, and framing the native population as nameless barbarians, the trailer also reinforces the notion of white supremacy and the inhumanity of the ‘other’. For one, placing Caucasians as the central figures reinforces the notion that the white experience is the most important one, though I do not presume this to have been the intent of the screenwriters. This is made all the worse by the fact that the narrative takes place in an Asian country as it implies that even in a country where Caucasians are tourists or are landed immigrants, they still take precedent over the native population. Likewise, the unreasoned and visceral violence carried out by the native population reinforces xenophobic stereotypes that frame ‘people of colour’ as being unable to employ reason and having the tendency to resort to bestial, cruel, and inhumane actions to satisfy their chaotic lust. Though some might scoff that such a reading is overly political or an instance of race baiting, I ask this: why would this film not be based in America? With the number of militias in states like Michigan, one of which was convicted of plotting to kill law enforcement, a similar narrative could have played out with America as the backdrop and all the antagonists being white. Likewise, the Jade Helm military exercises that were going on in Texas caused speculation that the military was invading Texas and could have served as an interesting backdrop for such a story. Even protests like the Occupy Wall Street protests could have served as an interesting back drop. The screen writer created a faux coup and could have easily placed it in a country where the antagonists were white, but made a conscious choice to make these villains members of ‘the other’, and the white people the ones who must overcome the ‘people of colour’. In short, the film might as well be titled White People Overcoming Brown People.

Some might argue that making the native population of such a narrative the central characters would make the film unrelatable to American audiences and doom it for critical and commercial failure, but to those who make such an argument, I point to Hotel Rwanda. That film is the template of what films like No Escape and The Impossible ought to be. The hero is a native person, and though there are Caucasians who play vital roles, the film is about the indigenous population. Likewise, though there is violence perpetrated by the native population in the film, the screenwriters take the time to explain the violence in a broader context, noting that colonial influence created a division between the Hutu and Tutsi populations, and do so through a native characters (rather than a white one as No Escape apparently does with Pierce Brosnan). The Belgium colonists created the conflict, and then left the country that they had imbued with violence. Though such a scene might be present in No Escape, it seems doubtful, based on the trailer, that the film will handle the violent offspring of colonial oppression with the same kind of tact that Hotel Rwanda employed. Hotel Rwanda also frames the heroic characters as natives, and Don Cheadle, who plays Paul Rusesabagina, facilitates the rescue of as many people as he can. It is not a white hero who saves the day; in fact, the white military leader (Canadian Roméo Dellaire), played by Nick Nolte, can do little as his hands are tied and admits to the West’s white supremacy, while the American journalist played by Joaquin Phoenix concedes that Americans will care very little about the conflict and will not intervene. The natives, then, are their own heroes and do not need Caucasians to save the day. Even with this focus on the native population, the film went onto almost universal critical praise and was a modest commercial success as well. No Escape, on the contrary, seems to overtly position Caucasians as the protagonists, and people of colour as the inhumane villains. If I want to watch a film about civil unrest in a country coming to terms in a post-colonial world, I will re-watch Hotel Rwanda rather than embracing colonial propaganda that the trailers for No Escape position that film as.

There are also issues with the apparent androcentric perspective of the film. It is Owen Wilson’s character who ‘drags’ his family to a foreign country; they follow. When conflict arrives, Lake Bell, who plays Owen Wilson’s wife, only has one line in the trailer, and that is a question. She is asking for a man to explain things to her. There is no indication that her character is anything beyond a damsel in distress, and even if the film does offer a more varied presentation of her character, the fact that they are selling the film in this manner indicates this is what they want viewers to expect going into the film. As for Owen Wilson’s character, though he is clearly not familiar with the region, he instructs his wife and children, and they compliantly accept his orders. When it comes to physically defending the family, it is only Wilson’s character who is shown fighting and holding a gun, while his wife is taken by the antagonists, again framing her as a damsel in distress. When Wilson’s character does accept help from somebody else, it is another man (played by Pierce Brosnan), reinforcing the androcentric perspective of the film. Even one of the films posters (seen left) frames Brosnan’s character as superseding the importance of Wilson’s wife and family, making a subordinate male character more vital than the female lead when promoting the film. Judging from the trailer, it seems as though the film is nothing more than a trite template for what a ‘real’ man is expected to be able to do as father and protector of his clan. Some might say that such a dichotomy is the natural result of a violent situation, but even The Impossible managed to offer a strong female lead, played by Naomi Watts, that contributed as much to her survival as her husband’s actions did. Again, without having seen the film, it is difficult to offer a thorough evaluation, but the films’ trailer has presented the narrative as one that relies on an androcentric perspective.

Social issues aside, the film seems like a trite, calculated, and unoriginal kitsch melodrama. First, its title looks like one that could easily be confused with some over-the-top prison-escape film starring Clint Eastwood, and/or Sylvester Stallone, and/or Arnold Schwarzenegger, not to mention it tries far too hard to foster suspense for a climax that is openly telegraphed (let me guess, Brosnan’s character sacrifices himself and the family survives). Coupled with that, the plot is overtly lifted from The Impossible, making it even less interesting. As for the casting, the inclusion of Owen Wilson as the lead character reeks of a calculated casting selection intended to allow Wilson, best known for his comedic roles, to showcase his ‘range’ that he might pad his resume for an Oscar nomination in the future. Wilson’s not a bad actor, and excels within his range, but when he over extends himself it is painfully obvious, and seems so in the trailer. The predictable ending, the kitsch melodrama, cheesy title, and calculated casting choices all make this film seem as if it were somebody’s vanity project that was put together with few people actually taking the time to consider if the film was one worth making.

It is perhaps unfair to judge a film based on its trailer (though I seemed to be able to do so with laser precision in regards to Adam Sandler’s Jack and Jill). In that respect, this can be viewed as a criticism of the film’s promotion and not the film itself. However, a film’s trailer is meant to convey the spirit of the film, and as such, it seems clear that No Escape is bound to fail on multiple levels. It seems overtly kitsch, has an visibly homogenous core cast, employs another culture as seemingly nothing more than a prop and the ‘other’ as a aimlessly violent antagonist, and perhaps worst of all, in terms of film making, seems like an entirely unoriginal melodrama with a weak cast (though Lake Bell is a stunning actress). If somebody wanted to write this narrative, they could have easily avoided the offensive cultural stereotyping by making this a piece of speculative fiction, or a science fiction film where colonist on a planet somewhere near the Bajoran Wormhole in the gamma quadrant have to survive an attack from some Cardassian rebels (not to be confused with Kardashain rebels). In all seriousness, there are other ways to tell this story without pissing on an entire people through a plot that reinforces white supremacy. And even kitsch melodramas are allowed to have some originality.

If you enjoyed this post and would like updates on my latest ramblings, be sure to follow me on Twitter @LiteraryRambler, on Facebook, and add me to your RSS feed.