• View Past Issues
• Authors
• About the Magazine
• Contact Asia Pacific Arts
• Support Us
• RSS Feeds
• Podcasts

APA Writers Go to Press Junket

By Ada Tseng and Winghei Kwok

Asia Pacific Arts observes the dynamics of a Hollywood press junket for Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay -- but first, a sonnet about John Cho's uncanny ability to sport a pair of low-rise jeans.

 
 
The Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay press junket.

A lot of people have been looking forward to this sequel. The first Harold & Kumar, in addition to being a charming stoner comedy which turned White Castle Burgers into a metaphor for the American Dream, was a landmark of sorts for Asian Americans in Hollywood. Even for people who didn't like the film, it's hard to argue against its relevance from a historical point of view. So of course, Asia Pacific Arts was delighted when press opportunities for Harold & Kumar 2 came around, and it was an opportunity not to be squandered.
 
But there is always a love-hate relationship with press junkets. The love comes from the access to bigger names and bigger films that only such events can provide. The hate comes with the limiting structure that one must abide by -- roundtable discussions, five-minute TV interviews, etc. Because, in the end, the press junket makes no pretense about its ultimate purpose, which is to rotate a maximum number of reporters into hotel rooms so that the talent can hammer out as many interviews as possible in the course of one day. It's a publicity machine, very efficient and made for reporters who just want really good sound bites.
 
So while we were struggling to figure out something creative to do for our Harold & Kumar 2 coverage, we actually thought it might be more interesting to observe the behind-the-scenes of what goes on during a press junket among reporters, when they're asking questions about a film like Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay. A film that on one hand, could be considered a mainstream stoner comedy, but on the other hand, takes on a more interesting and unique perspective precisely because of its Asian American characters.  
 
Because we, ultimately and inevitably, watch the film from an Asian American perspective. But what about everyone else? What would they ask?  
 
The lovely publicists were kind enough to allow both of us into the interview room, so we decided to tag-team our sociological experiment. One [Ada Tseng] would participate as normal, and the other [Winghei Kwok] would observe to see if there were any patterns that would emerge regarding what kinds of questions people asked and what topics people were interested in, depending on their estimated point of view. As per the junket organization, the members of the press were split into four groups of eight to ten journalists who would interview the talent together at a roundtable. Because the publicists didn't assign journalists to particular rooms (instead giving us the freedom to disperse as we pleased), we ended up with a random sampling: half of the journalists at our table were from mainstream publications/celebrity websites, while the other half were from ethnic-specific publications. 
  
 
Ada Tseng: So Winghei, we actually sat down at the classy Koo Koo Roo Chicken restaurant beforehand to talk about what questions we should ask at the press junket. It was harder than I thought it would be to come up with good questions. Questions that I really cared about. I mean, I could think of lots of superficial questions that I was vaguely curious about ("Can you tell us more about the awesome shirts?" [See above]), but nothing particularly intellectual. What did you think?
 
Winghei Kwok: One of the most valuable lessons that we learned from the first Harold & Kumar movie is that the food that you want never comes by easily. Same with good questions.
 
AT: I think it has something to do with the genre. Harold & Kumar is first and foremost a comedy, so it's hard to really pursue deeper issues, especially with the time limitations of a press junket.
 
WK: And from the perspective of an Asian/Asian American publication, it's the racial component that is what's interesting about the film. But it's also the part of the film that is pretty obvious.
 
AT: Yea, a lot of the jokes were funny cause they played on racial stereotypes, but at the same time, there's really no point to asking: "What does it mean that the guy thinks they are from Al-Qaeda and North Korea?" We were trying to guess what other people would ask. We figured they would ask about the nudity. Because the interviews I had read so far always brought up the bottomless scene, and the trailers made it clear that they were really going to go for it -- in terms of the frat boy humor.  
 
WK: I thought that people were going to ask about racial issues though, the fact that the leading characters were Asian American.
 
AT: I thought that too, and I thought that would be really boring.
 
WK: Because we assume that our audience can relate to the stereotypes personally, or at least are aware of them, so there's really no explanation needed. Whereas the mainstream audience might have a totally different experience. That's why we were interested in what the mainstream audience gets from this film, what questions those reporters want to ask.
 
AT: It was fun, cause I was just there asking my random questions, ones that we probably weren't going to use anyway, and you were there observing and analyzing the dynamics of the press junket. So did you see a difference between the questions people asked, depending on what type of publication they were from (mainstream vs. ethnic media)? Because I would think that that would influence the perspective of how someone would write about Harold & Kumar.
 
WK: Well, Rob Corrdry was the first interview. So when he came in and declared that he was wasted, he was welcomed as the funny guy from The Daily Show. The journalists asked him about what it was like to be on the set and the standard, behind-the-scenes questions -- "What is it like shooting the scene where you're falling out of the plane?" -- and it was all casual and light-hearted until a reporter asked the first question relating to race.
 
AT: What did she ask?
 
WK: She asked what it was like to play a racist character. And once that started, another journalist from an ethnic publication chimed in to ask whether he ever encountered anyone in his life that was as racist as Ron Fox, whether he based his performance on someone he knew. And then there was kind of an uncomfortable moment.
 
AT: I think that was kind of an awkward question. Because, if you've seen the movie, his character is so over-the-top, that it's hard to imagine it's based on a real person. As racist as people can be, most won't get confused by Harold's eyes. And Rob Corrdry's character thinks Harold's parents are speaking a strange dialect of Korean when they are speaking perfect English. So it's completely ridiculous. But yea, that kind of gets into the whole purpose of this exercise -- how it's difficult to talk about race in this kind of setting, cause you always feel like you're tiptoe-ing. Otherwise there's awkwardness. Or you inevitably create teams: minority vs. majority. Did you feel that?
 
WK: I think when you ask a race-related question and if you are from an ethnic publication, you will just look like you are hyper-sensitive. And since it is a comedy, it's even sillier to take it seriously. So you feel like an idiot when you are trying to find "the subversive message." Anyway, after the race question was addressed in a politically-correct way, the mainstream journalists immediately changed the subject, trying hard to stay off the race track.
 
AT: Which you can't really blame them for. In a way, it's good too. That's kind of the Catch 22 of this whole thing. You don't want to make it all about race, but you don't want to ignore it either. So how do you balance that?
 
WK: You know, maybe it is just us. It seems like there are people out there who don't see it as an Asian American movie at all. For some, maybe it is just a stoner flick.
 
AT: For most people, I'm sure it is. So let's move on to the John Cho interview. When John Cho came in, I think I started observing more closely. Cause it was like: Alright, when are they going to ask the question? When are they going to ask about being an Asian American lead in a Hollywood movie? And does it matter to them that he's Asian American?
 
WK: I think it matters that he's Asian American. I mean, he was the 2006 11th Sexiest Man Alive...
 
AT: He was the 11th? How does that work?
 
WK: Yes, there was a list of 100 Sexiest Men Alive.
 
AT: People magazine? I didn't know they ranked them.
 
WK: Yes! It is very reputable, and how many Asian or Asian American men get on that list? Kal Penn didn't even make it.
 
AT: Yea, why is that? I remember a picture of him taken when he was in water. In a pool or something. Aren't you automatically sexy if you're posing in a pool of water with your shirt all wet?
 
WK: That is true, but you don't understand the magic of tailored jeans. [Editor's note: People doesn't rank their Sexist Men Alive list. And we're not sure about this Kal Penn photo.]
 
AT: Or oddly large ears. But anyway, I'm not sure what you observed, but I remember that, at first, we were all asking questions about the film, and not talking about race at all. And for me, it was all going along nicely, until it hit the 15 minute mark, and I noticed that we were almost at the end of our allotted 20-min time slot, and no one had brought up the idea of race or Asian American representation in Hollywood. So then I started having this stupid debate in my head: Is it awesome that people aren't bringing it up? At last, is he's not being seen as a Korean American actor, but just as an actor? Because that is sort of the goal, right? To not be defined by your race. But then, on the other side, I was thinking -- of course they're seeing him an Asian American guy. Just look at him. Wait, why isn't anyone bringing this up?
 
WK: I think that even if the characters transcend race, their Asian American experience is still a very specific experience. And these mainstream publications should acknowledge that. You can't just ignore the racial issues, especially when the movie pokes fun at these very issues.
 
AT: I think that's how I felt too. So somehow I found myself asking the token "Asian American" question, which he had a very articulate answer to, but in the back of my mind, I was wondering --
 
WK: You were wondering, did you just spoil it?
 
AT: Right, did I just pigeonhole him? And place him into a category?
 
WK: But then afterwards, the journalist from an Indian publication caught on and asked John Cho about his parents' reaction to the film. That was an awesome moment, he had a funny answer, and then that was when the conversation once again turned towards race. And for that whole conversation, I noticed that none of the mainstream press followed up. Not until one of them brought up Captain Sulu [John Cho's role in the upcoming Star Trek film].
 
AT: Oh right, he asked about his wrist. He wanted to get the scoop about John Cho's broken wrist.
 
WK: What did John Cho say?
 
AT: I don't remember, something about how it happened on set, but it's not serious. And he's okay.
 
WK: Thank God. Yea, so once again the race questions were over and everyone took a deep breath. When people talked about vaginas, it was so much more natural.
 
AT: Did you notice that whenever people felt awkward about talking about race, they'd change the topic to sex?
 
WK: Yes, everyone loves vaginas. So it is the battle between vaginas and race.
 
AT: And vaginas win. Speaking of race-related questions, I think guy from the Indian publication was just there for Kal Penn. And then when Kal Penn didn't show up [He was supposedly working on House at the time and couldn't make it], the journalist didn't really have anything to ask. So then he asked John Cho about working with Kal Penn. And he asked Neil Patrick Harris about Kal Penn. I was kind of amused by that
 
WK: That was funny.
 
AT: "What was it like working with Kumar?"
"Uh, you mean... Kal Penn?"
But back to "when we don't feel comfortable about racism, we turn to sex." It's interesting, because when you think about having Asian American leads in Hollywood, you do kind of have to package it in a way that is easy for audiences to relate to, that won't make them feel like they're being preached at. So an easier way Asian Americans have found to break in so far is through these stoner comedies. Sex and toilet humor make people comfortable.
 
WK: Yea, and this kind of humor can function as some sort of distraction, or at least it provides, in itself, a sense of empowerment. When the writer-directors [Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg] came in for the interviews, they said that some people wondered if this is the right way to introduce Asian American characters into Hollywood, as stoners, but they realized that it is the perfect way to introduce them.
 
AT: Did you find it empowering?
 
WK: In the way that Harold and Kumar are not the typical Asian/Asian American characters you see on screen. Yes, they are financial analysts and med school students, but they are also law-breaking, whore-house-going, prison-breaking potheads. Plus the issue of race does not come up until other characters in the film find it an issue. Harold and Kumar did not see themselves as Asian, they are just American.
 
AT: Right, so after attending the press junket, we were curious about how that transferred into journalism, wondering if those reporters in attendance saw this as an "Asian American" film or just a stoner comedy. At first we wanted to follow up on these particular journalists at the table. Knowing what we knew about the interview, we wanted to see what they ended up writing about. But we couldn't find any of their coverage online for some reason. So I looked through YouTube to watch the press interviews that John Cho did, while you looked at the print articles and reviews of the films. So, I don't know about you, but when I was surfing through John Cho press junket interviews, it made me tired just watching them.
 
WK: He seems to get all the racial questions.
 
AT: There was one in particular, where it was Neil Patrick Harris, Kal Penn, and John Cho, and the interviewer asks them about whether it was a breakthrough for Indians and Asians in Hollywood. And the interviewer didn't mean it in a bad way, of course, but you could tell that they paused before answering. They were probably thinking Indian American. Korean American. Then, to answer the "breakthrough" question, John Cho kind of stammers: "Uh.. I'm still not sure that it's happening... I mean it seems unbelievable that two guys that look like us would be headlining a movie... And, what can I tell you... it's odd."
 
WK: And then Kal Penn tries to explain that people don't grow up wanting to be an "Indian actor," just like they never talk about growing up to be an "Indian doctor." And John Cho just stares at Neil Patrick Harris.
 
AT: Probably because he's trying to get out of answering the question, cause it's kind of awkward. But luckily Neil Patrick Harris saves the day and answers it for them. There was another interview, where the reporter asks John Cho about whether the Harold character is more accepted by the Asian American community than his character on Off Centre. And he kind of goes off on this tangent about how it's not the Asian American viewer that has a problem with it, but more specifically, the community media watchdogs. Then he continues about people bringing their own stereotypes into his roles, how he can't always please everyone etc... all the while stretching his neck, exhaling deeply, and looking very tired. It made me tired too.
 
WK: Yea, but I think John Cho is pretty verbal about that topic. He doesn't try to dodge it.
 
AT: In that one, Jon Hurwitz swoops in at the end and kind of lets him off the hook. But, it's like you're watching John Cho and this burden of representation weighing him down. In the end, he goes, "Sorry that I talked for so long." In a way, you don't want him to have to be the spokesperson, but at the same time, it's interesting to see how he answers it. Hopefully, he has some fun here when he's called "a god to Koreans and Indians." But anyway, what about the reviews? Did you notice any trends?
 
WK: To my surprise, most of the articles from major publication focus the discussion on the question of: "Is America ready for 9/11 jokes?" The Village Voice compares the film to Errol Morris' documentary Standard Operating Procedure on prisoner abuse. That comes back to the argument of how difficult it is to review a comedy. When asked if they worry about the audience's reaction to jokes on torture and the war on terror, Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg explain that they dared to make fun of terrorism because it is a natural reaction to tragedy. When people need to recover from something, they try to laugh about it. For me, it is just strange to compare a serious documentary with a "cockmeat sandwich" moment.
 
AT: The reviews that came out were pretty mixed. The New York Times' A. O. Scott review was actually pretty positive, I thought. As positive as you'll get for the genre.
 
WK: Salon.com has a very good review of the movie. They also talk about how patriotic this movie actually is despite its criticism about American racism and post-911 paranoia. Many find it especially endearing that the president George W. Bush character is a fellow pothead with filial obligation issues.
 
AT: I thought it was smarter than the first one. What did the negative reviews mostly focus on?
 
WK: Most of the negative reviews are from critics being offended by its toilet humor. Some call it "tasteless," saying that the tastelessness ruins the movie. One review on rottentomatoes.com that called the movie "offensive" and "geared toward the lowest common denominator of humor." (Is Lowest Common Denominator supposed to be Mr. Cooper's little math pun? Kumar will love that.) But when I read the reviews, I also read the comments about the reviews made by online readers as well. I hardly read any comments from audiences that were offended by the "scatological" humor. After all, you don't buy a ticket to Harold and Kumar looking for "taste."
 
AT: I think Slate didn't like the fact that they weren't high for most of the movie. Their argument was that it betrayed the stoner genre: 1. because the protagonists weren't stoned and 2. because it wasn't a buddy movie. They didn't like that they were fighting throughout the entire film.
 
WK: The Boston Globe review criticized H&K2's political commentary for being too sloppy and half-hearted. He raised the question: "Is a truly political stoner movie even possible?"
 
AT: That's interesting. Slate mentioned that too. They didn't like that they only dabbled with the political humor but didn't have much to say about it. But at the same time, when there were race-related jokes and when the film tried to overturn stereotypes about race, they called this "too heavy-handed." They liked that the first film dealt with race indirectly, whereas they didn't like that this one tried too hard to "make a statement." So... what are you supposed to do?
 
WK: I can see that, but I think somehow the heavy-handedness was part of the joke. It was a caricature, and it was supposed to be exaggerated. Likewise, racism was being exaggerated, and that was why it was funny instead of offensive.
 
AT: In the end, it's a comedy, right?
 
WK: Yea, and in many interviews, the writer-directors reiterate that their main goal was to make the audience laugh. Many critics comment, some with a slight tone of contempt, that this movie is only good for dumb audiences who laugh at penis jokes, and therefore, the film is not worthy of their so-called analysis. They are probably right. But guess what, the fact that there are idiots that laugh at all the jokes makes the reviewers, who took the film seriously as a political satire, look like bigger idiots themselves. For instance, the Washington Post actually brought up the point that the writer-director's attempt at racial commentary was not on par with literary writers that had touched on the same topics before them. He cited names such as V.S. Naipaul, Salman Rushdie, and John Updike. And I'm just wondering what these writers must be thinking when their works are being compared to a stoner flick. When you are stoned, you probably won't be reading V.S. Naipaul... unless you are really, really high.  
 
AT: Right, so in the end, when people take it too seriously, it seems kind of silly. You're spending all this time analyzing a film, when really, it's just Harold & Kumar 2. In many ways, it doesn't warrant all this analysis.
 
WK: [laughs] So then, what are we doing here?
 
AT: You mean, what are we doing here, in this article? That's a very good point. Being silly? We are being silly. I mean, you did just write a sonnet about John Cho's hips. Which I'm still impressed that you even noticed, by the way. I mean, he really just walked in and sat down. There was literally only a five-second window for you to notice them and admire.
 
WK: It was love at first sight.
 
AT: Plus, we had to write something on Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay (still out in theaters now and one day on DVD), since they did let us go to the press junket. And eat their Four Seasons Hotel food.
 
WK: After we were done, I took couple extra bottles of Vitamin Water and some tea bags, along with two more pieces of fried chicken.
 
AT: Wrapped in a napkin....
 
WK: Well, who can resist those juicy legs and thighs, crispy on the outside and tender on the inside? It is America, after all, the land of fried food. From my usual KFC to Beverly Hills Koo Koo Roo to Four Seasons Hotel fried chicken, we've come a long way...

AT: Ah, back to this "America." I see where you're going with this, but I'm not completely on board with you, cause I don't really like fried chicken.
 
WK: It's okay. You don't have to support fried chicken in order to be a true American.

Shall I compare thee to a Calvin Klein model?
by Winghei Kwok
 
Shall I compare thee to a Calvin Klein model?
Your moves intoxicate, I'm stoned and dazed.
Dark tailored jeans and silver belt buckle
accentuate, your sexy hips ablaze.
 
The pedestal-ed David (I mean, Beckham)
your tight and stately pelvis do surpass.
Never me seen so fine a man in denim.
My love is bottomless, so is my ass.
 
How rare are Asian men on billboards lay,
in briefs and boxers, Speedo and in shades.
My heart rejoice at hot hips on display!
John and low-rise jeans, a match so heavenly made.
 
Some hips are sublime and others undermined
Is Hollywood to certain beauty blind?

Date Posted: 5/2/2008