Freaky Friday (2003)

Starring Jamie Lee Curtis, Lindsay Lohan, Mark Harmon, Harold Gould, Chad Michael Murray.
Directed by Mark Waters.
Written by Heather Hach and Leslie Dixon.
Based on the book by Mary Rodgers.
Produced by Andrew Gunn.
Distributed by Walt Disney Pictures.
96 minutes.

LVJeff's Rating: 2/10

Freaking Out About Stereotypes

I have a brother with whom I get along quite well. Many people are somewhat amazed at this, as they are used to stories about squabbling siblings. What they don't know is the secret our sweet Chinese mother employed to make sure we got along. When we were young, Mama would bring out a couple of fortune cookies from the family restaurant to us every time we fought. These treats were enchanted -- each time we broke them open and read the fortune inside, my brother and I would switch bodies! And we wouldn't switch back until we understood each other's points of view. 'Twas an unorthodox lesson, to be sure, but it was effective -- not only did my brother and I learn to get along, we also learned never to underestimate that Chinese mysticism.

OK. I know the fortune cookie thing was supposed to be a cutesy gimmick in Freaky Friday, Disney's remake of one of their movies from the 1970's. But come on. That's a plot device that belongs to an ignorant '80's movie. I thought we had moved on from the 20th century, but apparently I was wrong. This new movie was already getting on my nerves before it reached the Chinese restaurant scene, so imagine my dismay at seeing this gross stereotype trotted out once again, here specifically to be fed to impressionable young audiences who may not have lived long enough to associate Asians with the word "Oriental" or Fu Manchu caricatures. Accompanying the scene was that corny fake-Chinese music, topped off with my personal pet peeve, the gong. Can we please lose the gong? Please? When was the last time you noticed your Asian co-worker or Chinese classmate listening to music with gongs?

So the characters are at the restaurant, where they're being served by heavily-accented Chinese ladies in hostess uniforms. The main characters, a mother played by Jamie Lee Curtis and the daughter played by Lindsay Lohan, are arguing, at which point the elderly Chinese hostess brings them a couple of fortune cookies. They break them open, read the identical fortunes, and then the room shakes. The next morning, they've switched bodies. I'm thinking, this is really bad, but whatever -- maybe I'll get over it. But when the mom and daughter realize what must have happened, the mom (now in the daughter's body) ascribes the phenomenon to "strange Asian voodoo." Excuse me? Asian voodoo?!?

My friend doubled over in disbelief. The two Filipino guys next to us muttered something I don't think I should repeat here. Asian voodoo? Yes, it's a throwaway line, but that's what makes it even worse -- it's casual, as if we still find it broadly acceptable that the East is portrayed as full of mysticism and ancient curses. I half-expected the old Chinese man from Gremlins to show up and say, "I told you! With Mogwai comes great responsibility!" Or someone from the cast of Margaret Cho's failed '90's sitcom All-American Girl to come up and make a joke about rickshaws.

What was wrong with the original method of body-switching anyway? In the 1976 movie starring Barbara Harris and Jodie Foster, the two were separate and disgruntled, both having just come from an argument about how the other one's life was so easy compared to her own. Simultaneously, as shown in a split-screen, they each said, "I wish we could switch places just for a day!" Then, all of a sudden, they just switched places. That was perfectly fine. No need to potentially offend any ethnic groups.

I realize I'm picking on only one small part of the movie, but I think discussing it is important. Stereotypes like these are the very definition of "insidious." Imagine if the characters went to a place where they were entertained by performers in blackface. Of course, everyone would be up in arms about such a display of insensitivity. An extreme example, you may think, but, at one point in history, few would have batted an eyelid -- thankfully, that's not true today. Yet, I'll bet my DVD collection that barely anyone's ire will be raised over the insensitivity shown to Asians in Freaky Friday. It deserves to be greeted with a fair degree of disgust -- the "magic" of the "Far East" is an old, ridiculous piece of cornball, and should have been packed away at least by the turn of this century. It serves to widen the divide of misunderstanding between "normal" Westerners and "exotic" Easterners. Yet here it is used as a perfectly acceptable plot device. It shows me Asians still have a long way to go to shed old images and create new ones.

Afterwards, I could barely enjoy the rest of the show -- after the "Asian voodoo" line, every bad element of Freaky Friday just seemed that much worse. The movie doesn't contain much else to discuss, anyway -- outside of a couple of good performances by Curtis and Lohan, it's filled with ludicrous characterizations and sitcom-level plot devices. Only Curtis seemed to be reveling in the chance to let loose with some comedy -- if I hadn't been so disgruntled, I might've enjoyed her work. The rest of the movie is shrill and hyperactive, not to mention lopsided -- if one looks closely at who learned what lesson by the end of the film, one would notice the mother doing all the learning -- basically, she finds out how much her daughter's life sucks. Meanwhile, when the daughter is in Mom's body, she turns her into a "cool" adult, capable of being hip enough to earn a chance to crowd-surf on a television studio audience. I guess she showed Mom how it's done.

Meanwhile, I'll remember to visit my own mother to ask her if she knows any Eastern curses that'll prevent more movies like this from coming out.

©Jeffrey Chen, Jul. 30, 2003

ADDENDUM
A response to the responses so far

Why am I writing this addendum? Frankly, I'm just amazed at how much feedback this particular review has gotten me. It has generated more e-mail responses than all of my other reviews combined. I'd like to be able to respond to everyone who deserves a response, but I sadly don't have the time. So I've decided to analyze the overall situation and post what I feel is a general response to all the people who have written so far -- and, perhaps, to those who will write in the future as well.

If there's one thing I've learned, it's this: moderation elicits nods or shrugs, but extremism begets reactions. I know many writers enjoy this, so they specialize in more-or-less extreme writing. This extends to other outlets of the media as well -- think Howard Stern, and how much response he generated with his radio talk show, as opposed to the local guy who doesn't take it upon himself to shock anyone. I imagine Stern either likes the attention, or is just that kind of person naturally. In any case, he does get the attention.

I'm actually a moderate by nature, and I always suspected the reason I didn't always get a lot feedback was due to that moderation. I like fair-and-balanced perspectives (and I mean real ones, not the kind Fox has trademarked), but no one reacts to fair-and-balanced. So, frankly, I was surprised at my own reaction to Freaky Friday. Critics slammed the Rush Hour movies for their caricaturing, and yet those movies made me laugh. I think I'm still one of the only reviewers who liked Bringing Down the House, a movie most critics called racist (in my own defense, I personally think the movie is ridiculing racism). But something in Freaky Friday struck a nerve.

So rather than write a normal review for it -- which is something I get tired of doing every so often -- I decided to be off-the-wall, picking on one minor aspect of the movie. I thought it was a worthy cause -- I dislike old stereotypes because it feeds the barrier of misunderstanding that prevents groups of people from getting to know one another better. I honestly didn't care much about the movie itself, since I thought it was a bad movie -- basically a one-and-a-half-hour version of a bad Disney Channel show. So, putting moderation aside, I went forward with my version of an "extreme" review.

I should have expected all the e-mail I got in response to it, but I honestly didn't. It amazed me -- the power of extremism. People react to it. They take that extra step to click on that feedback link and actually write. The majority of the mail was polite and constructive -- those who liked the review told me so, and those who didn't agree with what I said discussed their reasons. The rest, as it would be easy to guess, were mostly a predictable variety of hate-mail, and followed a standard template: "Lighten up! I'm (insert ethnicity here) and I don't get upset every time I see (my ethnicity) stereotyped in a movie! It's a comedy! Get over it!" Degrees of rudeness varied.

From all of these e-mails (especially the constructive ones), I've come to a few realizations. So I would like to post the following thoughts:

1) Yes, the review reflects an extreme reaction. I didn't care if the movie deserved it or not -- I just wanted to be honest about it.

2) But unadulterated honesty is not always the best policy in review writing, especially when concentrating on a minor aspect. Although I talked about that particular reaction at length, I've concluded that it is generally unwise to shift the focus of a movie review so drastically. Even my friends were surprised about it. If I wrote it today, it might be a more balanced pan, like this one written by Private Joker.

3) Like any normal human being, I have certain buttons that are pressed by certain images, depictions, etc. Apparently, however, expressing such instances of displeasure often leads some people to think you are a political-correctness crusader who goes postal over any hint of stereotypes (and, ironically, they go postal about it when they respond, which makes them look like an anti-p.c. crusader). Somehow the thought that context has something to do with a person's reaction doesn't occur. It would be sad to me, however, if I thought I had to spell everything out all the time.

4) But for this case, I'll spell it out some more. In regards to this movie, the context has a lot to do with the stereotype's background nature. Although the entire plot device is comedic in tone, it's presented in a way that is unaware of its own existence as an out-of-touch stereotype. For contrast, I'll quote my own Rush Hour 2 review in which I said:

"I heard that a fuss might be raised over the nature of (Chris) Tucker's humor when directed toward Asians. Chinese people might get offended at all the short jokes or something. Well, I'm Chinese, and I was laughing like crazy. There's no offense to be had here; Tucker's character is good-natured at heart. Also, the humor involving him strikes a good balance between his making embarrassing remarks about Asian culture and his getting embarassed himself. Later in the movie, even (Jackie) Chan gets off a funny ethnic joke at Tucker's expense. In other words, it's all good."

To elaborate, the "racism" is very much out in the open for everyone to come away with their own assessment of. This is why I called the stereotyping in Freaky Friday "insidious." It's a background form of racism which, in my opinion, is much more harmful because it doesn't cause the viewer to question nor acknowledge it. Loose acceptances of such images contribute to that gap of cultural misunderstanding. This is just a particular opinion of mine -- one that I know not many people share -- so that's why I talked about it.

5) I would have disliked the movie even if the fortune cookie plot device did not exist (for many reasons why, see the Private Joker review I linked to above). More than anything, it features lazy, unimaginative screenwriting. I think if the movie is saved by anything, it's the acting -- Jamie Lee Curtis and Lindsay Lohan deserved more credit than I gave them. It's a case of rise-above-the-material, and both actresses deserve way better material than this. For the record, I don't have a problem with the fortune cookie being used as a device per se -- I think many other screenwriters could have written it in without exposing their cultural ignorance at large.

I'd still be glad to hear different perspectives on the perceptions of stereotypes. The e-mails I've received cover a large range of points-of-view, and they've been very educational. I'd like to thank those of you who took the time to share those viewpoints. I don't react to all stereotypes, but I did react to this one, and at least I've figured out why. I like finding out why others may or may not have had similar reactions, and I think that's the true value of this unusual review to me -- that it has allowed me to see these differing viewpoints.

©Jeffrey Chen, Aug. 25, 2003

Home | Feedback welcome