HBO Max’s Tokyo Vice boasts Michael Mann and neon-soaked thrills
Ansel Elgort stars in this stylish, pulsating dive into the yakuza underground
TV Reviews Michael Mann
Michael Mann has spent his career in Vice. Nearly 40 years ago, the famed director explored the relationship between undercover cops and overpowered gangsters on Miami Vice. In the aughts, he updated that TV phenom for the big screen. And today, he’s he’s helping shepherd HBO Max’s Tokyo Vice through a neon-soaked, yakuza-run underground.
Loosely adapted from Jake Adelstein’s memoir, Tokyo Vice: An American Reporter On The Police Beat In Japan, the crime thriller follows the early days of Adelstein (Ansel Elgort) on the police beat of Japan’s largest fictional newspaper, Meicho Shimbun. He’s the paper’s only gaijin (“foreigner” in Japanese) reporter, and, boy, do they let him know it. In his interview for the gig, for instance, the hiring manager asks how Jake, a Jew, feels about people on staff believing Jews control the economy.
Tokyo Vice opens in media res. Two years into Adelstein’s career, he and Detective Hiroto Katagiri (Ken Watanabe) are meeting with the leaders of the Tozawa-led yakuza. Mann’s playing the hits here, evoking Miami Vice’s Sonny Crocket (Colin Farrell in the film), with Elgort’s slicked-back hair and boxy blazer. We get a taste of a deliciously seasoned Jake before we’re abruptly sent back to 1999 when his hair was unkempt and future uncertain.
Mann, who directed the pilot and serves as an executive producer, wastes no time ratcheting up the tension. In one early scene, a shot begins on the ground, then rises as Katagiri enters the room and perches right on his shoulder, then closes up on Watanabe. The framing is so tight, you can almost see the sweat in Watanabe’s pores. The score by Saunder Jurriaans and Danny Bensi also has a propulsive energy as we move from the mundane chaos of Meicho to the futuristic luxury of the Onyx hostess club.
The show fits Mann’s work beyond the title, though. A classic Mann protagonist, Jake is an over-eager workaholic, an “action is the juice” guy. Like the leads of Blackhat, Heat, and fellow journalism thriller, The Insider, Jake infiltrates networks by internalizing rules and procedures.
Understandably, viewers might raise eyebrows at a show about Japan told from the perspective of a white star, a white pilot director, and a white creator (J.T. Rogers). Shades of Isle Of Dogs notwithstanding, the series, shot on-location, feels like a tour of Tokyo but rarely dips into cultural tourism. Instead, the interior lives of characters are given space to come alive. Katagiri, for example, radiates love and kindness with his two children. Hearts should melt watching him sing the “Kaeru No Uta” or “Frog’s Song” to them.
Episode two, directed by Josef Kubota Wladyk, establishes what a difficult time it is on the police beat. A fracturing truce between rival yakuza gangs, the Chikara and the Tozawa, brings war to Katagiri’s doorstep. Jake endears himself to Katagiri and Sato (Shô Kasamatsu), a Backstreet Boy-loving Chikara captain, and finds himself on a path into the yakuza underground. (We should point out: Of the show’s grimacing yakuza soldiers, Sato is the most captivating. His cool drips off the screen, but his insecurities bubble just below the surface.)
At Meicho, Jake works under veteran editor Eimi (Rinko Kikuchi). Seeing Jake’s persistence, she aids his investigation into an uptick in suicides by people indebted to a yakuza-tied loan sharking operation. Director Hikari makes the best use of Kikuchi in the standout, All The President’s Men-inspired fourth episode, expertly balancing Mann’s process-oriented obsessions with the actor’s surprising performance.
Speaking in Japanese and English, Elgort lives up to the charisma he was supposed to bring to Baby Driver and West Side Story, beaming with excitement as he gum-shoes his way through the Tokyo underworld. But his best moments occur sitting across the table from his colleagues, trading horror stories over beers, cigarettes, and sushi. (It’s admittedly difficult to see Elgort’s charms through the cloud of controversy that stalks his work.)
Jake’s personal life is the show’s weakest element. J.T. Rogers teases the journalist’s Missouri roots as he avoids calls from mom and listens to taped messages from his sister. We need Jake’s motivations for working in Japan, but these character breadcrumbs feel like prestige-series obligations, not answers. Rogers leads us towards a big reveal, but Jake’s history fails to hook.
At its best, Tokyo Vice drags the viewer’s arm through the bars, alleys, offices, and homes of the city’s many classes and communities, providing a rounded picture of a place that leaves room for the thrill of exploration and discovery. That’s what good journalism is supposed to do, right? Bring the world to your front door? Tokyo Vice does that, with a sleek, energizing style that keeps us wanting more.
84 Comments
Did they really have to cast Ealgl Snoret in this?
They just need to give Elden Aldenrich all of Ealgl’s roles
I have been confusing these two for years. I kept thinking this was the Han Solo kid and was like “He sure looks different”
The only thing that cemented the difference in my mind was Hail Cesar revealing that Alden actually has charisma. Baby Driver was a fun movie but anyone could’ve played Baby, Solo flopped because you can’t replace Harrison Ford but seeing Hail Cesar, I get why they gave him the role.
I did too. Who was the Hans Solo kid?
Would that-it-t’were so simple.
Right. He is definitely my main hesitation in watching this. Probably the most boring & bland actor of his generation.
Plus maybe a rapist
I thought he was good in Solo and Ready Player One.
he is an ambulatory thumb
It really feels like getting served an absolutely delicious-looking meal with a dead roach on the plate.
Tokyo Drift trailer (which was 3 weeks ago) 1:10 that’s Kristin Scott Thomas who is dead the image is the statue of the girl in the harbour that’s in Copenhagen I think it is you can tell by the way she’s sitting on her hip it’s that statue it’s a little maquette statue of the statue in Copenhagen it’s the sort of thing people keep in their houses to remind them of home the image is supposed to be the little maquette statue sitting on the table in front of the stained glass window looking out over Los Angeles in the Ennis House except you can tell from the lighting it isn’t it’s in one of the houses near the one Nicole Kidman used to live in on Sydney harbour which was in one of the Mission Impossible movies the background in the image is that Chagall blue stained glass window except it isn’t it’s a glass window in the Tudor house in England in the movie The Boleyn Girls so she’s young Scarlett Johansson the chain around her neck is the chain around Carrie Fisher’s neck in the Star Wars movie where she’s wearing the gold bikini the chain around the neck of whatever the fuck that dog was in the movie Ghostbusters the collar the mercenaries wear in the movie The Fifth Element the collar Natalie Portman’s character wears in the movie Closer all this makes her Kristin Scott Thomas who played the Boleyn girl’s mother in the movie The Boleyn Girls and surely makes someone who is a Nazi from Copenhagen who lives in a house on Sydney harbour in Australia want Kristin Scott Thomas fucking dead in reply to this
That’s not Igor Arglebargle?
It’s actually Engelbert Humperdinck.
It’s clearly Gerry Dorsey.
Yeah, it’s a very “Way to make the Japanese cast so much more appealing than the Western cast” move. I’ll tune in for Ken Watanabe and Rinko Kikuchi, not so much for Elton Anselreich and Ella Rumpf.
What is Hollywood’s obsession with this guy? He is so blah. Is this like when the girls went nuts for Robert Pattinson?
He’s the Tye Sheridan of Alden Ehrenreichs.
*Aldens Ehrenreich
It bothers me since Daniel Radcliffe was attached to the movie version of this.
I know there is an obligation to have at least one easily-fixed error in every article on this site, but her name is Rinko Kikuchi.Also: I wonder if actors who haven’t said “We just have to break you in” to a girl they were assaulting are having difficulty getting work these days.
I believe Ansel admitted to dating Gabby for a short period and then ghosting her when she was 17 and he was 19 turning 20. But, the insane texts from various fans that were uploaded to Twitter including the breaking you in one were found out to be fake and from a fanfic tumblr that have since been deleted. The same thing happened to Justin Bieber around a similar time and most recently to Angus Cloud. Just like goblin mode you cannot believe everything you read on the internet. I don’t really care about ansel. I’m not a fan. I do have a huge issue with misinformation being spread along with calling 18/19 pedophiles for dating 17 year olds….There is a huge difference between someone who is 28 going after someone who is in high school and a teenager dating another teenager who’s about to be 18 (I’m a women who dated much older men when I was in high school and in college and I really regret that time I lost now, but I cannot state more like scream that teens dating within a 2.5 age gap after turning 16 is not acting out some pedo fanfic). Some people have lost their damn minds. Not to mention the person who originally posted and continues to push this narrative on Twitter is a nicki Minaj Stan so, I just cannot take them seriously.
Ansel Elgort is quickly becoming an instant avoid for me. There’s just something I find incredibly bland and uninteresting about him. Thought he was easily the worst thing about the otherwise great West Side Story and wish someone more charismatic had been cast in Baby Driver. Factor in the allegations, and I just don’t understand why he keeps getting lead roles.
Hopefully we’re just seeing the delayed releases of the movies made at the height of his celebrity capital and before the accusations in 2020.
What allegations? Their age difference was 2-3 years and it was consenting. More character assassinations from the AvClub commenters.
It’s because when you’re an edgy teenage virgin, like most of the commentariat on the ‘net, 2-3 years is a huge difference. That’s the difference between someone in their final year of high school, and someone just out of middle school, and high school social bullshit is such that this is a grave and egregious taboo.Second of all, it’s easy to judge to others’ sexual history and point out any flaws if you’ve never been in that position yourself.
You’d honestly think that someone who grew up with that name would be a lot more interesting.
He’s the reason I won’t watch West Side Story. He’s so yuck.
Looking forward to this, but I’ll also recommend people check out the excellent series Giri/Haji from a few years ago.
Giri/Haji was interesting, but has a very WTF?!!! ending that undid everything that came before it.
Man, I really went through some personal mental gymnastics trying to convince myself that the ending “worked”. After spending so much time with that show and liking the characters…that ending was a bridge too far. My wife was furious.
Someone very wrongly thought interpretative dancing could solve a mystery. Furious is right.
Understandably, viewers might raise eyebrows at a show about Japan told from the perspective of a white star, a white pilot director, and a white creatorLOL, “white pilot director”. Needed a list of three things to make it sound convincing, huh?Also, it’s based on a book by a white American author about his experiences working in Japan. The perspective of the show itself is an American one. Take issue with that if you’re going to complain about anything.Shades of Isle Of Dogs notwithstandingjfc. You really want to call attention to this? Literally every Japanese character in Isle of Dogs is played by an actor of Japanese ancestry. A Japanese writer has story credit. The dogs are not a culture that you need to worry about anyone appropriating. They are dogs.It’s really, really telling that if you go back and read Dowd’s review of Isle of Dogs, not a single drop of ink was spilled on how problematic it was that a white filmmaker wanted to make a movie involving another culture.Just 4 years ago.Finally, actual Japanese people saying nice things about Isle of Dogs
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-isle-of-dogs-gets-right-about-japan I was hearing voices from home. They were neither inscrutable nor flat. They were Japanese, in various shades of age and talent and fame.[…]A scientist, presenting her findings on snout flu, spoke with the bored, clipped tone of every ponytailed researcher on Japanese daytime TV. In a scene that must’ve seemed an incoherent buzz to non-Japanese viewers, a doctor interrupts another’s hushed importance during surgery with an equally serious “Gauze!”—a deadpan, bull’s-eye rendition of “Iryu,” the Japanese version of “ER.” No one else in the theatre got it, but I couldn’t contain my laughter.[…]What is interesting about the scene is that she speaks to the crowd in English. Both Kobayashi and the crowd understand her words, but respond in Japanese. This was a revelation: in the world of Megasaki City, the Japanese can speak and understand English but choose to speak in their native tongue. They demand fluency on their own terms. At a climactic moment, the movie rejects the notion of universal legibility, placing the onus of interpretation solely upon the American audience.
https://www.quora.com/What-do-Japanese-audiences-and-Japanese-film-critics-think-of-the-movie-Isle-of-Dogs/answer/%E6%A2%85%EF%A8%91-%E3%82%B9%E3%82%A6-Sue-Umezaki?comment_id=57874866&comment_type=2In general I find that Japan-born Japanese people are far less sensitive about cultural appropriation (and often don’t even really understand what is meant by that), and they are usually happy to see their country and culture portrayed in films, art, etc – unless it is just extremely blatantly racist, of course. Want to show Japanese scenery in movies? Great! Want to try wearing a kimono? Japanese people say, “go for it”.Isn’t it telling that the Japanese viewers were more worried about how non-Japanese speakers felt about not having the Japanese parts subtitled, rather than being offended in some way?
Matt Schimkowitz is working hard to become some sort of Sam Barsanti wannabe, which is um… yeah. This site is just embarrassing at this point.
Fun thought experiment. If you took someone who had never seen a Wes Anderson movie and showed them Isle of Dogs with all the credits removed, what would they think?Would it be obvious to them that it was directed by an American? By a white person? By a man? Would they say “hmm this smacks of white appropriation of Japanese culture”?Or would they be forced contend with the film on its own terms, rather than using the various identity-group signifiers you all seem to need to lean on so heavily?
Yes, yes it would be. Obviously, it doesn’t mean they would be insulted, but it’s not mysterious box of universalism. It’s not a nebulae forming of being observed. It’s own terms are the creator and the audience—the context is the terms. Isle of Dogs, and works like it, are directed at a non-Japanese audience, often to the exclusion of the viewpoints of the people who live in the culture that makes that dissonance.Years ago, when Shaq made “ching-chong” sounds at Yao Ming, Yao—a Chinese man who grew up in China and not as a minority—described it more as trash talk from his pov. It still was more than that.That’s not equating Isle of Dogs or this show with outright insults, but to point out, there’s no vacuum that culture floats in, and no gotcha in pulling out Asians who appreciate their culture being noticed without acknowledging they too have context. A non-dominant global culture liking itself being seen, in whatever form. Do you think Americans think, “glad these folks are finally seeing an American movie?”Hell, this is point brought up in the New Yorker article cited—the author, a Japanese expatriate, talks about how her opinion comes from that and doesn’t assert “the primacy of my own experience with the film.”For what it’s worth, I think Alison Willmore gets to more of the nuances about this discussion:https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/alisonwillmore/isle-of-dogs-jared-leto-orientalism
Respectfully, the writing here is pretty muddled, What does it mean to say, “It’s own terms are the creator and the audience—the context is the terms.” How about saying there’s “no gotcha in pulling out Asians who appreciate their culture being noticed without acknowledging they too have context.”
I do muddle a lot, sorry to say! That does sound better, but I did want to build off the “the film on its own terms” line, which I think comes out often unexamined.
I think what they’re trying to say is that there isn’t an objective way to form an opinion of a film—people will inevitably bring their own biases and experiences and view it through some kind of context, whether it’s through the lens of appropriation or thinking about it compared it other animation or Wes Anderson films or whatever else they’ve seen before—so “viewing a film on its own terms” doesn’t really exist.The second part is acknowledging that the view of Asians from Asia (who often are part of the dominant culture of where they live and in mainstream media, with varying amounts of Western media influence) and Asian-Americans (who often are minorities where they live and in mainstream media) can differ greatly on matters of representation, appropriation, etc. and one doesn’t trump the other.
Lol—that’s so much shorter than anything I put out. Well said.
Do you think Americans think, “glad these folks are finally seeing an American movie?Nope, that is not the point I was making. I am not holding up those anecdotes as proof that all Japanese people like the movie, or that all criticism of it is invalid. It’s that I find the criticism in the OP (and many other posts on AVC) to be lazy, ill-considered and uninformed.Sounds like you’re assuming my hypothetical person is Japanese, but I was actually thinking of them as someone more closely resembling the author of the post. Someone whose analysis usually starts and stops at the most basic level of the cultural discourse (such as it is), and does not actually contend with the nuances (or really, with any of the content) of the film or show they’re analyzing. Just a parenthetical: oooo, shades of Isle of Dogs. Didn’t even link to the review since it doesn’t toe his line.I do like the Willmore piece you link, although I can’t abide the clear line she draws between criticism of the movie (reasonable! measured!) and the response to that criticism (outraged! outsized!). It’s in bad faith if you ask me, to cherry-pick things that make your position look good and the opposition look bad. There are always measured takes on any position if you care to look hard enough. Wish more people did; their arguments would be more persuasive, not less.
I don’t love the criticism that takes this tack often either—it’s often more reflexive than reflective, though I admit to being sympathetic in it’s sentiments. At the same time, maybe weirdly, I think this article was better about it than most on this and sister sites, so when this conversation thread started, frankly it felt like here we go again. I replied a lot to the “on it’s own terms” line because, well, I think those terms are whatever a person brings to it.Culture moves, and criticism being part of culture moves too, so these vantage points not being present in Dowd’s at the time aren’t that compelling, and further, Willmore and the criticisms were there.I suppose I don’t feel like it’s cherry picking either, since what she cites is a criticism often from Asian-Americans, met with replies of a racist nature. What is the appropriate amount of trolls for criticism to expect for a minority viewpoint? But it’s true, it’s personalized by having the criticism as opposed maybe citing other think pieces, but “There are always measured takes on any position if you care to look hard enough” is the same as “on its own terms”—show me more work for this opinion.I don’t think there are many measured takes on any position, and I question the need to find it when it’s a cultural critique of the response, not actually just about Isle of Dogs. The conversation is here and often, about the context too.So Tokyo Vice is also “it’s based on a book by a white American author about his experiences working in Japan. The perspective of the show itself is an American one. Take issue with that if you’re going to complain about anything.”So it’s white American or American? Those aren’t interchangeable. It looks like after the Pilot, which Mann directed himself, they got Destin Daniel Cretton to direct the rest. It’s with funny resignation that when I saw that I thought, “After Shang-Chi, they have one Asian American director Hollywood feels like it can go to.” Not even a Japanese one, I might think—I don’t, I’m not that purist in my thinking, but I am sympathetic to those desires. Maybe also I pick my fights differently.Honestly, I feel like what gets lost is that cultural critiques are about culture and not just the one piece in front of them. Like Blind Side and Green Book aren’t individually in the wrong because they center white povs, but because they are another story that centers white povs. Here, oh, another movie about Japan from a white guy. (Hey, Drive My Car was a critical hit this year, so maybe that shifts? Though art house hit isn’t indicative of much imo.) Tokyo Vice! Kate! The Outsider! Isle of Dogs! There are individual cases made for each one every time one of them rolls around, but the criticism isn’t about the individual movies, but the mode they’re made in. Hell, I’ll probably watch this one, though Ansel Egort—meh to bleah.
Well said. Thanks for articulating similar feelings I have had that would’ve taken me forever to mull over and put into words. I had a feeling someone would be annoyed in the comments about that line from the review, but didn’t expect the argument to revolve around Isle of Dogs, which tbh I don’t have strong opinion on.
Please forgive the wall of text; I really appreciate this discussion.[W]hen this conversation thread started, frankly it felt like here we go againLOL, can’t blame you there.Culture moves, and criticism being part of culture moves too, so these vantage points not being present in Dowd’s at the time aren’t that compelling, and further, Willmore and the criticisms were there.I know we probably disagree here; I don’t identify whatsoever with where the online culture is heading. Like most people in the world, I don’t think cultural appropriation is a significant problem. I think the opposite, in fact. The siloing of culture is much bigger, long term problem. It’s made worse by the internet, a bunch of self-selecting echo chambers where ideas grow more fragile over time, and that includes the sort of cultural criticism we’re talking about here.Not that there aren’t very talented and respectable writers writing on these topics, but intentionally or no, they do themselves a disservice in writing for an audience that usually already agrees with them. I have a great respect for the contrarian writer who seeks out opposing viewpoints. Especially since there’s fewer and fewer places where that person won’t be ostracized for wrongthink by people on either end of whatever the operative spectrum might be.I suppose I don’t feel like it’s cherry picking either, since what she cites is a criticism often from Asian-Americans, met with replies of a racist nature. What is the appropriate amount of trolls for criticism to expect for a minority viewpoint? But it’s true, it’s personalized by having the criticism as opposed maybe citing other think pieces, but “There are always measured takes on any position if you care to look hard enough” is the same as “on its own terms”—show me more work for this opinion.Staying with the self-selection angle, I’ll amend what I said before. There *ought* to be more even-handed takes on both sides of a given issue, but there is no incentive for this anywhere that I know of, certainly not on Twitter. Willmore’s links to the Twitter threads reveal a familiar pattern: creator posts a link to her piece. There’s lots of praise for it, though I surmise it’s mostly from followers or people whose mind didn’t need changing. And then there’s shitty Twitter trolls post shitty, lazy racist shit. And very little middle ground in between.So it’s white American or American? Those aren’t interchangeable.I hope you’ll take my word for it that I’m not implying they are. Though I’m curious to know how you think the conversation around this show would be different if a majority of the senior creatives were Black women.Honestly, I feel like what gets lost is that cultural critiques are about culture and not just the one piece in front of them. Like Blind Side and Green Book aren’t individually in the wrong because they center white povs, but because they are another story that centers white povs.I’ll disagree with you again, but only slightly. Briefly set aside the part of this conversation that’s about power imbalances in the media business, which is obviously a factor.I see the problem of “another story that centers white POVs” as a subproblem of a larger issue. It’s best summed up in the North Carolina motto: *esse quam videri*, or “to be rather than to seem”. Awards-bait films like the ones you’ve mentioned are written, directed and certainly marketed with the goal of revealing some greater human truth, but mostly they only *seem* to reveal it. The music swells, a tear comes to the protagonist’s eye as they finally understand, etc. etc. Our brains receive the signals that tell us that we are experiencing a moving story, and yet we rarely come away wiser. At best there’s nothing new, nothing we didn’t already understand. At worst we’re given tidy, sanctimonious lessons that are disconnected from real life.The flip side of this is that there are bound to be non-white-POV-centered works that suffer from the same problems, because it’s not a white POV problem, it’s a self-selected bubble problem.At the end of the day, I would kill to see art that is made to change minds instead of reinforce existing beliefs. I would kill to see *cultural criticism* that does the same. I see so little of it out there now.
I do appreciate the calm of this discussion!Hmm. I don’t know if I should try to describe what feels different in our views—because in the main I see and and share some of the concerns you’ve mentioned—as a big thing or a small thing. Whether I’m weighing the same things differently or using a different scale. It may be the latter. Here’s a hopefully useful mixed metaphor:I think we’re less like fish in water trying to get the school to go somewhere, and rather splotches of paint in a pointillist piece trying to make a coherent picture).I think and share many of your critiques of discourse, but I tend to view the bumps and friction as something necessary to maybe a greater degree to more understanding. So the measuring of pieces in detail of how they present things is somewhat a sideline, in my view, since what compels me is individual. So, for example, the commonplace nature of internet trolls feels like a given and unhelpful point in one view, but I bet it’s not just this article that these non-white writers face this kind of reaction. And it’s not just when an article runs. The commonplace is a feature. I mean, you can argue that’s a bubble manifest, but that’s also actual daily living for those critics and not something they selected.I definitely didn’t think you were implying anything with the American/white American descriptors intentionally. I’ve said/written myself into unintended cul de sacs. I brought it up because language is slippery and very fast and sometimes it goes the way it goes. Take out one line and the text says something different. (Maybe fish are the way to go, but now language is the fish? And we’re hitched to it?)I come appreciate a certain amount of friction, and I think it’s part of discourse and has always been, it’s a churn that can reveal at least (and enliven or divide, yes), but for me, focusing on the how of discourse is seeing the forest for the trees. I would add, I don’t the enjoy friction. I just think being in the middle of cultural shifts is going to feel this way, and it’s good to check if the way we’re reading something. To some degree I consider where culture goes above my pay grade, so it doesn’t motivate me too much. At worst, I imagine I’m abdicating the need to care because I think I’m a fish that’s made of paint, so while not unconcerned about discourse, I just don’t think I can affect it too much. In that way, gauging how strident these discourse is noted (and obviously I do comment on it), and it’s the water.Lastly though, I don’t know about representation being a subset of the bigger problem you outline. The conception of even tidy stories is so limited, and I don’t think it expands without the attention paid to how culture is made. Its blunt to check bylines and credits, in manifest in purity tests at worst, and yes, it’s limiting, but good intentions only go so far. And well, back to the paint, it’s the whole picture that needs to look right in the end.
Those points you make about Isle of Dogs are right, but Greta Gerwig’s character was rather shoehorned in there, and since it wasn’t a true story (unlike this), there was no need to include her.
Saying there’s no “need” to put something in a creative work is kind of nonsensical. There’s no need to put anything in a work of art. There’s no need to have a mixed-race cast in a show like Bridgerton, but I’m guessing you’re not arguing for changing that. At any rate, the things in this movie are there for a reason. I excerpted one of the paragraphs from the New Yorker piece; here’s the part I clipped out:Translation is malleable and implicated, always, by systems of power.This theme persists throughout the film, especially in the character of Tracy Walker, the foreign-exchange student who’s been deemed, in some reviews, as a white savior of sorts. Tracy has a hunch that the government is covering up a mass conspiracy. During a rally she cries, “Not fair!” and stamps up to Kobayashi, demanding that her voice be heard. Kobayashi blinks, then revokes her immigration visa, leaving her in tears. (Notably, the children who provide more than just bluster are Atari and the Japanese hacker from Tracy’s newspaper club, both of whom end up saving the day.) If Tracy is a white savior, her role is immediately neutered.
I think there are principles of artistic parsimony, which is what gives rise to Chekov’s gun.I haven’t watched Bridgerton and don’t know much about it.
How does artistic parsimony figure into the IoD character exactly?
You quoted the New Yorker about how her character does add to the film. I disagree with that, regardless of whether she’s a “white savior”. The principle of parsimony would suggest removing a character who does not add artistic value.
He missed the point entirely of the movie and that’s when I realized he was a moron.
“Understandably, viewers might raise eyebrows at a show about Japan told
from the perspective of a white star, a white pilot director, and a
white creator (J.T. Rogers).”A lot of us already had our eyebrows raised at “starring alleged abuser Ansel Elgort”.
It was both for me. My reaction was, “Ooh, ‘Tokyo Vice’? Oh, white dude lead. Ugh, Ansel Elgort.”I dunno, this largely positive review still has me intrigued.
I mean, the white/non-Japanese dude lead is (for once)… kind of the point? The original Tokyo Vice is the memoirs of the first non-Japanese journalist on the staff of the Yomiuri Shinbun. The book is fucking great by the way, I can’t speak for this adaptation. Ansel Elgort sure isn’t a selling point to me, even outside of the allegations. Casting a dude like that is such a typical Hollywood pretty-fication. Jake Adelstein is a toad of a man, no offence. Be honest, HBO, damn…
My eyebrows fell off when the trailer feature ninjas. Yes I know it could just be guys in black clothes wearing ski-masks but it could also be ninjas.
It’s Japan. Of course there’s ninjas. And probably schoolgirls who transform into highly sexualized heroine forms.
They’re actually 500-year-old vampire schoolgirls, Frank, so it’s not weird if they’re sexy.
Wait, is this on netflix? I’m pretty sure ninjas are obligatory in most netflix shows.
Is Netflix secretly owned by the Cannon Group?
Ninjas with katanas slicing through shoji screens in front of samurai armor …and there’s a karaoke bar, sushi, neon, and Hello Kitty, but don’t worry, there’s no cultural tourism here.
Turns out it wasn’t ninjas…just guys in all black.
Its odd that they cast Ansel Elgort to play against Asians as he looks to be 7 ft tall.
Sometimes you need to separate the art from the artist. Everyone commenting here that they’re actually not going to watch a new Michael Mann (!) series on HBO because some little barely-out-of-his-teens dumbass who is an “alleged abuser” was cast in it needs to learn about separating the art from the artist. It’s something you’ve actually been doing your entire lives, particularly with musicians: Name a few musical artists or bands you like or have listened to a lot, and someone can almost definitely find some fucked up shit they or someone in their group did. I’ll go first: I like rap music, and I really enjoyed a young rapper named Bobby Shmurda when he first got big a few years ago. Turns out, he sold crack, is a gang member, and was involved in at least one but possibly several murders, as well as was the “driving force” behind multiple incidents in which his people fired guns indiscriminately into crowds. Most of that is sort of inarguably worse than what Ansel Elgort did. Does that mean I can’t listen to any of his songs anymore? Or, following this logic, I can’t actually listen to nearly any rappers I like, because many of them have done morally wrong things at one point or another? I don’t know. It seems like a standard that’s almost impossible for everyone to adhere to all the time in their actual lives.
For anyone else wondering: “The series will premiere with three episodes on Thursday, April 7, followed by two episodes airing every Thursday until the season finale on April 28.” (via Deadline)I guess they’re taking a page out of Apple TV+’s book? I can’t recall HBO Max doing this for any of their other streaming-only shows, but that does seem better for a noir-ish show.
I think they may be dumping it quick for a few reasons. Ansel Elgort is not a brand anyone wants to be involved in and the show, even if its good, does feel counter to a lot of current Hollywood trends of featuring shows written by and helmed by people of the countries they are about. This feels like one of those 90s “Boy aren’t the Japanese weird” movies. Makes sense given when the book was written but its fairly problematic in tone and style.
Nope, they do the same thing for most of their shows
Not in my experience. They sometimes release two episodes to start but everything I watched on HBO Max was one episode a week after
Oh really? I meant most of the time for HBO Max shows (as opposed to shows that air on HBO and then appear on HBO Max) I thought it had been all episodes dropped at once.
HBO Max schedules are all over the place. I remember they did drop all of Close Enough at once. But recently Peacemaker had 3 episodes in week 1, and then it was 1 ep weekly after that. Minx is 2 episodes weekly (and so was Hacks). Our Flag Means Death was 3, then 3, then 2, then 2…So this isn’t really out of the ordinary.
Ah ok, clearly I haven’t been keeping up with enough of their new releases. I realize now the only example I had was Search Party, the other shows I was thinking of I started late so I thought they all dropped at once.
Makes sense given when the book was written
The book was written in 2009, so it wasn’t like one of those things written about those “inscrutable” and “scheming” Japanese in the 1970s and 1980s. Haven’t seen the show, but the book isn’t one of those type of things at least.
They have been doing that for most of their streaming stuff?
Of all the talented and attractive actors available, why does Elgort keep getting cast? WhoTF is clamoring for more fucking Elgort?!
I am
Well, stop it.
j/k of course. to each their own!
He was cast and this was filmed before the Twitter allegations came out. The public mob has been very pressed about people no longer acting, but playing the same religion/background they are (except when it comes to Disney productions) and ansel is a tall Jewish man just like the author…That’s the only reasoning I got for you.
I just meant in general. I didnt even know about any allegations until the comment section for this article.
Ever since Ansel Egort choked an Icelandic fatty, I refuse to watch any Ansel Egort projects, because he chocked an Icelandic fatty… in the 90s.
Did you not understand the plot of the isle of isle of dogs?
Elgort’s biggest problem is obviously his baggage.His second biggest problem is a lack of charisma or personality. He’s not a bad actor, he’s just a snore.
Man I wanted to love this. I’m a Mann fan but the bottom third or so of his filmography is *rough*, especially when it comes to dialogue and casting, and unfortunately that’s where this show seems to slot in. Definitely more Blackhat than Insider. I’d never heard of Elgort before this but agree with the commenters calling him bland and boring, dude has no screen presence whatsoever and can barely deliver his lines. Honestly I’m not quite sure how they managed to make the show as boring as it is, the subject matter should be way more intense, but it’s just a slog. It’s nice to look at but that’s about it. Disappointed by the show and a bit baffled by the positive review.
Also that Kelly Rowland song came out 12 years after that scene was supposed to be taking place…
Scene takes place in 1999 when the song came out.
The song is “Motivation” and came out in 2011