Asian American Antagonists
The Model Minority Myth in Jordan Peele’s Films
Carolyn Tang
Sept 2023
Jordan Peele’s psychological horror film Get Out is popularly known for not being your typical scary movie. The film’s metaphorical horror depicts chilling, real fears and anxieties that made it memorable among audiences. Get Out grossed over $250 million worldwide, with Peele winning an Academy Award for Best Screenplay. Jordan Peele crafted this narrative of racism as a horror film, but in ways that show the terrors of microaggressions rather than blatant horror. Get Out portrays unsettling scenes around the topic of race to convey the real-life terrors of African Americans in America. In the film, the main character Chris and his girlfriend Rose are headed to visit her white parents. Chris is apprehensive about how Rose’s parents will react to him, as she has not told them that he is black, but Rose assures him that they are not racist. A large part of Get Out is innocent at first, as her parents make crass but clueless remarks about their enthusiasm for Obama. However, the film quickly takes a dark turn once it is revealed that Rose and her family transplant people’s brains into the bodies of black victims. Unknowing of the true intentions behind the family get-together, Chris finds himself in uncomfortable positions as the only black character surrounded by whites. Yet, there is a single person of color other than the portrayal of black characters in the film—an Asian character seen briefly in two scenes. Although having a limited presence, the Asian man holds a dominant and crucial role in the depiction of those two tense scenes, which together with the film raise questions about the position of Asian Americans in relation to black and white people, as well as their place in America’s race relations as a whole.
The Asian character is one of the guests at the mostly white cocktail party thrown by Rose’s parents that also secretly functions as a modern-day slave auction. The scene opens with Chris walking into the cocktail party, introduced to a horde of guests. The white guests approach Chris with uncomfortable questions. A retired golf player examines his physique and compares him to Tiger Woods. Another woman touches his bicep and chest, asking Rose about his skills in bed. One man even straightforwardly tells him that “black is in fashion.” Among the white guests, a sole Asian man is the only minority represented at the party other than Logan King, a black man who later is discovered to be a white man possessing a black man’s body. The Asian man introduced as Hiroki Tanaka asks Chris in a heavy Japanese accent, “Do you find that being African American has more advantage[s] or disadvantage[s] in the modern world?” Chris, nervously laughing, responds with “Yeah, I don’t know man.” In a later scene, a portrait of Chris is presented by the auctioneer. Tanaka is seen holding up a bingo card along with the other white guests in a bid for Chris’s body.
(54:17) Hiroki Tanaka holding up a bid card in the auction.
Hiroki Tanaka as an Asian character is portrayed as foreign and participating in white racism. Many viewers have weighed the possibilities of why Peele would portray Tanaka in this way. In a podcast interview, Peele explained, “It helps paint this picture that this society is…far-reaching, this is international. Because of the broken English, he has to ask the question more directly, and it heightens the awkwardness of the situation…What doesn’t make sense: old Japanese dude, billionaire, comes, wants to buy a black body?” (“Jordan Peele Explains Inclusion of Asian Character”). The addition of Tanaka widens the sphere of the film beyond only black and white America since he demonstrates this modern slave trade system having an international network. While Peele does not explicitly address Asian anti-blackness in his inclusion of the character, it can be assumed that he intended to portray the character as engaging in inter-minority racism. What exactly is the nature of this awkwardness that is “heightened” by the character’s presence in the film? Tanaka’s question of whether “the African American experience has more advantages or disadvantages” certainly comes across as insensitive, prejudiced, and no better than the microaggressions of the other white guests, as there is no way to describe the African American experience simply as either an advantage or disadvantage. Peele also stated in his interview that “[The African American experience] is almost the same for all minorities here,” yet it is evident that the decision to include the Asian character communicates unequal positions and conflict among people of color. Tanaka is also the only guest at the party to ask Chris such a direct, philosophical question about the black experience, suggesting that he is perhaps inquiring if being African American has advantages or disadvantages specifically in comparison to his own experience as an Asian man.
In depicting this character as a billionaire and being able to assimilate with whites, Peele uses Tanaka to characterize the concept of Asian Americans as the model minority superior to other racial minorities. “The Myth of the Model Minority Myth” by Arthur Sakamoto et al. explores the origins and questions the legitimacy of the model minority myth. The term “model minority” became popularized in the 1970s to convey the stereotype of Asian Americans becoming economically successful through hard-working traits and emphasizing education. This concept suggests that Asian Americans were “less prone to the sort of social problems that are often thought to be more highly associated with low-income communities such as divorce, single-parent families, poor educational attainment, juvenile delinquency, crime, drug addiction, unemployment, and welfare dependency” (Sakamoto et al.). The presence of the model minority myth is used by conservative commentators who claim that other racial minorities can succeed by following the example of Asian Americans, supporting “the belief that democracy ‘works’ and that the racism about which some ethnic groups complain is the product of their own shortcomings and is not inherent in society” (Sakamoto et al.). These longtime generalized perceptions put distinct labels on the Asian American demographic being perceived as a prosperous and privileged minority. Hiroki Tanaka, as the only Asian and non-black person of color in the entire film, symbolically represents the view that the entire demographic can generally be assumed as occupying this higher position in comparison to all races other than non-Hispanic whites. His demonstrated economic success and direct participation in racism along with his white peers supports the view that Asian Americans are more accepted than other minorities and can more easily assimilate into American life.
Like Get Out, Jordan Peele’s recent film Nope similarly includes a single Asian character among people of color and whites who, like Tanaka, comes from an acclaimed background. Korean American character Ricky “Jupe” Park in Nope is a former child actor who has a respectable career as a show and amusement park business owner. However, his position as an Asian man is not distinctly demonstrated. His race is not discernibly acknowledged in ways other than appearance, and no characters in the film make suggestions about his identity. Park’s relationship to his race is not depicted in ways that demonstrate him as an “ethnic” character, such as a distinguishable heavy accent. Instead, his identity as an Asian man is unconventionally portrayed in an exceedingly American way. Though unusual for the film to depict an Asian American as the typically white American role of a cowboy in media, the choice to do so speaks to long-held attitudes of Asian Americans holding positions of superiority as minorities by conforming to whiteness. He played the child of a white family in his acting career, and in the present time, is shown only wearing Western costume wear, accompanied by his Southern, white wife. In ways similar to Hiroki Tanaka, “Jupe” Park upholds a status of being able to assimilate into white America that the other characters of color do not have. African American central characters OJ and Emerald Haywood struggle with the decline of their family business, and Hispanic side character Angel Torres has ample technical knowledge but a relatively unskilled job. With Park publicly affirming his “Americanness” through the archetypal Western showman of a Wild West-themed amusement park, Nope indicates the presence of Asian privilege in ways more subtle to Get Out. His accomplishments as a businessman and former child actor are also emblematic of the model minority myth through his economic success. Park is the only person of color who did not survive the UFO attacks during the climax of the film. His demise of being eaten by the UFO was caused by his intentions to profit off it for his show, no different than the deaths of two white characters. An unnamed paparazzo and cinematographer Antlers Holst similarly met their downfalls in attempts to capture footage of the UFO for profit. In those desires for revenue, Park and the white characters capitalize on OJ and Emerald’s business. Park acts as a financial patron to OJ and Emerald as a customer of their horses, exploiting and monetizing the horses to promote his show. The paparazzo shows up uninvited, intruding on OJ and Emerald’s ranch, and Holst agrees to help OJ and Emerald film footage to later betray them for acquiring his own footage. Analogous to the plot of Get Out, the narrative of Nope centers around Asian and white characters who attempt to exploit other minorities for personal gain.
(1:07:16) Ricky “Jupe” Park presenting his show, the “Star Lasso Experience”
Though Asian Americans are one of the largest growing minority groups in the United States, they are rarely represented in Hollywood films and are constricted to stereotypical roles. Asian American actors rarely act as characters who are complex and three-dimensional, but rather, find themselves in the roles of one-dimensional and static characters. Males are less represented than females in Hollywood films and shows, typically portrayed as “the quiet nerd, sexy doctor, martial arts expert, or the villain” (Le). These typical portrayals impact the way that mainstream media views Asian Americans. Limited representation and prevalent stereotypes encourage those outside the Asian community to believe that these exaggerated depictions of archetypal characters are true. The additional emphasis on the model minority myth in media causes other race groups to view Asian Americans in ways that appear to be favorable on the surface but are still held with negative attitudes and microaggressions. In addition to Asian Americans being forced to conform to the model minority stereotype, Asian American men feel pressure to adhere to white masculine values (Le). The depictions of both Hiroki Tanaka and Ricky “Jupe” Park follow the model minority paradigm through their economic successes and ability to assimilate with whites, as well as taking advantage of other minorities. Tanaka is portrayed in an eminently stereotypical role of a foreigner with a heavy accent and as a villain archetype. Though Ricky “Jupe” Park is portrayed less as a stereotypical Asian character, he visibly demonstrates an adherence to the white masculine image of a Western showman. Tanaka and Park’s exploitation of African American characters reinforces the belief of the model minority myth that Asian Americans hold positions of superiority over other racial minorities.
Obtaining such limited representation in media, Asian Americans hold a complicated position as an ethnic minority. Daphna Oyserman and Izumi Sakamoto, in “Being Asian American: Identity, Cultural Constructs, and Stereotype Perception,” discuss the paradoxical nature of Asian Americans being considered both an illegitimate minority and a model minority. Some may argue that they are not a minority, as they are not underrepresented in economic or academic classifications. Additionally, Asian Americans “appear to be more socially integrated” since rates of intermarriage are higher than other ethnic minority groups (Oyserman and Sakamoto). At the same time, however, the presence of the model minority acknowledges economic indicators of the success of Asian Americans in mainstream society. Though a popular generalization, the model minority myth is misleading in terms of Asian Americans inhabiting a similar socioeconomic status as whites. The over-education view by Hirschman and Wong disputes this, as “Asian Americans approach socioeconomic parity with whites because of their overachievement in educational attainment.” In other words, Asian Americans can achieve similar average earnings as whites, but only due to Asian Americans having higher educational attainments. The labor market is discriminatory in which Asian Americans must pursue more education and work more hours to reach the same socioeconomic accolades as whites. Those who did not pursue more education or work more hours exhibited income inequalities. Hirschman and Wong state, “If Asians experienced the same process of stratification as whites, their educational credentials would shift their occupational and earning levels substantially above those of the majority population.” From their successes, it can easily be assumed that Asian Americans can reach the same levels of economic success as whites, yet the disparities in the required additional amount of education and working hours are not visibly acknowledged. As Claire Jean Kim and Taeku Lee state, “the model minority myth functions ideologically to reproduce racial hierarchy in America by essentializing and homogenizing Asian American experiences, exaggerating Asian American prosperity and downplaying Asian American needs, arousing black resentment towards Asian Americans, delegitimating black demands for social programs, and legitimating racially discriminatory arrangements” (634). Such a misleading and untrue sentiment creates inter-minority conflict, causing other races to believe that Asian Americans can become easily incorporated into American life without having to face inequities that other racial minorities experience.
In response to the subjective and ambiguous position of where Asian Americans stand in the U.S. among other race groups, the racialization of Asian Americans has been attempted to be defined within America’s black-and-white binary. Janine Kim discusses an article on affirmative action by Frank H. Wu, who writes, “racial groups are conceived of as white, black, honorary whites, or constructive blacks” (qtd. in J. Kim). Janine Kim elaborates that the word “honorary” denotes privilege and “constructive” denotes characteristics of oppression. As Asian Americans are perceived as both “honorary whites in anti-affirmative action arguments” and “constructive blacks for the positions of school segregation or antimiscegenation laws,” their unclear position within the black and white paradigm communicates both privilege and oppression (J. Kim).
This proposition of race specificity, however, is misleading in that the position of the Asian American race cannot be defined linearly in comparison to the experiences of blacks and whites. Instead, the model minority myth as directly depicted by Hiroki Tanaka in Get Out gives an examination into the racial triangulation theory, investigating the characteristics rather than direct comparisons that contribute to differences among racial groups. Racial triangulation states that the interactions between Asian, black, and white communities are “an interaction of social processes serving to reinforce the political structure and status quo in the United States” (Gushue et al. 331). Blacks have been denigrated as inferior while Asian Americans have been denigrated more often as outsiders or aliens (C. Kim). Empirical studies demonstrated that more white than black people had favorable views of the positions of Asian Americans regarding wealth, family commitment, and nonviolence. However, white participants who believed in the model minority myth were more likely to treat Asian Americans as foreigners and hold general negative attitudes towards them. Claire Kim states, “Racial triangulation reconciled the urgent need for labor with the imperative of continuing White dominance. By positioning Asian immigrants as superior to Blacks yet permanently foreign and unassimilable with Whites, racial triangulation processes fashioned a labor force that would fulfill a temporary economic purpose without making any enduring claims upon the polity.” The racial triangulation theory contradicts the common inquiry of whether Asian Americans fall closer to blacks or whites.
Instead, racial triangulation suggests that they do not fall on either side, or in between them, but rather are set within a triangle of race relations. Whites having more favorable attitudes toward the socioeconomic status of Asian Americans is reflected by Tanaka being able to be assimilated into the white cocktail party as the only person of color not possessed. However, the misconception that Asian Americans can become homogenized with whites is disproved by being viewed as foreigners, despite their common reputation of being economically successful described by the model minority myth—a paradox reflected in Park’s assimilated role as the Wild West antagonist to his black neighbors. What awkwardness really underlies the presence of Park and Tanaka in these films? As Peele noted in his interview, perhaps Tanaka’s heavy Japanese accent in broken English simply serves to make his question about the African American experience even more awkward—but his presence at the party also functions to perpetuate the awkward liminality of Asian American triangulation, placing Hiroki Tanaka and Ricky “Jupe” Park everywhere and nowhere at once, lost somewhere between the recurring ideas of Asian Americans’ status as both model minority and invasive foreigner, simultaneously celebrated and feared.