Core Response #4 (Devin Glenn)

Our readings this week all engage with Ana Lopez's theoretical framework of “Hollywood as ethnographer” in that they seek to explore the effects of representation and misrepresentation of marginalized demographics within the sphere of television production. In particular, “Ethnic/Diasporic/Transnational: The Rise and Fall of ImaginAsian TV” offers some interesting insights into this topic. In his piece, Benjamin Han explores how the misstep of assuming the existence of an Asian-American panethnicity—a major misrepresentation of the multiplicity of identities comprising those who immigrate from South Asian, Southeast Asian, and East Asian countries to the US—that could be united via a shared language (English) led to the demise of ImaginAsian TV. As Han observes, this was a significant issue as it reduced “diverse Asian ethnicities, histories, and immigrant experiences” down to “the umbrella term ‘Asian American’” (282). Taking China as just one example, not many people are aware that this nation is made up of 56 recognized ethnic groups that each speak a different dialect. And while Mandarin might be the official language taught in schools, the majority of Chinese households continue to use their own dialects within domestic spaces. Assuming that a 60-year-old, heterosexual, Chinese viewer from Chengdu would like to watch the exact same thing a 25-year-old, queer, Chinese viewer from Shanghai would be absurd. How much more absurd, then, to assume that nations in similar geographical areas would unanimously seek the same forms of media. This was ImaginAsian TV’s mistake. Additionally, as Han astutely points out, while the news in China may function as a medium which transcends generational (and other identity driven) divides, ImaginAsian TV did not provide their own news outlet.

Though Netflix by no means utilizes the same model as ImaginAsian TV, it is interesting to consider the ways in which Netflix has effectively avoided following ImaginAsian TV’s road to ruin. For one, by marketing themselves as an international streaming service, Netflix has not misrepresented their target demographic because that demographic (at least in theory) includes the entire world. In addition, while ImaginAsian TV’s “lack of financial resources to invest in the development and production of original programming that appealed to the Asian American audience” became a huge, self-imposed stumbling block, Netflix has done an exceptional job at creating their own content (Han 284). Part of their success in this regard can largely be contributed to their willingness to collaborate with global partners. Extraordinary Attorney Woo (2022), Squid Game (2021), and Crash Landing on You (2019) are all examples of lucrative K-dramas officially labeled as Netflix Originals that were outsourced to Korean production companies such as AStory, Siren Pictures Inc., and Studio Dragon (respectively) before then being distributed by Netflix. But not only has Netflix positioned itself as a global creator and distributor, it has also shown that it understands the nuances of cultural difference. One example of this is its inclusion of the popular South Korean TV series Boys Over Flowers (2009) in its catalogue as well as its active involvement in the production of this show’s Chinese adaptation entitled Meteor Garden (2018). Though the narratives of these productions follow roughly the same arc, there are variations that Korean-speaking viewers tend to prefer in Boys Over Flowers and Mandarin-speaking viewers tend to prefer in Meteor Garden. Instead of claiming that those interested in “Asian” content could already access this story through the 2009 K-drama, Netflix created a C-drama with material that best suited the target demographic because the company understood the importance of representation and reception in the process of globalization.