An Analysis of “Who Killed Chin?”

Questions

1. If Ronald Ebens and Michael Nitz were charged with manslaughter, it means the world knows who killed Chin. How then is the title of the documentary “Who Killed Vincent Chin” relevant to the context?
2. How vital is the use of close-up in the documentary?
3. Why is racism a central theme in this documentary?

Discussion

Relevance of the title “Who Killed Vincent Chin”

            The documentary has different interview parts that involve Ronald Ebens at 6.00 minutes; Ebens confidently states that he holds no racial reservations against any race (Choy & Tajima, 1987). Ebens categorically states that he hates nobody. The statement contradicts a recollection of the crime scene during Chin’s brutal murder. The guard flashbacked the incident stating that Ebens was intentional when he swung the baseball bat toward the victim. In a different interview scene, Ebens and his wife seat in their living room and remain unshaken by the events that led to Chin’s death. Lack of remorse intimidated the filmmakers making them question why he committed the atrocity (Choy & Tajima, 1987).  The title intimates the oblivion that stems from the interview and media representation of the murderer who was later convicted of manslaughter.

The Use of Close-Up

            The filmmakers use the close-up film technique on various occasions to share the mood of the scene or story and the emotions of the communicators. The first close-up scene happens at 0.39 featuring Helen Novantry, Ebens neighbor expressing her disgust with the murder (Choy & Tajima, 1987). At 1.38, the film has a close-up coverage of Chin’s mother, which depicts her sorrowful and aged face because it captured the emotions of her reaction to the sad news. Several other close-up shots continue after 4:35 most of which cover Chin, his mother, neighbors, and witnesses (Choy & Tajima, 1987). The close-up shots produce the emotions of fear, pain, repulsion, and empathy depending on the context of communication. Conversely, the close-up coverage of Ebens’ face shows a lack of remorse and indifference over the incident.

Racism

            The controversy generated by the film draws interest in racism. Asian-American relations and immigration surface in the film. A fascinating part of the film is that white majorities who witnessed the vice condemned Ebens. The film shifts the dialogue on racism since deeper underlying issues emerge (Choy & Tajima, 1987). Race relations dominate the film, as commentators and witnesses come from diverse backgrounds. The nature of the case was equally contentious making racism a vital part of the film. Hsu (2022) reinforces the idea that racism continues to manifest as evidenced by George Floyd’s case.

“The Many Afterlives of Vincent Chin”

“He wasn’t an engineer, as was often reported, or a high-achieving exemplar of the model-minority myth; he was a draftsman who had gone to vocational school” (Hsu, 2022). The quote shares a different narrative about Ebens than the perception most would hold about a Caucasian man working for an American multinational. The film portrays the deceased as an accomplished Asian who was killed by a man who depicted a good family life and had an enviable job (Hsu, 2022). The paradigm shift gives a fascinating perception of the film, which proves that race does not define success. According to Hsu, “Chin defied stereotype” because he achieved more than was anticipated in a community that treated some racial minorities repressively.

References

Choy, C., & Tajima, R. (Director) (1987). Who killed Vincent Chin [Film] [PBS] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnrxk-KmIq8

Hsu, H. (June 23, 2022). The many afterlives of Vincent Chin. https://www.newyorker.com/news/essay/the-many-afterlives-of-vincent-chin