Lady in the Red Dress by David Yee

Context: This play was written as a direct response to the race-based policies that sought to contain, label, and ostracize members of the Chinese community. On the first blank page of the play text, similar to Marty Chan, Yee writes: “This play is dedicated to the 81,000 Chinese who paid the Head Tax, to the countless number who were kept from their families and loved ones during the Exclusion, to those who died building the foundation of this country only to be disavowed and forgotten”. Moreover, “In the introduction to his published play, Yee recalls the government wanted “a happy collage” representing the Chinese experience in Canada, but instead he decided to provide ‘close-up images sourced from old photographs of the 1907 anti-Asian riots in Vancouver’”

Content: 

Historical Eras and Immigration Policies

The characters are situated in various periods—1923 (when the Chinese Exclusion Act was implemented on July 1st), 1943 (Chinese War Relief Fund), 2006 (the Government of Canada offers acknowledgment for discriminatory policies towards Chinese Canadians)—each corresponding to a key era in Canada’s historical timeline of immigration policies. In the play, the protagonist Max Lochran, in the beginning, speaks on the phone with Linda, a representative of the Chinese Canadian National Council (CCNC), and says: 

“Apology? (nervous laugh) We would prefer the term “acknowledgment” just to clear up any— what is that—inference around liability. But very respectful. Very... remorseful. Something like: We respect blah blah blah, we welcome Chinese yadda yadda and this won’t happen again zippidy do da day. (Yee 5)” 

This scene reiterates the similar terminology used by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in June 2006. 

Government Exploitation and Discrimination

The conversations between the character Mr. Coogan and Tommy Jade, the secondary protagonist, and immigrant, show Mr. Coogan taking $600 from Tommy Jade: $500 as Head Tax for his wife and another $100 for a supposed “intercontinental relocation fee”. Mr. Coogan, as a government official, reminds the audience of the subtle and overt kinds of discrimination that Chinese immigrants face. 

Challenging the “Model Minority” Stigma

Furthermore, Yee also challenges the stereotypes against Asian immigrants as model minorities, where the protagonist Max Lochran, speaking to his boss Hatch, who was equally prejudiced and misogynistic, said:

“They’re taking over. They study harder in school, they work harder [. . .] My wife’s brother! Perfect example: working the rice paddies in China one minute, not a word of English, a quick boat ride later he’s CFO of Merrill-fucking-Lynch [. . .] And I’m not being racist, here, I love Oriental girls! I married one, they’re fucking sexy as hell. (Yee 23, emphasis added)”.

This commentary of Lochran’s imagination of his wife’s brother as a racial stereotype highlights the racial double-bind that was typically experienced by immigrants. “By suggesting that 'they’re taking over,” Lochran seems to be justifying his hatred and distrust of others. By exclaiming that “they study harder in school, they work harder” (emphasis added), the character attempts to stereotype the immigrant as a “model minority,” a tactic often used by members of the dominant culture to essentialize or neutralize this particular group.  

“In 2010, an article published in Maclean’s magazine, originally titled “Too Asian?”, was criticized for perpetuating such stereotypes, claiming that Asian students were prone to 'hard-working' behavior, avoiding social life to succeed in school and beyond. In reaction to the article, scholars and writers contributed to the anthology, “Too Asian?” Racism, Privilege, and Post-Secondary Education.10 At first, the model minority myth seems harmless because it is presented as praise, but in actuality, it is used to scapegoat people and create foundations for fear and distancing. As such, the dialogue in Lady in the Red Dress acts as a satirical prompt, questioning the validity of claims such as they work harder, or they study harder. Yee’s writing unpacks the “model minority” stereotype through a dialogic deconstruction of the roots of an assumed “fixity, as the sign of cultural/historical/racial difference in the discourse of colonialism” (Bhabha, qtd. in Shimakawa 15).”

Challenging Monolithic Cultural Labels

“In another scene, Yee presents an interesting encounter between the primary protagonist, Max Lochran, and an equally important, secondary protagonist, Tommy Jade. Lochran is seen making his way through Chinatown, a cultural portal where he meets “Happy Chan, the one-man radio station” (Yee 44). Hearing his last name, Lochran assumes he knows the DJ’s cultural heritage. Lochran says: 

“Chan. Good, you’re Chinese—that’s good,” at which point Happy exclaims: “Bitch, I’m 1/5 Chinese, 1/7 Japanese, 3/8 Korean, 1/10 Filipino, 2/5 Taiwanese, 1/9 Laotian, 5/16 Mongolian and 3/4 Vietnamese. Chinese ... I’m the whole goddamn Pacific Rim” (44). 

The dialogue in this scene fractures the notion of a monolithic cultural heritage while “point [ing] away from that over-determined history and towards possibilities for self-definition and invention” (Verdecchia). Happy Chan’s response to Max’s simplified “you’re Chinese” seeks to remedy the homogenizing effects of labels thrust upon the Chinese or Asian cultures writ large. It could be said that Happy Chan fulfills the role of an idealized postcolonial immigrant whose bold self-identification “provides [s] ways of reacting to the imperial hegemonies that continue to be manifest throughout the world” (Gilbert and Tompkins 13).”

Reinterpreting Death of a Salesman via Defamiliarization

Furthermore, many of Yee’s characters were changed from the well-known characters in Arthur Miller’s play Death of a Salesman. By figuratively removing Happy, Biff, and Willy from their original setting, Yee uses defamiliarization to expose the audience to familiar characters in name but asks them to witness the lives of different yet equally worthy, estranged characters.