Take Out

Directors Sean Baker and Shih-Ching Tsou outdo themselves with their tale which is about much more than the sum of its parts. Excellent performances from professionals and non-professionals highlight this story of one young immigrant's struggle to survive in a country that doesn't care what state he is in, they just want their deliveries on time. Please seek this out and see what can be done with no money and a lot of talent. This story could be done 'Hollywood' style, with its crucial deadlines and world pressing in on Ming Ding(the lead), but it doesn't need to rely on overmanipulative scores, frenetic editing or artificial suspense..the way it's laid out will keep you on edge as it is.

From the extras, it seems that the makers were absolutely fascinated by the idea of recreating routine food deliveries in New York.

Plus some details of cooking.

They even cut our an opening showing more about the gangsters, available as a Deleted Scene for the disk.

I really could not share their enthusiasm. A lot too much of it. And we could have been shown all sorts of other things that were just as worthy.

That said, I liked it, despite liberal use of the fast-forward switch. The characters were very believable. One sympathized. And it mocked some common ideas - several explained how they faked a political motive when they just wanted to make more money than the could back home.

This film has no frills, but it doesn't need any. It's redolent of the authentic gritty milieu of a Chinese illegal who's got to get together $800 before the night's over to pay loan sharks by borrowing and delivering for a Chinese take out shop perched on the cusp between Harlem's projects and gentrified buildings all on a June day of pouring down rain. There's no time to breathe. The people are real. The external customers who come into the shop (some of them jokesters) are aspiring actors, but the apartment dwellers are opening their own doors. The lady taking the orders who they call Big Sister (Lee Wang-Thye) is the actual employee of the working restaurant that's in function in the location implied as the film is being shot. The rain is real. The anxiety feels real. What more do you need? Ming Ding (Charles Jang) is a pimply young father with a child he's never seen. He gets waked up early in the dormitory he sleeps in to get threatened and smashed with a hammer. The two men working for the loan shark take $800 he has saved and demand another $800 at the end of the day.

At work, Ming Ding is shyly noncommittal but his co-delivery guy Young (Jeng-Hua Yu), who was where he was four years earlier, worms out of him that he's in debt and lets Ming Ding take both their deliveries that day to raise his take. The essence of this film is that given the threatening situation, the viewer identifies all the more with the protagonist precisely because of his blankness and ineloquence. It is an aspect of his helplessness. And when Ming Ding makes his many deliveries he does not speak, even to smile and say "Thank you very much" as Young comically teaches him to do so he might get a better tip. He speaks no English, and this is a further dimension of his helplessness. The viewer too is helpless. We can't really see the money being exchanged clearly enough at the deliveries to know when Ming Ding is getting a tip and when he isn't. What we know is that the patrons are rarely pleasant and always hasty. For them, above all Ming Ding is a non-person.

Some who've commented on this feisty little film insist the plot "hook" is a formality and the aim is to depict the illegal-immigrant life or the low-level Chinese restaurant of New York City. That ignores that the detail is monotonous and repetitious; its effectiveness comes from suspense over whether Ming Ding will put together enough money. The uncertainty is the most essential aspect of the atmosphere and the most realistic.

In fact contemporary verismo or not, this is very much like the turn-of-the-century short stories of O.Henry, which often refer to the lives of the dirt-poor new immigrants of New York of an earlier era. Like many O. Henry characters, Ming Ding lives on the edge of life and death, poverty and exhaustion, and the story hinges on a last minute twist, a couple of them; the luck of the draw, a stupid mistake, a sudden access of kindness from an unexpected quarter. Of such things lives on the edge are made. Yes, we see the first twist coming, and the second one too is well set up, but that's how life-or-death short stories have to work. In this kind of story, whether by O. Henry or Baker and Tsou, the almost too tight construction of the narrative and the desperate exigencies of the protagonist's situations are friends to each other, and Baker and Tsou, who met at the New School, have made a little marvel of economy. Their scenario was dictated by the newcomers they encountered and Tsou, a Chinese speaker, spoke to everybody and even where the undocumented ones were concerned about anonymity, they weren't tight-lipped like Ming Ding. Tsou would like this film to be seen in China to show people the life of immigrants in America is much harder than they may think.

Seen at Quad Cinema June 13, 2008, where Baker and Tsou were present for a Q&A afterward. They are excited that five years after making the film, they are getting the audience contact of theatrical distribution.

Sean Baker has made some really stunning micro budget films in recent years. Both his much lauded "Tangerine" and less known but equally excellent "Starlet" were wonderful comedy- dramas, artfully telling takes of those normally overlooked by mainstream cinema.

"Take Out" is not quite as strong as those later works, but is still well worth seeing.

This verite style study of a Chinese food deliveryman's desperate rush to earn $800 to pay off the loan sharks that helped pay his way to the US has a nifty sense of almost documentary realism. The acting is very real and understated (by a mixed cast of actors and non-pros), and the tension level is high.

I didn't have quite as strong a positive reaction as most of the critics for a few reasons. First, while avoiding movie clichés for the most part, a couple of key 'twists' are broadcast a mile off, dampening their impact. Also, by making his lead character such a cipher (he not only doesn't speak English, but seems inward and withdrawn even among his fellow Chinese), that it's hard to build up a connection with him as a character. Yes, we can pity his plight, but I wanted to understand what was going on in his head. Also, the shaky-cam shooting style occasionally called more attention to itself then I think it was intended to.

It reminded me a bit in tone of Ramin Bahrani's terrific "Man Push Cart", but for me that early work had a little more poetry and richness.

None-the-less, an intelligent, well-meaning micro budget film (it looks like it was shot on regular definition video), and - given my fondness for Baker's more recent films - I'll certainly go back for another look.

Apart from being one of the best films about NYC struggling and still fresh in 2025, more than 20 years later, what struck me was how old fashion technology and the sense of reality this film brings make it so hard to reproduce nowadays.

It was shot on mini DV. Those camera had small sensors. One of its many downsides is the flat no blurry background image. Blurry background is "cinematic". But in Take Out, things have to be in focus, they look much better non cinematic. All the textures, objects, messy kitchen, the labour. We see everything, it's all in focus. It's a very important piece of the narrative. The camera limitations, as times passes, proved to be the best approach possible for a film like this.

This unique look is kind of lost in time. Much more than shooting film, because people are actually shooting film a lot these days. Those mini DV camera movements are almost impossible to be achieved with modern cameras - iPhones included - on a one man band system. How ironic is the fact that this digital cheap look is more unique than celluloid.