Iconic Scene from Crazy Rich Asians: Game Theory in Mahjong
I’m sure many of you have seen the movie “Crazy Rich Asians” in which Rachel Chu, an economist teaching at NYU, dates a man who she doesn’t know is extremely wealthy. She teaches a Game Theory class and in one of the first scenes, plays poker with a TA. She teaches that her opponent was playing to not lose, rather than playing to win. To summarize the main conflict in the film, Rachel’s boyfriend’s family (especially the mom) doesn’t approve of her because she is Asian American and was raised by a single mother.
In one of the last scenes in the film, Rachel and Eleanor (her boyfriend’s mom) play a game of Mahjong. Mahjong is a traditional Chinese tile-based game in which players begin by receiving 13 tiles. Then they draw and discard tiles until they have a complete hand. Players attempt to form a set of 3-4 matching or sequenced tiles. In the movie, the game is more symbolic. Throughout the game, Rachel explains that Nick will find someone else that his mother approves of, but Eleanor will suffer. When Rachel picks up her fourteenth tile, she contemplates the significance of what it actually means. When Rachel throws out the tile as a discard since she knows Eleanor will pick it up and complete her own hand. Eleanor folds which in the context of the game means she “discarded only safe tiles at the cost of competing her own hand.” (Board Game Geek). She ends up giving tile to Eleanor, letting her win. She reveals the hand that would have one and leaves, leaving Eleanor to contemplate. The symbolic payoffs of the conversation appear to be lose-lose. If Nick (Rachel’s boyfriend) chose Rachel, then he would lose his family. If he chose Eleanor, he might hold a serious grudge against his mother for being the reason he can’t be with Rachel.
A common thing in games like mahjong, poker, chess, or even rock paper scissors is the skill of bluffing and being one step ahead of the other player (psychologically speaking). Although the actual game theory strategy was present in the film, I liked how it integrated the game into something more real and something with greater costs.
What kind of outcome did Rachel’s (symbolic) move product? Was it mutually beneficial? Was it win-lose? Lose-lose? I would love to hear what people think because depending on the way you look at it, there may not be a right answer (depending on your moral judgment).