Deeper

When the pandemic hit, and reality settled in that life would be isolated and mostly inside, Grammy winner Anderson .Paak found himself on the outside looking in, in a way he didn’t anticipate. “I was the odd man out. My son was 8, and BTS took over the whole house,” .Paak explained in an interview with The Times at his WeHo lounge, Andy’s. “It was a K-pop storm. Before that, me and my son were bonding off of my music.”

.Paak’s son, Soul Rasheed, and his now ex-wife originally from Korea, Jaylyn Chang, had become obsessed with K-pop alongside much of America, which reminded .Paak of the intensity of Beatlemania. Black American music influenced the birth of a new style, which formed and expanded across oceans, then returned to the U.S. and exploded. This effect in the .Paak household was palpable, causing Soul and Chang to deeply bond in a new way. .Paak himself, as a soul, R&B and hip-hop aficionado, was tapped into the source, but not the reinterpreted subject. So he had to find a way in.

Soul, at the time, like many 8-year-olds, had also become obsessed with becoming a YouTuber. Besides .Paak’s music, the father-and-son duo had also previously connected over humor, so .Paak started there. They began with funny skits and eventually fused them with BTS dances. Soon, there were even videos featuring them comedically educating each other about their individual music tastes. “I loved it,” .Paak recalled, getting lost in the memory. “I was getting to know him more, and he was getting to know me. My mom would always say, ‘It’s one thing for your kids to love you, but it’s another to share things you’re interested in.’ It wasn’t like I was being Anderson .Paak, I was just Dad.”

“I was getting to know him more, and he was getting to know me,” .Paak said of bonding with his son, Soul.

(Carlin Stiehl / For The Times)

Through this exploration and the realization of a potential continued familial bond, a story idea emerged, then a treatment for a K-pop-centered film that .Paak would direct and he and Soul would both star in. .Paak then began directing a slew of music videos as the pandemic began to fade, building a portfolio and gaining experience in the medium. But he could start to sense Soul’s interest fading as time passed. After a few failed pitch attempts, .Paak urgently enlisted the help of one of his oldest friends and fellow entertainer, Jonnie “Dumbfoundead” Park, who brought .Paak and the idea to Stampede Ventures.

“The pitch was from an idea that Anderson had, and [to introduce it], we showed them this TikTok that he had with his son,” Park recalled over Zoom. “Anderson was like, ‘Do you know anything about BET, son?’ And [Soul] was like, ‘No, but I know BTS.’ Then they were just going back and forth, arguing about BET and BTS. That was literally the deck, [us saying] we would take that energy and put it into a two-hour film. They loved it. As soon as we walked out of the office, Anderson looked over like, ‘Are we greenlit?!’ They just understood it, the whole intergenerational, intercultural element of Black and Korean.” Stampede combined forces on the project with Live Nation Studios and .Paak’s debut feature “K-Pops!” was off to the races.

It’s important to note that .Paak is himself Black and Korean. His mother was adopted from Korea by a SoCal Black American military family and .Paak’s father was also a Black military officer. Thus, while his mother was born in Korea, he was raised almost entirely within a Black cultural space. .Paak didn’t experience much direct exposure to Korean culture until his 20s, when he met Chang at the Musicians Institute in Hollywood. As an immigrant directly from Korea, Chang showed him the fortitude of structure amid her community. He was also taken by their inherent family value system. “In Korean households, you stay in the house until you get older so you can take care of your parents, and your parents can help take care of the kids,” .Paak explained. “There’s an infrastructure that’s worked out. Also, Korean food is important, as is learning the language. I was drawn to that. My son didn’t eat anything outside of Korean food for so long, and he’s just now getting into tacos.”

.Paak then further explored his Korean side through a burgeoning friendship with Park, which happened a bit later, after Chang had already given birth to Soul. Park introduced .Paak to K-town-based Korean culture through their shared music scene. “The people that came from K-town had a lot of Latino and Black influences as well,” .Paak remembered. “There was a little more of a melting pot, and it was more urban. But in a similarly communal way [to Koreans from Korea], they were all hanging out in K-town with other Korean friends. They’d drink soju, and go to after-hours where you had to have somebody Korean with you.”

While .Paak had some opportunities in adulthood to grasp a bit of his Korean heritage, in “K-Pops!,” through his main character BJ, he also got to actualize what his mother may have missed. In the film, BJ, a failed karaoke bar R&B musician, gets a lucky chance to go to Korea and be the drummer for a popular K-pop competition series. There, he bumps into his estranged ex-girlfriend’s son, Tae Young (played by Soul), who is competing on the show. He then finds out that the kid is his. While a messy transition ensues, BJ and Tae Young eventually get to galavant around Korea and work together to try to win the competition. Through this exploration, BJ finds out he can thrive in Korea while still holding onto his Blackness. .Paak’s mother’s dive back into her roots had a different result. “My mom went abroad and spent a year in Korea, but when she went there, she just didn’t like it,” .Paak explained. “In the movie, initially, BJ doesn’t really have any connection to his Korean side and doesn’t really care to know, but then he finds a bridge.” That bridge is music.

Actor Yvette Nicole Brown, who in “K-Pops!” plays BJ’s mother, proclaimed over Zoom that, “Everything about the film and the music in it is Blasian, every culture is celebrated and massaged and made into something beautiful.” .Paak made a concerted, intentional effort to explore both the Black and Korean sides of K-pop in two scenes.

The first is an early breakdown initiated by Soul’s character, Tae Young, who explains the structured roles of a K-pop group, which may be fun for superfans and educational for laypeople to the genre. The next is a winding presentation by BJ to Tae Young about the influence of Motown groups like the Jackson 5 and boy bands like New Edition on the momentum of K-pop’s rise. It’s particularly poignant because it is all shot at a record store on the streets of Korea, where .Paak explained he actually found the records he was referencing. “There’s nothing wrong with people doing their interpretation of Black music, as long as you pay homage and as long as you respect it and take care of it,” .Paak declared. “Because [if you do], then they’ll take care of you, but the moment you don’t, you’ll see what happens … I wanted to explain that history because that’s how I saw it.”

Real-life father and son, Anderson .Paak, left, and Soul Rasheed, co-star in “K-Pops!”

(Jake Giles Netter)

”K-Pops!” has as much of who .Paak and Soul are as father and son as he could fit in. There are appearances by legacy Black artists like Earth, Wind & Fire, as well as K-pop stars like Vernon from Seventeen. There are original songs co-written and co-produced by .Paak and musician Dem Jointz, that feature K-pop fused with soul and funk, one of which Tae Young performs as his finale competition number (soundtrack arriving soon). The film was shot in both L.A. and Korea and provided ample time for bonding (especially during scenes filled with off-the-cuff humor) that .Paak envisioned from the beginning. Yet still, at the time they were about to shoot, .Paak almost couldn’t get Soul on board because he had turned 11 and wasn’t as into K-pop or acting comedically anymore; he insisted he was instead “into Slipknot.”

The duo did find their footing, though, and executed a winding story that centers on their connection. As a burgeoning teenager in 2024, Soul went with his father to the world premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival, along with a plethora of Korean relatives from his mom’s side. .Paak anxiously awaited their full reaction to the culmination of his quest for a deeper bond.

“Everybody really enjoyed it,” .Paak remembered, relieved. “[Soul] was like, ‘I’m proud of you, Dad.’ I asked him, ‘You think you would ever do part two?’ He was like, ‘Nah, I don’t think acting is my passion, but I’ll never forget those moments … You know what? On second thought, it depends on the script.’ But I think he’s really proud of it. I think it’s something like, when he gets older, he’ll see how special it is as well. But yeah, he didn’t say it’s cringe.”

“K-Pops!” has its L.A. premiere on Tuesday and debuts in select theaters Friday.

WILLIAMSBURG, Va. — In Waco, Tex., Richard A. Gephardt kicked off his Super Tuesday campaign by deriding Michael S. Dukakis as the Democratic presidential candidate with the most money and “the least message.”

The next day, in Deerfield Beach, Fla., Dukakis castigated Gephardt as “the prince of darkness” for appealing to the angry side of America with his complaints about unfair foreign economic competition.

In part, the two candidates generally deemed the front-runners in the Democratic race, who came here last week for a debate before the cream of the Southern Democratic Party, are flinging rhetorical brickbats at each other because of the 20-state treasure-trove of delegates up for grabs in Super Tuesday’s primaries and caucuses.

Another Struggle

But Massachusetts Gov. Dukakis, the winner of the New Hampshire primary, and Missouri Rep. Gephardt, the winner of the Iowa caucuses, are locked in another struggle as well, one that transcends even as rich a prize as Super Tuesday. At stake is nothing less than the heart, mind and future of the Democratic Party.

And that deeper struggle has injected a bitter, biting element into the campaign because the cleavages between the two leaders are sharply drawn along class, cultural and regional lines.

To put the matter in starkly simple terms, Dukakis, with his core support in the suburbs and among upscale city dwellers, reflects the beliefs and values of the party’s Eastern liberal Establishment, and the interests of the nation’s thriving bicoastal economy.

Gephardt, hailing from America’s economically hard-hit hinterland with his Missouri legacy of Harry S. Truman populism, is striving to speak to and for working-class voters. Such voters have been the foundation of classic Democratic majorities of the sort the party has seldom managed to assemble in recent years.

“Nothing is ever 100% black and white in politics,” says Southern pollster Claibourne H. Darden Jr. As he suggests, the realities of the immediate battle for votes are so complex that the underlying struggle may not be precisely reflected in the election returns across Dixie or the rest of the nation.

“But there’s a real socioeconomic division here,” Darden says. “Gephardt is after the ‘Bubba’ vote–the good old boys, the middle-middle section of the Democratic Party. And Dukakis is the darling of the educated liberals and the suburbanites.”

In a sense, their battle is a sequel to the 1984 contest between Walter F. Mondale and Gary Hart, in which those two argued essentially over whether the Democratic Party needed to change. Although Mondale won the nomination, he lost the election and thus the argument: Virtually everyone entered the 1988 campaign agreeing that the Democratic Party needed to change.

The battle between Dukakis and Gephardt will help to settle the remaining question: In what new direction will the party now move?

Of course, Dukakis and Gephardt have to reckon with two other major rivals in the Southern contests–the Rev. Jesse Jackson and Tennessee Sen. Albert Gore Jr.

Jackson is expected to run very well here Tuesday, perhaps capturing more states than any of his rivals. But most analysts doubt that he can sustain that success outside the South on the scale needed to make him a serious threat for the nomination.

As for Gore, few believe the only white Southerner in the race can do well enough in his home region to make up for his lack of achievement in the early contests elsewhere.

Meanwhile, what seems to be happening in the competition between Gephardt and Dukakis is that their debate is redefining the governing grammar of the Democratic Party, creating a new syntax in which the definitive phrases are not “liberal” and “conservative” but rather “change” and “pain.”

To a considerable extent the dividing line between Dukakis’ supporters and Gephardt’s backers is based on the degree to which any group of voters feels hurt by current economic conditions and prospects and the urgency with which they want to alter those conditions.

By using his argument against unfair trade practices as an expression of the case for broader change, “Gephardt has found a clean way to tap into the anger of voters who feel the circumstances of the economy are working against them,” said Paul Tully, former political director of Dukakis’ campaign.

Last January, just before the Iowa caucuses, Gephardt defined his populism in the rhetoric of Franklin D. Roosevelt, whom he described as “the greatest populist of the century.” Recalling F.D.R.’s celebrated vow to crush “the forces of greed and privilege,” Gephardt called that dictum “the legacy and the life force” of the Democratic Party.

Listen to Gephardt 10 days ago at the Jefferson-Jackson Day dinner in Atlanta, where he warned 3,500 Democrats that America was in decline and demanded change to reverse the tide.

“I want to put a Democrat in the White House in 1988 so we can make America move and soar again,” he declared. “But to move in that direction we must change America in fundamental ways. That’s what the election in 1988 is all about.

Must Stand for Change

“A lot of people don’t want change,” Gephardt warned. “Strong forces resist change for a whole lot of different reasons. You must understand that if you want to change America the only way it will happen is if you stand for change in the Tuesday, March 8, primary.”

This message, says Tully, has visceral appeal to “those Democrats who live in places where the economy is threatening or not encouraging.” Moreover, Gephardt’s insistence on tougher trade policies, denounced as “protectionist’ by the well-educated middle-class supporters of Dukakis, appears to strike a responsive chord among the blue-collar workers Gephardt is trying to reach.

For many of them, political professionals point out, the idea that it is time for the United States to get back at foreign competitors has not only economic significance but also patriotic resonance.

Because of this, many Democratic politicians believe this issue could help win back former Democrats who have turned away from the party and supported Ronald Reagan in recent years because they believed that Democratic national leaders were namby-pambies in dealing with foreign nations.

“The trade issue is a metaphor for the sense that people have that they have lost control of their economic destiny, for the sense that many people feel that ‘my standard of living is slipping, we’re drifting and we’re slipping,’ ” says Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.), a Gephardt supporter.

Dukakis is for change too, Tully asserts. But the Massachusetts governor is a self-decribed optimist. And the kind of change for which he argues is more businesslike and less impassioned, more methodical and less fundamental than what Gephardt preaches.

“It is more of a roll up your sleeves and get on with the work approach,” Tully says. “And it appeals to people who want change but who have a lower level of anxiety than Gephardt’s constituents.”

Central to Dukakis’ optimistic view and to his message of moderate change is the economic recovery in Massachusetts, for which he claims a large share of credit and which he seems to argue has almost unlimited relevance elsewhere in the nation.

“Over the last dozen years I’ve seen the Massachusetts economy turn around and come back strong,” Dukakis declared in a speech last fall on economic policy. “And over the past few months, campaigning around this country, I’ve seen example after example of the kind of strength and determination and spirit it will take to get our fiscal house in order and restore our competitiveness abroad.”

If Gephardt seems to respond to anger and frustration among the voters, Dukakis appears to try to smooth over grievances.

When the Democrats hold their nominating convention in July, Dukakis told the Atlanta dinner audience that Gephardt also addressed, “I hope we as a party will have learned the lessons of division. Let’s make 1988 a year for the promise of opportunity and not the politics of resentment.”

Ultimately, the argument between these two points of view will be settled at the ballot box.

And ironically, the circumstances of these two candidates and the special nature of those who normally vote in Democratic primaries suggests that–as in 1984–the apostle of fundamental change could be hard-pressed to win the nomination, while the moderate could lose in November.

More Electable

A good many Democrats who have reservations about Gephardt’s policies, particularly his views on trade, are nonetheless interested in the congressman’s candidacy because they think he would be more electable than Dukakis in November.

“Dukakis’ message is competence in domestic policy and the rule of law in foreign policy,” says Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Panorama City), one of the House members who–along with many leading Southern politicians–gathered here at Williamsburg for a meeting of the Democratic Leadership Council, a group of moderate-to-conservative office holders. “And, frankly, I’m not convinced it’s a winning message.

“The Gephardt message is very good for blue-collar workers,” continues Berman, who will not decide who to back until after Super Tuesday. “It could help us get back people we have been having trouble holding in general elections, people who were attracted to Reagan.”

Other Democrats are blunter in their assessment: “Dukakis looks like another 49-state blowout to me,” says a high-level Southern labor leader who declined to be identified. He thinks that Dukakis could not draw any significant amount of votes beyond what Mondale received in 1984, when he carried only Minnesota and the District of Columbia.

By contrast, this official believes that Gephardt would “bring the white middle-class and blue-collar vote in the South back to the Democrats. We have to be a party that’s not just interested in redistributing wealth, that’s also interested in helping the middle class.”

But for all Gephardt’s potential assets in the fall, some think he may never have the chance to cash in on them because of the practical realities governing Democratic primary politics, particularly in the South.

“(Dukakis’) is an elitist campaign,” Martin Linsky, a public policy specialist at Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, says. “But the primary in the South is a setup for him. He gets the suburban, liberal upper-middle-class vote.” And, as Linsky points out, these are the voters most likely to go to the polls on Tuesday.

Gephardt Might Struggle

Moreover, while Gephardt’s message of change gives him much broader potential appeal than Dukakis, many professionals believe that without the financial and organizational resources Dukakis has amassed, Gephardt will have to struggle to get his potential supporters to the ballot box.

And Gephardt’s ability to win votes by emphasizing basic differences from Dukakis is complicated somewhat by the fact that neither man’s origins quite match his current billing.

As Gephardt’s rivals never tire of pointing out, while serving as chairman of the House Democratic Caucus he was widely considered to be a fixture of the congressional hierarchy. And the legislative connections he fashioned with lobbyists for business and labor have helped finance his presidential campaign–to the tune of more than $350,000, or about 6% of his total contributions.

“Dick, don’t give us that Establishment stuff when you’re out there taking their money,” Dukakis snapped at Gephardt during the debate here last week. And the Dukakis campaign released a negative commercial later in the week attacking Gephardt on just the same grounds.

For his part, Dukakis entered politics sounding more like a neoliberal than a traditional liberal. And even today his views embody his natural frugality and his abounding faith in the efficacy of high technology and rational management.

Dukakis campaign chairman Paul Brountas, who has known the governor all his political life, says: “Certainly Michael Dukakis is a progressive”–a term Brountas prefers to “liberal.” But he adds: “He’s very conservative fiscally. And he’s run the state in a tight-fisted way.”

In the end, many believe the outcome of the Gephardt-Dukakis battle in Dixie may depend on whether Gephardt can reach the voters whose anger is fueling his candidacy.

Chris Scott, president of the North Carolina AFL-CIO, contends that Gephardt’s argument for retaliation against unfair trade practices has great appeal in his state, where the textile industry has been hard hit by foreign imports.

“Gephardt’s trade message can romp and stomp in this state,” Scott says. “But I don’t know if Gephardt can get the message out.”