Not that I really care about who won an Oscar and whatnot, but just some food for thought about the portrayal of minorities (blacks, rural peoples, and gays most recently) in Hollywood and how they earn praise/awards.
People are buzzing about the fact that black actors/actresses seem to only win these days for portraying unsavory or stereotypical “black characters”. Denzel delivered powerful performances in “Malcolm X” and “The Hurricane” that struck gold in many experts’ minds. He’s an “actor’s actor” in the eyes of his peers. However, his only Oscar win is for his portrayal of a degenerate, gangstafied LAPD cop in “Training Day”. Halle Berry is obviously talented beyond her physical assets (let’s forget about “Catwoman” for the time being), and she won for “Monster’s Ball” (playing an lower-class single mother at her wit’s end). Terrence Howard earned a lot of praise for his work in Crash (acting as a “normal” suburban black man), but he received the nomination for playing a pimp-turned-rapper in “Hustle & Flow”. Black musicians have done great work in movies for decades, but the Three Six Mafia won for best song about the challenges of pimpin’. All this is generally harmless to us, and some might find it funny, but it does raise some eyebrows.
Anecdotally, these characters do resemble real people in the world, but as the NPR pundits discussed in the links below, they do not represent the mainstream of African-American society. But since when did Hollywood want or care to represent the mainstream? There’s little entertainment value in the mainstream, however they run the risk of giving the wrong impression to the viewers. Are they such conscientious, responsible artists as they allege? Could this be an explanation why Sidney Poitier, Denzel, and other prominent black actors convinced Terrence Howard to decline to perform “It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp” at the Oscars because of it’s supposed negative lyrics? Howard actually rapped the track in the movie, so it is customary for him to perform at the awards show. In contrast, it’s ok for the ghetto-fabulous and controversial Three Six Mafia to rap the song (with substantial censoring beforehand, of course), but not golden boy, safe-for-mainstream-consumption Howard? Most people can identify stereotypes and avoid making improper assumptions, but still it’s disconcerting for Black America when most of the award-winning depictions of their people on the silver screen are total exaggerations. In comparison, other minority groups are more reasonably portrayed in recent award-winning films such as “Rain Man”, “Philadelphia”, “Dances with Wolves”, and “Silence of the Lambs”. Or instead, black actors/actresses win awards from movies specifically concerning race (Sidney Poitier in “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner”), or in outright slavery legacy roles like Hattie McDaniel in “Gone with the Wind”. And worse, the tamer, more realistic performances by black artists (that have no less merit) are more likely to be overlooked by the Academy. Can a black person just win an Oscar in a regular movie? Why do they have to be typecast in a movie about being black, being a slave, being from the ghetto, or other racial themes? Maybe Morgan Freeman is the only black actor who transcends the divide. Will Smith and Denzel are getting there, but Smith has yet to earn Hollywood preeminence. Black actresses have it even harder.
It’s as bad as Hollywood only celebrating Asian-themed movies about kung fu, Italian-themed movies about mobsters, or Arab-themed movies about terrorism (oh wait, they do!). Hollywood is probably America’s most important and influential exporter, but I don’t know if the greedy media moguls, superficial advertisers, and egomaniac producers are up to the task sometimes. Do we want Paramount, 20th Century Fox, and others teaching the world about being a minority, being American, or being human? People learn from all sorts of various media, but we have to admit that movies have a certain mystique and higher power. Hollywood is still a major art form, despite the efforts of Elektra, Deuce Bigalow, Doom, and any other video game/comic/teen-themed-flick to bring it down. Box office sales are on the decline because recent movies tend to suck more than their predecessors. True artists are pure wherever you go, but purity is often trumped by the bottom line, popular culture, peer pressure, and convenience. While we must try to respect artistic freedom and profitability considerations, we have to also realize that our movies talk to people and mold opinions at home and all over the world. As an example, I’m leaving for Cameroon soon, and many people have cautioned me that the locals might act strange or scared around me because I’m Asian. They see kung fu movies and think that all Asian people are violent fighting machines. This isn’t all Hollywood’s fault, and obviously Jackie Chan and other Asians are getting rich on these narrow-minded caricatures too. Stereotypes and ignorance form a very dangerous combination, as we’ve seen much too often in many places. Now we have to work even harder to dispel myths and clichés that our movies and leaders may have propagated.
Stereotype black movies and Blaxploitation films can still raise important questions about inequality, bigotry, and injustice – but most of that gets lost among the caricatures, punch lines, and formulaic plots. Most people would prefer to identify with Shaft versus Antwone Fisher, or “Show me the money” rather than “Free at last”. Actually, why hasn’t anyone made a big-time film about MLK, Rosa Parks, or other episodes in the Civil Rights movement besides Spike Lee? Is there no money or interest in it? The entire works of JRR Tolkein are gracing the silver screen, and “Scary Movie 4” is coming out soon, but nothing on MLK? We were blessed with “Big Momma’s House 2”, but no Coretta Scott King biopic? Lee has directed some amazing movies, but his “urban-themed” or gangsta works always get the most attention. Mainstream America and Hollywood seem to be fascinated by the seedier, gaudier elements of “black culture”, and barely pay respect to the non-flashy, artsy movies (“Ali”, “Diary of a Mad Black Woman”, “Do the Right Thing”, “Hotel Rwanda”, to name a few). Have more people seen “Friday” or “Malcolm X”? Popularity and artistic/social value are rarely correlated.
The decline of meaningful rap music and the rise of materialism in black culture haven’t helped either. Just pick up an issue of Vibe or watch BET for an hour, and you’ll know what I mean. Black entertainment will always be cursed (or blessed, depending how you view it) by the duality of visceral amusement (Lil’ Jon, bling bling, etc.) and meaningful rhetoric with major social impact, as is the case with most forms of ethnic art. It’s up to the rest of us to properly discriminate between the two, and not mix messages or forget what is more important. Chris Rock, Dave Chappelle, and others bridge the gulf fairly well, but often their brash comedy trumps their social commentary and activism in the audience’s mind. As a rule it seems, black, Latin, gay, or Asian comedians must devote at least 50% of their jokes to ridiculing their own people (and 25% to mock dorky Caucasians). We will always have “Pimp my Ride” on one end of the spectrum and Maya Angelou on the other, with plenty in between. As discerning consumers, it’s up to us to decide what are reasonable selections for ourselves, our families, deep discussions, or leisure time. It’s up to the black entertainment industry to responsibly create and market all genres in reasonable proportions and with the needs of the community in mind. This shouldn’t be a foreign concept or a violation of free speech, as we diligently shield our children from pornography/obscenity, and the MPAA rates movies according to their mature content. Maybe we should distance ourselves from racial typecasts and offensive, narrow portrayals as well. Unfortunately, a lot of non-black people enjoy and profit from racially caricatured content, so they will keep pushing for that media at the expense of more substantive art and expression. Even some black people prefer to fill the stereotypical mold rather than live as their own person and forge their own identity. Peer pressure and group identification are strong forces; this is true of any peoples.
We’ve all impersonated black people and joked about our narrow conceptions of black culture from the movies. It’s not a good thing, but it cheaply entertains us, and it’s unfortunately here to stay in our society like many forms of latent prejudice. I’m ashamed of my role in this dilemma. My guilt stems from the realization that the situation isn’t immutable, and it’s not all Hollywood’s fault. Of course most movies are more about money and entertainment rather than sending a sociopolitical message or making accurate portrayals of people (“A Beautiful Mind” won Oscars for grossly romanticizing the life of John Nash, while rigorous documentaries like “Born into Brothels” barely make waves). Obviously some blacks aren’t helping their cause with vapid trash like “Soul Plane”, “Guess Who”, anything from the Wayans Brothers, and a lot of the “N***a stuff” on BET that Huey Freeman routinely complains about in “Boondocks”. Black artists are in a quandary: they have to entertain and get noticed, but they can’t let the hype, glamour, and superficiality of Hollywood drown out their message or betray their identity/heritage. Apparently, Chappelle quit working on his show last year partly because he was frustrated that the audience focused on the jokes rather than his very poignant commentary on black culture and relations in America. Most people (myself included) preferred to laugh about Rick James (bitch) rather than discuss the impact of drugs and materialism on black society.
In the multi-Oscar-winning “Crash”, we see the various ethnicities in LA butting heads and interacting in some surprising and interconnected ways. Many are saying that it is a good shock to the system to get Americans to think and talk about race relations. Others feel that such ridiculous portrayals and unrealistic situations do little to educate people about race and allow them to relate to the tensions that the movie’s characters are experiencing. In fact, the film might be doing us a disservice by oversimplifying, exaggerating, and stereotyping the problems. Probably they’re all right; it just depends how you look at things. The NPR discussions below had a lot of interesting things to day about “Crash” and Black Hollywood. But the bottom line is twofold: talented black artists delivered some amazing performances in Hollywood as of late, and some were handsomely rewarded. But the roles they accepted and the hype that they generated may have some adverse effects for the black community and race relations. It’s amazing how angry some of the NPR commentators were about “Hustle & Flow”. Non-black Americans run the risk of (and sometimes totally embrace) labeling all black people according to the few breakthrough performances that gained publicity in Hollywood and other mainstream media. Then black people are locked into that fictional, sometimes inaccurate identity, because it’s what most of society identifies them with, and what they need to imitate to get noticed or get ahead. Of course I’m generalizing here, but don’t worry – the rant is almost finished. One of the commentators on NPR was complaining that the elitist, out-of-touch LA audience in the Kodak Theater seemed to act so condescending to Three Six Mafia after their performance and emphatic Oscar win on Sunday, like “Aw isn’t that cute… those Negroes did so well; good for them!”
People have the right to seek entertainment by any means under the law, and consumers pick their media according to their various tastes. No one is forcing us to watch “The Color Purple” over “Undercover Brother”, the Academy does what it pleases, and it’s the personal decision of the black artist to choose appropriate roles. Hollywood is all about fun too, as any visitor to Universal Studios will attest. Challenging, artsy stuff is a burden and downer sometimes, which is probably why the ratings for the 2006 Oscars were near the all-time low (the contenders for best picture were all political, “serious” films and the host Jon Stewart was also a media pariah, albeit with a huge following). We could also continue this conversation about “Brokeback Mountain”, gay America, and that set of portrayals in the mainstream media. The patterns of typecasting and latent bigotry/exclusion are similar, and it’s clear that a large portion of America was not ready for that film’s power and success (the slew of utterly offensive parody humor is proof enough). Does America see it as a love story involving gay cowboys, or a gay movie about cowboys? The difference is subtle but crucial. Is there a distinction between a good movie/actor and a good, black movie/actor? Can we just produce, enjoy, and judge art as it is, without succumbing to and limiting ourselves with minority labels and identity clichés?
http://eurweb.com/story/eur25213.cfm
http://www.alternet.org/movies/23597/
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=3264
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5187145
http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2006-01-25-brokeback-humor-cover_x.h...
NPR discussions on the Oscars among their black commentators
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5246984
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5243598
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5246892
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5239254
-------
Since I consider myself somewhat of a media theorist
(or at least that's what they're trying to teach me at
SF State God bless them), and also because I rarely
respond to ___'s rants, I figured I'd kill two quail
with one birdshot and respond. ___ has some excellent
points, and I'll try and respond to the areas where I
can add a thought or two. For those that don't know
me, I'm sort of the Devil's advocate to a degree. But
anyway...
- Show quoted text -
> Stereotype black movies and Blaxploitation films can
> still raise important
> questions about inequality, bigotry, and injustice –
> but most of that gets
> lost among the caricatures, punch lines, and
> formulaic plots. Most people
> would prefer to identify with Shaft versus Antwone
> Fisher, or "Show me the
> money" rather than "Free at last". Actually, why
> hasn't anyone made a
> big-time film about MLK, Rosa Parks, or other
> episodes in the Civil Rights
> movement besides Spike Lee? Is there no money or
> interest in it? The entire
> works of JRR Tolkein are gracing the silver screen,
> and "Scary Movie 4" is
> coming out soon, but nothing on MLK? We were blessed
> with "Big Momma's House
> 2", but no Coretta Scott King biopic? Lee has
> directed some amazing movies,
> but his "urban-themed" or gangsta works always get
> the most attention.
> Mainstream America and Hollywood seem to be
> fascinated by the seedier,
> gaudier elements of "black culture", and barely pay
> respect to the
> non-flashy, artsy movies ("Ali", "Diary of a Mad
> Black Woman", "Do the Right
> Thing", "Hotel Rwanda", to name a few). Have more
> people seen "Friday" or
> "Malcolm X"? Popularity and artistic/social value
> are rarely correlated.
Is there no money or interest in seeing an MLK or Rosa
Parks biopic? Quite simply, no. Not from people in
the mainstream, which if you are on Tim's e-mail list
I highly doubt you are. (Although I guarantee there
are at least 10 legit MLK scripts floating around
Hollywood looking for the right circumstances to be
produced). The #1 reason people watch movies,
television or the radio is to be entertained. They
don't want to preached to or if they do they want the
political message to be secondary to the action. As
for the Scary Movie franchise or Big Momma's House 2,
those movies make money hand over fist...which is
really all studios care about. Entertainment is a
business after all. The first Scary Movie cost
roughly $20 million to make, which in Hollywood terms
is hardly anything at all. It made about $200 million
box office alone. That's a pretty good investment, so
no wonder the Wayans and their distributors sought to
recapture the "magic" and are making countless
sequels. As long as people keep going to see them and
they make a profit, these movies will continue ad
naseum. People by and large don't want to think when
they watch TV and movies, they want to be entertained.
If you could guarantee a consistent investment return
like Scary Movie from Do The Right Thing, then
Hollywood would be all over that. Hollywood is like
the NFL where coaches copy the offensive systems that
work. Formulas are a good thing because the audience
understands them and goes to see them. They are
comforted by knowing what's going to happen and that
everything will be wrapped up in a neat little
package. Middle America wants formulas, and it's
Middle America that goes to see endless repetitions of
the same product. Let's not kid ourselves that
Hollywood is about art, it's about the almighty
dollar. Obviously there are exceptions, but the
bottom line is revenue. No studio would touch Crash
until is won some film festivals, and even then only
Lion's Gate (previously known mainly for low-budget
horror movies) would distribute it. For a $6 million
dollar movie, Lion's Gate got a pretty good deal even
though the film only made $55 million at the box
office. Anyway, I had a point somewhere in there.
"We will always have "Pimp my Ride" on one end of the
spectrum and Maya Angelou on the other, with plenty in
between."
I feel this is an age-old argument between what
constitutes "high" and "low" culture. By low I mean
mass-marketed, mainstream palatable culture, not that
it is "bad." I would argue that the high vs. low
division is true for any art. Maya Angelous is high
culture. You pay for her works because you want to
read what she has to say and think and reflect on it.
On the other hand Pimp My Ride is broadcast on basic
cable on (what else) MTV and disseminated to the
masses hoping to attract the largest audience
possible. High culture goes out to the elitist that
actively seeks out intellectual stimulation. Low
culture is for everybody and is generally not hard to
understand (hence the use of formulas). Maybe it's
not just the black entertainment industry that needs
to create intellectual content that would benefit the
community, but the entertainment industry in general.
For every NOVA special that pops on PBS, there are
seven "War at Homes" (which a really bad "white"
sitcom on Fox for those that don't watch TV
religiously like I do).
"In the multi-Oscar-winning "Crash", we see the
various ethnicities in LA butting heads and
interacting in some surprising and interconnected
ways. Many are saying that it is a good shock to the
system to get Americans to think and talk about race
relations. Others feel that such ridiculous portrayals
and unrealistic situations do little to educate people
about race and allow them to relate to the tensions
that the movie's characters are experiencing. In fact,
the film might be doing us a disservice by
oversimplifying, exaggerating, and stereotyping the
problems. Probably they're all right; it just depends
how you look at things. "
From my perspective, the entire point of Crash's
putting forth racial "stereotypes" is to confront them
and investigate them. But the ability of the audience
to investigate really hinges on whether you have the
mental capacity to do so. If you are an ignorant
dumbass, then you will look at Ludacris and Larenze
Tate car-jacking scene of Sandra Bullock's character
and completely miss the point that the scene is
skewering the white viewpoint that all black men are
criminals. When the scene turns itself on its head as
Luda announces to Tate that white people should be
scared because they are in fact criminals, the
intelligent would hopefully see that it's an argument
against Sandra Bullock's character for judging people
as criminals by their skin tone, as Luda suggests that
their outward appearance of "UCLA students" belies the
fact that they are actually carrying guns. She
couldn't see that just from their clothes, but assumes
they are from their skin color.
As an aside, I am tempted to believe that the Kodak
Theatre crowd was unreceptive to Three 6 Mafia's
performance because the song is...well...horrible (I
am not one of those rap is crap people, this song was
just crap). That's not to say the other nominated
songs were any good, but like any other art form,
taste is subjective. But Jon Stewart was right,
THAT'S how you accept an Oscar!!!
As a final note about the Oscars, a lot of the time
they tend to give out "career" awards. When Denzel
won for his Training Day performance despite having
numerous great performances in the past, it was
basically the Academy giving him an award for a career
well done.
Anyway, I just wasted an hour of my life typing this
when I should have been doing my school work. I guess
this take's care of my responses to ___ for another 6
months.
-------
You biased liberal media elite!! Nah just kidding, thank you very much for your comments and perspective. Killing two quail with one birdshot – who are you, the Vice President? But I do need a devil's advocate to keep me in check sometimes, especially when I raise concerns on behalf of a race that I'm not even a part of (or am I?). But injustice, stereotype, and prejudice hurt all of us, and you call a spade a spade.
Unfortunately, I agree with all of your points so I don't have many arguments (this is rare, since we are usually nemeses for those who don’t know us well). :( I know all of you are grossly disappointed! Yes, Hollywood is a business. It's about return on investment, efficiency of production, and mass marketing. Formulaic, simplistic stuff like "Bad Boys" is a better sell than complex, challenging stuff like "Capote". And it's hard to make a "Capote" sequel. At least they could do "Crash 2: Streets of Baghdad". Sadly, I don't know if I'm being facetious or not.
Hollywood is a business, but so are the oil and chemical industries. Oil companies can’t drill near an elementary school, and chemical plants can’t dump toxic waste into the water table (well, it’s usually against the law at least). Businesses must meet social obligations, and they must address specific human needs while causing the least damage. Along the way it’s ok to maximize profits/efficiency if no one gets hurt. I don’t know if government regulation can keep control, but consumer selectivity sure can. The problem is that consumers are rarely (or never) so responsible. The free market run amok produces Exxon Valdez, Enron, and Bhopal. But of course Hollywood is a gray area because it’s an art form and protected by free speech. However, free speech run amok causes the Mohammad cartoons and Holocaust denials. Offensive/damaging speech shouldn’t be outlawed, but some of it can be censored/regulated, and the public should scrutinize the rest prior to consumption. However, it doesn’t happen in Hollywood. Italian-Americans protested “The Sopranos”, Muslim-Americans protested “True Lies”, and Cuban-Americans protested “Scarface”, but not much happened and such entertainment was highly profitable.
In terms of Hollywood, you’re right – all peoples make bad/insensitive movies depicting every race, creed, and minority. But a large percentage of “black” movies deal with deviant behavior, crime, racial retribution, and other negative issues. Those topics are important and part of the African-American identity/story, but sometimes Hollywood celebrates controversial/unbecoming performances too much, yet ignores more deserving and virtuous stuff that would deliver similar messages. The plotline of a black pimp aspiring to become a rapper can have a lot of artistic merit and social significance. Heck, it can sell a lot of tickets and DVDs too! But that can’t be the sole representation or noteworthy offering for black actors/filmmakers in Hollywood. Such films also risk producing negative and inaccurate assumptions/stereotypes. And perceptions are biased against blacks (we already know this from “Bowling for Columbine” and American TV newscasts/viewers that tend to associate violent crime with blackness). After seeing Spielberg movies, does the audience think that all Germans are goose-stepping, maniacal murderers? Actually, one might draw more reasonable conclusions from German cinema, which is much more accurate about WWII history, and even more repentant/frank about Nazism (“The White Rose”, “Stalingrad”, “Downfall”). After watching “American History X” or “Mississippi Burning”, can we assume that all whites are racists? Of course not, because whites are portrayed much more positively in most other films/media. There is a pseudo-equilibrium that generally reflects the tastes, characteristics, and sensibilities of the real world. Hollywood is surely fantasy and exaggeration, but the excesses are in balance for most genres except black film.
http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=1136
http://www.spectacle.org/1295/blacks.html
But Hollywood depictions of blacks, and the publicity it generates, are disproportionately negative and many black people already recognize this. Unfortunately, some blacks also perpetuate the problem. We need more acclaim for positive black films to balance out “Boyz in da Hood” and “Training Day”. Those are excellent films, but they can’t and shouldn’t represent all blacks in Hollywood. Tom Hanks and Mel Gibson are both celebrated actors. But we can’t properly assess their acting merits from “Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome” and “Joe Versus the Volcano”. We can’t judge blacks based on narrow depictions either. Most of us don’t, but then again, some still do and the effect may be subtle and subconscious. Films like “Good Will Hunting” have wonderful stories that are easily converted for black actors and black consumption, for rich, poor, intellectual, and uneducated alike. But Hollywood balks, or is it the audience? “Antwone Fisher” and “Finding Forrester” barely made waves. Conversely, where is the interest in making negatively themed films about white terrorists like Tim McVeigh and Oklahoma City, white politicians who commit scandal after scandal (minus Oliver Stone films), white CEOs who steal the country blind and fire thousands of workers (minus the Enron documentary and “Roger and Me”), redneck trailer trash on drugs and welfare, extremist white Christians who form cults and attack abortion doctors/gays, the Old South and Confederacy (minus the revisionist, selective, and romanticized “Gone with the Wind”), or the history of the Ku Klux Klan? Those are important parts of the American story that American film should address. But we don’t, or just barely. Look how much criticism the CBS Reagan biopic drew, and it was neutral, if not sugar coated (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3237893.stm)! Yes, we all know that America is majority conservative and WASP, which means more white consumers who generally are wealthier than other races. Those consumers may not want to see entertainment/art that makes them feel uncomfortable about themselves and their heritage. But on the flipside, it’s ok to watch movies about unflattering aspects of black society, and even get some laughs out of it?
What proof do I have of all this? None really, but it tells us something that the trend continues despite the chronic vociferous protests of more important people than us. If Hollywood made films mostly depicting Jewish people as greedy bankers and Arab persecutors, Jews would be up in arms – and rightly so. They were already pissed about “The Passion of the Christ” and “Paradise Now”, which implicitly blamed all Jews for Christ’s murder and somewhat justified Palestinian violent resistance in Israel, respectively. Blacks really complain about unfair portrayals, but few people listen, including some of the African-American community who don’t feel the need for change and might even profit from Blaxploitation. Non-blacks may prefer to remember and even celebrate “deviant black culture”, like the hip-hop/baller lifestyle, than work to make sure blacks get just treatment and accurate representation in the media. I’m as guilty as anyone and I’m trying to stop, but it’s hard because I have to admit that it’s appealing/entertaining for suburbanites to imitate ghetto black behavior. Evidently, the marketing campaigns are a success. There is nothing wrong with enjoying 50 Cent: Bulletproof video game, Nelly’s “Apple Bottom” women’s wear, and “New Jack City”. But let’s not forget that those products/imagery don’t speak for all blacks, may be counter-informative/derogatory, and you might be judged according to your ignorant consumer tastes.
War movies are almost sure successes in Hollywood and everyone loves soldier heroes, yet blacks are noticeably absent, except in “Glory” (and that film ends with all the black soldiers killed on a dumb suicide mission to attack a strong Confederate fort). Many black groups protested “Saving Private Ryan” because director Spielberg did not cast A SINGLE BLACK PERSON in the whole movie, even in the massive Normandy Invasion scene. Well, Vin Diesel’s racial makeup is uncertain, but he played a soldier of Italian descent (Private Caparzo). One of the main characters (Private Mellish) was a Jewish-American soldier, of course. Spielberg’s camp claimed that they conducted exhaustive research and made the film very historically accurate (meaning there were no black heroes to portray on the beach). But there were! (http://www.nola.com/dday/index.ssf?/dday/0710dday2.html) Public school history books are just as bad. Spielberg’s ignorance, obstinacy, and intolerance are frighteningly similar to the Nazis he loathes. Such black heroes of the Greatest Generation risked everything and sometimes died to fight a tyrannical, racist regime, while wearing the uniform of a racist country that terribly abused their ancestors and forbade their relatives from drinking from certain water fountains. They returned home not as victorious and beloved heroes, but as second-class citizens who would have to wait until the 1960s for some reforms. More poor, angry black soldiers would fight and die in the misguided Vietnam War, as the very accurate film “Platoon” depicted. In Hollywood, we are taught ad nauseum about the evil and horrors of the Holocaust (and the heroism of survivors), as well as the crusading efforts of strong women (“Erin Brockovich”, “North Country”, “Dangerous Minds”). Those are important film topics, but why don’t we hear about the equivalently noteworthy and sometimes superior heroism, nobility, and sacrifice of blacks? Despite “Shaka Zulu”, African blacks are sometimes portrayed even worse than their American counterparts (“Lord of War”, “The Gods Must be Crazy”, “Tears of the Sun”).
http://www.wlajournal.com/current/Kinney.pdf
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55650-2004May25.html
http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/VA-news/VA-Pilot/issues/1994/940607/06070313.htm
The major networks aired the very violent and profane “Saving Private Ryan” and “Schindler’s List” in uncensored, uninterrupted form (with major corporate funding), but we can’t have an adult discussion about the N-word, slavery, or American racism? This is indoctrination, whitewash, and bias in their purest form. It’s ok to show America a supposedly anti-war movie that glorifies carnage and hate of Germans, but we can’t discuss slavery reparations outside of Chappelle’s Show? I know that those two WWII-themed films are very significant and high quality, both historically and artistically. But they don’t warrant such preferential treatment, while rebroadcasts of “Roots” are relegated to PBS. ABC could post free rental vouchers on their website for families to use at their discretion, but forcing America to watch slanted, sometimes erroneous historical films without FCC control is inappropriate. I know it’s a separate discussion, and I’m encroaching on some very dangerous territory here, but those Spielberg films are so blatantly anti-German and pro-Jewish that I don’t think they belong on network programming that is supposedly equal opportunity and color blind.
In both films, there is only one positive portrayal of a German, obviously Oskar Schindler. There is very little mention of the European Jews who collaborated with the Nazis (there were a few scenes of a Polish Jew “sellout” who worked as a Warsaw ghetto policeman for the SS). Other Holocaust films like “Life is Beautiful” and “The Pianist” were much less prejudiced yet equally meaningful/moving, and even committed the unthinkable: actually portraying some good Germans (and there were plenty of them). I feel terribly for the suffering of WWII victims, I love Jewish people who aren’t bigots, and of course I don’t support the Nazi cause. But if you’re going to depict these complex, challenging periods in human history – you better watch your step, tell the story without an agenda, and do your homework, so people don’t protest or get the wrong idea. When tens of millions of people were butchered on all sides and by all sides during WWII, most experts and academics don’t think it’s wise or edifying to casually proclaim one group good and the other bad. It’s very hard to simplify WWII/Holocaust events into mainstream film form without creating propaganda like “Triumph of the Will”. But in the case of American slavery, where there were CLEARLY “bad guys” and victims, we are only granted a cursory, passing discussion? Of course it’s shameful to Americans and our history, but if it’s the truth, what are we afraid of? Well, I guess Hollywood realizes that such content won’t sell many tickets. As was the case after Katrina, people were shocked to realize that parts of America were so POOR; they had no idea. Well, poverty is a downer that mainstream media, educators, and advertisers don’t want to touch, just like American racism. But it’s totally ok to praise America’s efforts in WWII (sometimes inaccurately) until the cows come home.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saving_Private_Ryan#2004_Broadcast_controversy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schindler%27s_List#1997_TV_controversy
http://www.redress.btinternet.co.uk/selam12.htm
You may be right; there is no money or interest in MLK or Civil Rights themed films. Malcolm X was an especially appealing, controversial figure in black history, but the Spike Lee film about him didn’t have a huge following among non-blacks. It’s permissible and necessary to make black media about poverty, drugs, gangs, and whatnot. But can they have some positive connotations, hope, and edifying messages? Can we see people pulling themselves out of the ghetto and overcoming racism with education, love, and moral fortitude? I know films like “Remember the Titans” do try, but it’s more about blacks and whites getting along (and winning football games!) than black people triumphing on their own. Is there any audience for that?
As you said, “Crash’s” stereotypical and prejudiced racial depictions were deliberately intended to prove a point and get the audience to contemplate. But just consider the biased characters represented. The Latino family is perfect: they speak English, work hard, love each other, and shrug off bigotry. The Persian family is somewhat dysfunctional: the mother doesn’t say one word the whole film and the father is a barely comprehensible, plotting to kill an innocent stranger to avenge his vandalized business. I don’t think the director Paul Haggis especially loves Latinos and hates Persians, but what is the latent message? Asians in the movie play a minor role (even though there are tons of them in LA), and are terribly stereotyped. The hospital scene was especially pathetic. Then blacks are either “Uncle Toms” living in the white man’s world, or carjackers and crackheads like Don Cheadle’s relatives. Ludacris comes off as a Louis Farrakhan-type reverse racist, but where are the white racists in the film? It’s a cop out, literally, because Matt Dillon is the “racist with a heart of gold”. I know racists aren’t necessarily “bad people”, and all of us have racist thoughts at times, but are the other characters treated as fairly and let off the hook for their bigotry? Probably the most telling and powerful racial commentary is the way that the other cops and lawyers patronize Don Cheadle, and how Ryan Phillippe’s efforts at “being color blind” blow up in his face. There are bad and good families/people of every race, but “Crash” doesn’t get that message across, and we can’t assume that the audience already realizes this. It’s like the WWE forgetting to warn viewers that their performances are phony and not intended for amateur imitation. It’s just irresponsible to deliver such content without putting it in perspective.
So in summary, I’ve just mentioned several new examples showing how insensitive, irresponsible, and biased Hollywood is regarding race, especially against African-Americans. To a certain degree, Hollywood reflects the attitudes, mores, and substance of the greater American culture, society, and nation. While that may be scary or reassuring depending on your viewpoint, it clearly shows that we can’t afford to dismiss Hollywood as just moneymaking, harmless entertainment, without respecting and recognizing the social ramifications of their product. Their bad movies have side effects and dangers. People get upset and people get the wrong ideas, which may negatively impact their lives and the functioning of our society. Some hypersensitive people get too upset about too many things, but I think this case is pretty justified. We can’t just sweep it under the rug or resign to the belief that things will never change. If we boycott stupid or offensive movies en mass and demand better, the studios will change REALLY FAST, or go broke while we read books instead. Not every movie can be a winner, but to survive they’ll need to make superior films that entertain, edify, make money, and even impact history. Isn’t that what we all want?
-----------
Thanks again for your comments and it got me thinking about a lot of stuff. I don't pretend to be all knowing on this stuff, I realize I might have rambled too much in my reply, and didn't deliver my point explicitly up front (surprise, surprise). So basically I think that Hollywood won't change over this issue and probably doesn't need to until the greater society changes first. We need high and low culture, as you said. The customers pick what they want to see, and studios are in it for the profit or the awards, not to crusade against injustice and such (that is our job!). Lowbrow movies don't really count in this discussion, and sometimes intentionally offend us so it's a different story. Artsy movies are more ambitious and serious, so the messages they send matter more.
Yes, we recognize there is an unequal distribution of high/low culture movies and positive/negative representations of different races in Hollywood. I don't know if this is damaging for minorities, but I am concerned. Maybe this is just a necessary consequence of minority status for blacks, gays, Asians, whomever. If whites were the minority in America with a history of discrimination, I'm sure Hollywood would make mostly unflattering/typecast films about them too and no one would protest. I guess it's the same way in Bollywood, with Sikh minorities playing the fools in those movies. Black actors/producers/filmmakers have fewer numbers and opportunities in Hollywood, so they can't throw their weight around or afford to be too selective/activist. They need to get paid, don't want to get the reputation of being ornery, and may not mind the compromise. So obviously, there is not a grand Hollywood conspiracy against blacks, and many blacks don't take offense to unsavory portrayals of their people on screen. In fact they enjoy the movies, just like I don't really mind Asian stereotype jokes in "Rush Hour" and whatnot.
I didn't think "Training Day" or "Hustle & Flow" were racist per se, but it's clear that the script played out differently because of its minority characters. Could those movies work if the leads were non-black? So the audience probably doesn't automatically associate blackness with corrupt cops and pimps, nor ignore the contributions of black soldiers just because they aren't glorified in blockbuster war movies, but it does open the door for problems that Jews and other peoples don't have to face from movies. So it's a case of accentuating some types of black roles and excluding others. For what reason? Probably it's marketability over racism, or maybe the two are related?
This may all be just a natural process in the free market and human artistic expression. If we want to improve race relations and make our society more equitable, film is low on the priority list or not even a factor. We should fix reality first. Mass media is very influential though, life can imitate art, and people are susceptible to suggestion (that's why the advertising/propaganda industries are so powerful and profitable), so we should be on guard and not assume that it's all ok because it's just entertainment. Obviously there's a lot more important cleanup to do in Washington DC, the classroom, the home, and the office. But clearly, some people on NPR and Halle Berry are pissed at Hollywood for the status/portrayals of blacks.
http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/celebrity/22802004.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=22219
