I meant to write this all in response to Michael’s post. He asks whether or not we should:”…’fake it till we make it,'[…] or press the issue” in reference to racial oppression. I didn’t have quite enough space to fit my answer in the comment section so I’ve put my response into the post you see here.

This is a good question but unfortunately there’s no right answer. If we fake it, everyone knows it’s fake and won’t take it seriously. The only issues that film and television seemed to have pressed are outdated; they aren’t properly representing the Struggle. To be honest, unless we were to endow every single underrepresented person with the finances, filmmaking capacity, and audience they need (i.e. make everyone watch each filmmaker’s perspective), there is no indisputable way to properly portray the experience of an entire generation of a race of oppressed people.

Having recognized the impossibility, it’s important to recognize not which stories are being told, but instead to recognize which stories people are listening to. The major news conglomerates are churning out race-based stories daily and society is totally eating that stuff up. The only problem is that the news stations aren’t representing anyone when they tell their stories.

To reiterate the point, too many people rely on commercial film (i.e. blockbusters) to pick up society’s slack. The real problem is that the news media overplays the ultra-rare violent crimes perpetrated by whites against blacks, yet underplays the ubiquitous struggles that black Americans face. This is the norm because violence attracts viewers. And do you know what attracts a lot of viewers? Violence against the oppressed. While these acts of violence do happen from time to time, they are wholly a product of more deeply entrenched, deep-seated institutional problems. That is what the news needs to be reporting on! You may hear a lot about “the Struggle”. Well, the Struggle is real but it isn’t perpetuated through any fear of lynching by whites (which is what CNN and FOX might lead you to believe). The Struggle is part of the micro aggressions blacks face in their day-to-day lives.

From an outsider’s perspective, the black community needs a new Raisin in the Sun. In the play/film, a black family moves into Clybourne Park, which is a township that is just a single stop from the center of Chicago (if you take the Metra from Ogilvie). While Lorraine Hansberry’s novel does infer many verbal threats from whites, it mostly deals with a rich widow’s reaction to her family’s new “white” environment. With one potential suitor coaxing her into appeasing whites by becoming more vanilla and another potential suitor encouraging her to return to her African roots, the main character is literally facing the problems many African Americans encounter today.

We live in a day and age where the idea of burning crosses in a family’s front yard is so archaic that you wouldn’t even believe it if you saw it on the news; yet, at the same time there are communities that aren’t welcoming towards blacks that already live there. Many blacks must still choose between being educated “Uncle Toms” or being Malcolm X’s uppity “Field Negro”.

Fear of being gunned down by some redneck in broad daylight is not the Struggle black Americans face today. Not being welcome in your own town: that is the Struggle. Having to choose between being “eloquent” versus being “hood”: that is the Struggle. These are the stories that need to be told… but the news media keeps interrupting everything by injecting their own narrative. It’ll take a real effort for film and television (read: society) to correct the damage that the news media has done.

Earlier this year I wrote a paper on African-American raced based humor. In similar vein to the discussions of portrayals of blacks in film we had in class, my paper explored whether race-based humor (i.e. when African-American comedies speak of race in their acts) enforces stereotypes or helps to break them down. In essence, can there be a correct way of addressing race in comedy? Here is a little excerpt about Du Bois’ thoughts on race from my paper:

Du Bois demands that blacks have faith in their own self-worth, saying:, “hated here, despised there, and pitied everywhere; our one haven of refuge is ourselves, and but one means of advance, our own belief in our great destiny, our own implicit trust in our ability and worth” (Du Bois 1897: 150). Dick Gregory, as one of the first stand up comedians to appeal to both black and white audiences, speaks to Du Bois’ demand for a trust in one’s own ability, thereby, in Du Bois’ terms, advancing the race:

Some [white audience members] are going to feel sorry for me because I’m a Negro, and some of them are going to hate me because I’m a Negro. Those who feel sorry might laugh a little at first. But they can’t respect someone they pity, and eventually they’ll stop laughing all together. Those who hate me aren’t going to laugh at all… I’ve got to go up there as an individual first, and a Negro second. I’ve got to be a colored funny man, not a funny colored man. I’ve got to act like a star who isn’t sorry for himself—that way, they can’t feel sorry for me” (Watkins 2002: 215).

—-

Gregory speaks to the struggle of the ways in which a person must portray their black identity. African-Americans have to tip-toe around how they present themselves as to not be pitied or the butt of a joke. As Carly mentioned in her post, this predicament, as outlined by Dick Gregory, brings about the question- will there ever be a fair depiction of blacks in the media?

There was a paragraph in the King Kong reading that really stood out to me. First of all, the entire reading made me rethink basically all horror movies, and I realized that “classic” horror movies do revolve around a beast or a disfigured humanoid of sorts.

But there was a paragraph on 846 that really stood out; that is when a scene from the film is described about the couple fleeing from King Kong. The description really made me think of the chase scenes in Birth of a Nation, where a lusting black male chases the beautiful heroine, who ultimately sacrifices herself instead of being involved with this “monster.”

I don’t know where I’m going with this, but the comparison really made me wonder how I never realized the significance of classic horror films.

At one point in Color Adjustment (1991), someone (I unfortunately can’t remember who) commented that TV is a sponsored medium. The speaker made hand motions indicating that because of this, society progresses at a faster rate than TV shows in dealing with race. This got me thinking about Netflix. Because it does not rely on ads, Netflix has the freedom to be as progressive as it wants; the success of a show relies more on the content of the show itself than ad sponsors. A show such as Orange is the New Black demonstrates how a show that is not completely white washed and focuses predominately on women and their relationships with one another, both gay and straight. It is the only show I can think of where the number of women dramatically outnumber the men and where the problems at hand do not revolve around a guy. That’s pretty impressive to me and demonstrates how without the constraint of ad sponsors, shows can really be bold and progressive.

Another Netflix show that came to mind was Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, which was released in March, was initially met with almost universal praise. About halfway through watching the season, I realized how amazing it was that like OITNB, this show does not rely on straight white males in its central cast. In fact, there isn’t a single straight white male in the main cast of the show. Instead, the core of the show is comprised of women and a gay black man.

After a few weeks of total praise, however, many people came forward and criticized how the show deals with race. I’ll go ahead and say that personally I love the show and didn’t find the race stuff to be offensive. I also recognize, however, that I am a white girl watching the show, so none of the race issues addressed directly related to me or my identity. The show did in fact deal with a lot of race issues. The gay black character Titus gets a job as a werewolf waiter at a themed restaurant and finds he’s treated better in costume than as an ordinary black man in New York City. The main character Kimmy has a romance with an Asian immigrant and in fact choses to be with him over a white man. The upper-class socialite Jacqueline is revealed to actually be Native American and only posing as a white woman in order to get ahead in society. And there was this image at the very beginning of the show, when Kimmy and three other women were rescued from an underground bunker:

I personally found these things funny, subversive, and stimulating. These jokes or story lines were bold and daring to me, offering an edgy perspective that not many other shows are willing to offer. To many critics, however, it was blatant racism. If you Google “unbreakable jimmy schmidt race,” countless articles come up with people complaining about how the show handles race. Here is a link to one of the articles: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/09/the-dong-problem-how-unbreakable-kimmy-schmidt-deals-with-race.html. One of the show’s stars, Tituss Burgess, called the race controversy “ridiculous” in an interview with the Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/19/tituss-burgess-unbreakabl_n_6905292.html?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067). On the one hand, one could argue that of course he is going to say that publicly, he wants to keep his job. On the other hand, it is possible that he genuinely thinks the controversy is ridiculous. I personally would like to think that if he found the race to be handled in too insensitive of a manner that he wouldn’t choose to associate with the project in the first place. Perhaps it’s idealistic, but I like to think that people stand up for their values, even at the cost of a job.

Additionally, it does bear importance to say that the show was originally developed for NBC and then sold to Netflix because NBC executives did not think it would fit in with their midseason lineup. In an interview, co-creator Tina Fey said she was more than happy to move to Netflix because she wouldn’t have to worry about low ratings, as one does on network TV (and, as we saw in Color Adjustment can make or break shows that address race head on, such as Frank’s Place). All of this is to say that Netflix definitely seems to be a home to shows that want to be bold and go against the status quo of what we see on regular TV. It seems that through Netflix, shows can be just as or perhaps more progressive than society.

I left class today wondering if television will ever be able to represent a race or group of people in a positive, non-stereotypical way. Color Adjustment (1991) showed through television’s history that this might not be possible. At the end of the film, the words “reality is being re-adjusted for you” are showed on the screen. Basically, television and films can never show true reality, it is always constructed in order for high ratings and expectations of audiences. People become trapped in their roles.

Yes, this is still going on today. The show Empire premiered earlier this year in January. It is about a man who runs his own hip hop record label called Empire Entertainment, and it focuses on the family dynamic of his wife and three sons. Critics have said that this show reinforces black stereotypes instead of them. Terrence Howard plays the hip hop mongol named Lucious Lyon who represents this criminal, animalistic, black brute that is often depicted of black men in the media. Even more stereotypical is his wife’s character Cookie Lyon, played by Taraji P. Henson, who plays this “angry-black woman” with a hot temper and loud mouth.

These black stereotypes are different than the ones we clown-like, comic character we saw in the movie. But they are still negative stereotypes nonetheless.

Here are links to see more about the shows reviews on negative racial stereotyping:

http://edition.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/03/22/rs-does-foxs-empire-reinforce-black-stereotypes.cnn

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hettie-williams/fox-empire_b_6889146.html?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2015/03/18/393785570/does-foxs-empire-break-or-bolster-black-stereotypes

It seems that for sixty years it’s been fed to Americans that racism isn’t an issue. In Color Adjustment, they show a clip from 1951 in which a host claims that there is no room for prejudice in television. And now, in as color-blind a society as America has ever been, racism is still in place.

In a 2005 interview, Morgan Freeman, one of the most well-known Black men, claimed that the way to stop racism is to stop talking about it. Stop making it an issue. And television apparently tried to do that, by portraying worlds in which there was no racism, like Julia. Frankly, it seems like a good idea.

But maybe it’s not. Color Adjustment shows that people want representation of their lives and stories, however awful they may be. The argument goes that it will raise awareness, not promote racism. It’s another fair point.

Dear White People addresses this head-on. There are color-blind characters and those who want their culture and history recognized. To them, being Black is more than just a common ancestor and skin pigmentation. There is Black culture–which is a culture of oppressed people. Oppression lead to close communities, solidarity, and bonding, as well as resentment towards oppressors. I can’t claim to know Black culture, but that is what I’ve read.

So I’ll pose a question. Which approach is better? Do we “fake it ’till we make it,” showing truly post-racial societies, with appropriate proportions of races and as few stereotypes as possible? Or do we press the issue, showing the oppression of Blacks (and other races), and forcing people to see what is happening still?

Perhaps the question is too high-minded, but I find myself unsure of how to act, myself…

I am a little ashamed to admit that before watching this film I referred to it as “the movie about the gay cowboys.” However, in my defense, if I ever brought up the name of the film the responses I would get from friends would always be “oh that’s a movie about gay cowboys” so I had very little other information to live off of. With that being said, I am a big supporter of what the film does and will defend it any chance I get by saying “it is a film about two cowboys who may be bisexual, but even that is open-ended and left for interpretation.” Even if that answer is less appealing, it is far more truthful than saying Brokeback Mountain (2005) is simply a film about gay cowboys.

In the first few minutes of the film, a clear male gaze is established. Ang Lee takes the traditional image of a man watching a woman and attributes it to Jack (Jake Gyllenhaal) as he peers over at Ennis (Heath Ledger). Voyeurism is also explored by having Jack look at Ennis in his side mirror without Ennis realizing it. In this scene, no words are shared. The technique and effect is genius. Later in the film, “gazes” are touched on again by having the animals constantly watching/in the presence of the cowboys with no reaction to their homosexual acts. The gaze is also seen again by the boys’ boss (Randy Quaid) watching them through binoculars and also by Ennis’ wife (Michelle Williams) when Ennis and Jack hookup for the first time after four years.

As the film progressed, I made note of any clear feminine/masculine characteristics the men had. I noted that Jack was seen several times carrying a baby sheep who was unable to travel without support. This is a motherly quality. Ennis went “shopping” for their food. When he arrives late, Jack asks “where the hell you’ve been?” Jack then attempts to clean Ennis’ face. Jack complains about “commuting four hours a day” and that he’s “pretty good with a can opener” but “can’t cook worth a damn.” This scene/several scenes couldn’t help but remind me of the conversation between a married couple. By this point, there is little obvious homosexuality, but the commentary plays on the idea that the two have/will have a relationship closer than friendship. Throughout the rest of the film, the roles of each male shift, making the two seem balanced between feminine/masculine qualities rather than having one male dominate the other.

A few minutes more into the film has Jack showing Ennis his belt buckle, or as it can be read, drawing Ennis’s attention to his crotch region. Following this, Ennis tells a story and admits it’s the most he’s spoken in years. This is an acceptance of Jack’s gesture. After the two bond, Jack orders Ennis to sleep in his tent that night and this kickstarts the first sex scene. Interestingly enough the boys the next day share a conversation about not being queer and they agree that it’s nobody’s business but theirs. At the same time, there are animal eyes on the two at all times and a sheep ends up dead. This could be seen as the killing of innocence, any opportunity the men had to live “normal” straight lives.

When speaking to Joe (the boss) about the illness of his uncle, Jack  says, “not much I can do about it up here” in which Joe replies “not too much you can do about it down there neither, not unless you can cure pneumonia” and I took this as a direct hit to Jack’s homosexuality. Joe is telling Jack that he can’t do anything about his homosexuality in the real world unless he can change the way the rest of the world sees it, or unless he can cure himself of it. The last few seconds of the film show Ennis admiring the bloody clothing that the boys wore when they fought. He then straightens an image of Brokeback Mountain. I am still unsure what this means, however, if I had to guess, I think it is Ennis’s contribution to straightening up the world and how they see homosexuality. Throughout his life, he has fought the idea of it and has been told against it, but I think this final act serves as his acceptance of it and inner-hope that someday the rest of the world will be as open and accepting as Brokeback Mountain.

I want to preface this by saying that I believe diversity in films is good and that everyone should have their share of accurate representation, I am just exploring what I think of story telling and how diversity could be handled in film.

The ability to write certain characters into film has always been difficult because of the purpose the character serves for the overall meaning of the film can be something tricky to justify if there is no legitimate reason as to their inclusion.  As a film writer, I have always stood by “write what you know” and, after attending Justin Simien’s Dear White People panel here on campus, what he said about the writing yourself into the film industry resonated with me.  He said something along the lines of “If you don’t see a representation of yourself in film, write that representation.”  This resonated with me because as a Caucasian male in an ever changing political landscape, it’s hard to decide whether I have a social obligation to complying with what the modern audience wants, a diverse cast of characters, or what I think would make for a good story, a story with characters who I believe have a purpose in the greater meaning of my story.

Now, I’m not saying that I think a good story is one that is dominated by characters much like myself, white and male, but at the same time, having an oversaturation of diversity in a story just to satisfy a quota is also not a good story.  I believe a good story comes naturally, and to write extraneous characters in, to satisfy a diversity quota or not, detracts from the meaning of the story.  I think this because then when you’re writing the story, you need to spend exposition on why that character is there and, if written/justified poorly, can make an otherwise good story feel shoddy.

How I think a good story can come naturally while also having a diverse cast of characters, referencing back to “write what you know,” is to recall experiences where you’ve been surrounded by diversity, find the inspiration to write, and then talk about the experience, or lack there of, and how that might play out, using film like an essay to explore your theory of why that experience, or again lack of experience, was meaningful in a broader sense.  A story which emanated from an experience, I think, would then reduce the misrepresentation of marginalized groups because it came from an unbiased memory and, using that memory as a reference, would very more or less better represent said group.  Yes, if the writer/director/producer had bias, that would be seen clearly in the film, but, if the story-teller meant to represent a memory accurately and unbiased, the method I’ve described could be a possible path for story-tellers to follow if they fear misrepresenting any group in a film due to error in any sense (writing, aesthetics, casting, etc.).

I know that a story with a diverse cast doesn’t strictly have to come from a memory, but if you have a story to tell and you’re writing the persona of a character you’ve never actually experienced, I think it’d be better to draw from inspiration that you know of rather than just making up an image for that character which may have repercussions later on.

While watching Brokeback Mountain I couldn’t help but see glimpses of the archetype of the old west hero within the personality of Ennis Del Mar, which led me to believe that one of the aims of Ang Lee’s film is to construct a new western narrative that differs greatly in subject matter and themes. One of the aspects of the film that led me to believe this was the way in which Ennis acts around Jack during their trips together. Ennis’ cold and emotional detachment is visible in the aftermath of their first night together in which Ennis wakes up and rides off without saying anything to Jack. This act is one that is featured in countless old west classics  in which the hero rides into town, finds himself a love interest, and then rides off into the next town with little emotion shown throughout the entire ordeal. The difference between Ennis and a loner old west hero like Clint Eastwood’s character Josey Wales is that unlike Josey Wales Ennis isn’t able to keep up the emotional detached facade that many cowboy’s have and breaks down crying in an alley way after he leaves Brokeback and realizes that he has left his true love. I think by showing this scene Ang Lee is attempting to deconstruct the stereotype that western heroes have to be macho beings who feel no pain because the simple act of showing a grown cowboy hunched over crying in an alley shows that even the macho men in cinema feel deeply and have more emotional depth than we typically give them credit for. I thought that this was a powerful cinematic choie because typically the only time we see a western hero express emotional or show vulnerability is when he is seeking revenge or is angry, but here the director uses the loss of one’s love interest to try and create a new western narrative in which the protagonist hero is a loner who, although strong and macho, feels emotional pain and prioritizes love over revenge or justice.

Right after watching a film for the first time, I typically don’t have a strong reaction to it, because I can’t really sort through the thoughts in my head and create a linear idea.  This is exactly how I felt after watching Brokeback Mountain, perhaps even  more so than usual – I just couldn’t really grasp what my own reaction was to what I had just seen on screen.  So what I did was I took to imdb.com, in my mind one of the more reliable sources for popular/critical film evaluation, and I clicked on the first review I saw that gave the movie a 100.  To paraphrase the article using its own words, it said this :

“Brokeback Mountain has been described as “a gay cowboy movie,” which is a cruel simplification. It is the story of a time and place where two men are forced to deny the only great passion either one will ever feel. Their tragedy is universal.”

We really touched on that first point in class, and lead a little bit into the second part.  But it’s really an important idea to reiterate about this film that being gay isn’t necessarily the most important theme – It’s really a lot about passion and sacrifice, and the words “their tragedy is universal” speaks volumes to this.  It might be hard to conceptualize Brokeback Mountain as a universal story, especially if your sexual identity doesn’t seem to match up with the characters.  But I gather that one thing most people in the world deal with is the loss of passion at some level, whether it be a sexual passion or a completely different form – say music, sports, etc.  There are many, many instances outside of sexual identity in which people feel trapped, false, abused or misunderstood, and I think Brokeback Mountain is one of the most heartfelt representations of this.  There will always be times when we are forced to conform to something that we don’t draw joy from, while our hearts will long for something better, fiercer, and more full of life and feeling.  Jack and Ennis happen to have a sexual attraction but it’s not the only thing that they’re missing – they’re missing a concept of free expression in their lives.