Watching it for the first time this weekend, Alejandro Inarritu’s Birdman (2014) is what I would call the definition of a film major’s movie. Filmed in incredibly long takes and minimal cutting, Birdman has done what I have seen no other filmmaker do since Hitchcock’s Rope, although, unlike Rope, Birdman felt very little like a stage production even though, ironically, it was about a stage production. This was prevented by jumping through time much like the human brain, which is what most film’s do and what stage productions fail to do realistically. The one liners in Birdman simply blew me away in terms of film stereotypes and film language. When Sam (Emma Stone) confronts Riggan (Michael Keaton) at the thirty minute marker, she says that he doesn’t like twitter and doesn’t have a Facebook and that because of this he “doesn’t exist” and he doesn’t matter. In this day and age with technology being such a big part of our communication process, it is hard to get by without some sort of relationship with the internet. This line also points to the fact that so many people become famous through social media sites like this that because Riggan does not have one, he isn’t important and literally does not exist in the social media realm.

Another great line was when there is a voice overlay of Riggan speaking as Birdman telling the older, grown up Riggan about what audiences want to see. He says, “people, they love blood. They love action. Not this talky, depressing, philosophical bullshit” and I think this draws attention to the direct comparison between moviegoers who go simply for entertainment and stimulation and moviegoers who go for well-made films and relevant messages. This scene includes an incredible amount of special effects and animation that is fast-paced and widely entertaining and confusing, which makes it captivating; a satirical backdrop for the line about action film.

A noteworthy moment comes when Keaton speaks with the production critic (Lindsay Duncan). I believe this to be a  critique of art critics, more specifically those who bash or promote works of art based on the popularity, history, money, etc of the artist rather than for the work itself. While this reporter is a female with probably the most power in the entire film, other females represent the lower side of the totem pole. For example, Lesley (Naomi Watts) is almost raped on stage in front of an audience and she asks a coworker, “why don’t I have any self respect?” which is interesting because of the inserted word “self” when she is complaining of a male coworker taking advantage of her. Laura (Andrea Riseborough) responds with the line, “you’re an actress, honey.” The two share a moment and Laura praises Lesley and before long Riggan walks in, praises Laura, and leaves. She is left glowing with the admiration of the male star. The two females then make out. This pokes fun at female representation both in film and in the entertainment business.

Along with many other significant moments, I enjoyed the film’s use of method acting for Mike Shiner (Edward Norton). It was a subtle, but serious way, to show the consequences of method acting. Mike gets drunk on stage in front of a full audience, he abuses Lesley, he can only get hard in character, and he orders a tanning bed. Riggan even later says, “That’s you Mike. You’re Mr. Natural.” Cinematic realism then plays into the mix with Riggan pulling the trigger on himself, blasting his nose off during his opening night. He ironically has to wear a face mask of plaster and bandages that look like Birdman’s mask and that image is the last we see of Keaton.

Recently in class the discussion was brought up if any television show or film has been able to or could potentially be able to accurately depict the many facets of life as an African American. The conclusion was no because there is always some criticism from someone who cannot see their own story in a show or film. This is the exact problem with the burden of representation. How much are we obligated to show. After watching Color Adjustment, I started to think that maybe these shows weren’t un realistic but rather just the story of a certain person or group of people. Most of the criticism they received was that they did not do justice to all areas of the black experience, which in some cases (such as the portrayal of the ghetto) can be a problem, this overarching issue can be attributed to the burden of representation and its inability to touch upon all facets of life for an African American. Color Adjustment also talks about these shows promoting stereotypes which is one of the problem’s outlined in Mercer’s piece Dark and Lovely, he expands upon the representation problem by saying that when things are shown often, they may be seen as typical and therefore lead to stereotypes. This is a common problem still seen in todays media.

First and foremost, I found Color Adjustments to be an extremely well made documentary that  and incredibly relevant issue with modern television. Furthermore, the fact that the film was released in the early 90s makes matters more interesting since the last 25 years have seen multiple attempts to accurately portray African Americans on screen.

I thought it was wild to see clips from Amos and Andy. The show was originally quite popular on the radio dating back to the 20s,  but white actors played black. When the show hit the air in 1951, Black actors took over their rightful parts, even though those parts were self-depreciating and perpetuating of social stereotypes. While the show did not last, it was eventually shown again in 2012… perhaps because the country was ready to address the racial issues perpetuated in the media in the previous century. Today, one of TV’s biggest hits is a show called Black-ish. The show, like Fresh Prince of Bel-Air or the Cosby Show, tackles a more contemporary approach to upper-middle class Black families. Black-ish, which follows the Modern Family slot, tries to create a sitcom society that addresses the nuclear family from the black perspective in a similar fashion to its time slot predecessor. The problem, is that the Black characters are still treated as black… Why? Because entertainment is a business and the industry labels African Americans with particular attitudes. Sure, shows like the ones mentioned above treat the characters humanely, place them in recognizable settings for both races, and offer respect to the leads… but they still focus on the fact that they are different than their white counterparts. THAT right there is the problem and it is a problem that Hollywood LOVES to perpetuate.

The only way we are going to move into a post-segregated society fully is when entertainment and society start looking at both races as one in the same, or unique for their own, ineffable reasons that don’t need to be explained. We don’t satirize white characters to the same extent that we do for Black characters. Of course, there are moments when satire is funny and necessary to point out the absurd and obvious. Satire is its own genre and often succeeds in addressing problems (though it too perpetuates the stereotype by doing so). The fact of the matter is, it’s really up to us, as the next generation of media story tellers, to treat African Americans in the same light as White characters… not only that, but perpetuate what this country is founded on… E Pluribus Unum. From many one. There are a ton of examples of films/shows treating blacks and whites the exact same and that is an excellent start. And there is always room for historical films/shows like Twelve Years A Slave or Mad Men which address history (hopefully so it will never be repeated) – but media needs to move forward. That doesn’t mean Spider Man needs to be black or Shaft needs to be white… it means that the only thing that should matter is story and characters… whether they are black or white should never be the issue. It’s a dream to think it’s possible, but I really believe we are already headed in that direction. Just look at Furious 7… the cast is a great mix of latin, black, and white and it just raced to 800 million dollars at the box office in 12 days. Why? Because they are a family, no matter what ethnicity they come from. That’s where we need to head.

This was a very powerful documentary with a lot to process.  Taking us through the evolution of race in Television was very eye opening. The film stated that TV tried to be non-prejudice, but what we saw was very racist. Starting with Amos ‘N’ Andy and working it’s wayto much more modern things, it seems that race has very often been portrayed incorrectly.  It seemed like people could be accepting of African American’s on TV, but only if they were “made to seem more white.”

It seemed like there was tension during the civil rights movement and the shows on TV showing African Americans. I thought the most powerful part of the film was when they would cut between shots of people be sprayed with hoses and attacked by dogs, then would cut to Bewitched, or something that had no content having to do with race.

I thought the character and TV show that had Archie Bunker was interesting. Here was a man who was clearly racist, and his family disagreed with him at times, and the studio audience was laughing very much at his racist jokes. I hope that during the time he would be seen as as much of a villain as he would be today if that show aired.

Though lengthy, I found myself engaged with this article throughout the entire thing. The information was relevant, true, and well supported. Dyer’s main purpose is to use Simba (1955), Jezebel (1938), and Night of the Living Dead (1969) to prove that whiteness is related to order, rationality, and rigidity while blackness is related to disorder, irrationality, and looseness. However, he also makes clear that these films attempt to contest white domination and expose the idea that while white people hold power, they are materially and emotionally dependent upon black people.

To introduce his thesis, Dyer explains that “whiteness” isn’t generally seen as anything in particular because nobody studies the majority, proving that studying minority groups makes it seem like they are not part of the norm. He says that whiteness had a property to be everything and nothing, making it a hard concept to grasp. The only way to study whiteness, is to also study minorities so there can be a comparison. When talking about cinema, white people must be divided down into groups such as “English middle class” or “Italian-Americans” and if they aren’t, they are just considered “people” rather than “white people.” Dyer brings up that mainstream cinema should be analyzed in the context of the “commutation test,” attempting to put a black actor in a white role and see how well it works. Dyer asks the question, what does this say about whiteness if a black man cannot play a white role?

Simba: Dyer explains that this film shows the binarism between black and white and that this is represented through mise-en-scene, lighting, sound, and action. Also, the editing of the film is used to calm and stress the viewer in direct correlation to what is shown on screen. This can be seen in the meeting scene on page 828. Dyer later explains that there is a repeated failure of narrative achievement by white characters creating a sense of white helplessness. On page 831, he rounds up with a quote that reads, “Simba is, then, an endorsement of the moral superiority of white values of reason, order, and boundedness, yet suggests a loss of belief in their efficacy.”

Jezebel: Dyer explains that compositionally, black people generally begin scenes by being on camera first and also act as a dominant image in each scene, interrupting moments where the viewer is watching white interaction. They do not serve a very dramatic function but play an essential role. Here Dyer begins his belief that black people have more life than whites because they are more natural and white people are too caught up on thought. To show this, Dyer shows the growth of Julie, the white female protagonist, throughout the film. Julie starts out as wild and free, her inner blackness as Dyer calls it, and ends the film with very little movement. She asks her black maid, Zette, to see who has come to visit and the camera follows Zette as she runs around and is lively while Julie is still and calm and lifeless. As a final punch, Dyer talks about the singing scene at the end of the film and how only specific feelings can be expressed through black people. He gives examples of frustration, anger, jealousy, and fear and says “there is no white mode of expression” for these “pent-up feelings” and they can “only be lived through blacks.” He then sums up with, “The point of Jezebel is not that whites are different from blacks, but that whites live by different rules” (834).

Night of the Living Dead: Dyer makes a nice segue to begin this film’s analysis by saying, “If blacks have more life than whites, then it must follow that whites have more death than blacks” which in this film, is very true (834). All the zombies are white people and living whites are mistaken for them frequently. Dyer then makes the comment that the film may be a metaphor for both white people and the USA in general. The main character is named Barb, she has pale skin and blonde hair and has the same name as the best-selling American doll. Dyer notes that you can kill the zombies through their brain. Another hint at the white obsession with thought and knowledge rather than emotion and body. The protagonist of this film and it’s sequels is a black man. This says that blacks are in control of their bodies and can survive alone while whites have no control over their bodies unless they are zombies, and in that case they hunger for white brains.

In conclusion, Dyer really makes no conclusion. He instead brings up a question on why glamour lighting in Hollywood is fitted for the white female. It is designed to make her transparent, almost hiding her flesh and blood. Because of this, blacks are more difficult to photograph. He also says that the white ideal that embodies all heterosexual men is the white female.

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