Big Lie/Happily Ever After

Oh, romantic comedies....I admit, I've enjoyed a few, but I think they are on the bottom tier of American cinema. Many men would agree with that statement, while many women would disagree. Romantic comedies are so formulaic. I like to see something new when I see a movie. It's interesting how most rom-coms (or just regular romance movies) are about a white couple, so I guess that any movie with a non-white girlfriend/boyfriend automatically breaks the mold. But that's just a technicality. It can still have the usual generic plotline.
As I reviewed the Manatu reading, one part caught my eye: on page 12, it says, "films entertain and circulate ideas about our culture about people." There's always been the debate about whether movies mirror real life, or real life mirrors the movies. I think it's a little of both. As for the romance movies go, I'd say people expect real life to mirror the movies, but that is rarely the case. This often leads for high, unrealistic expectations and disappointments, especially for women. On many occasions I have watched movies with my girl friends, and they say, "Why can't real guys be like that?" I'm pretty sure it was in the Manatu reading that women learn about dating from romantic movies, and men learn about it from porn, or maybe I just heard that somewhere else. I'm sure some men watch porn and wish real women would be like that. But these are just fantasies, and people should recognize them as entertainment.
The Manatu reading also talked about the tendency for black men to date white women, but not vise versa. That's certainly the case for movie characters, but I don't think it's necessarily the case in real life. My grandparents once said they thought it was rarer for a black woman to date a white man, but I have personally known many black women to date white men. I think people often rely too much on statistics, or fictional representations, and these aren't always true to everyday life. That's why the "Big Lie" and "Happily Ever After" can be dangerous--romantic movies especially appeal to young girls, and those girls are very impressionable. Directors like Spike Lee claim they are depicting life as it truly is. I bet there are many stupid people out there who believe the movies show real life.

Big Lie

The big lie, as defined by Haskell and re-iterated by Manatu, seems to be that by re-inforcing 'natural' or appropriate gender differences there is a reinforcing of women's inferiority status. While a preference for the idea of romance instead of sex, or of realizing intimacy through romance as opposed to sexuality, is often considered to be a hallmark of feminimity, as portrayed in traditional romance it also often seems to be a method of devaluation. Because this traditional romance can only be realized by acquiescence (eventually) to the desires and autonomy of masculinity, it in fact represents women as needing men's guidance or dominance as part of the natural sphere of gender roles. Whether or not women are actually more 'romantic' than men becomes secondary to the use of this concept in plotting which requires women to eventually cede autonomy to the desires of the opposing gender.

The 'happily ever after' portion of this seems to be the incentive for such submissiveness. By relinquishing self-control to the inevitable union which lies at the end of most romances, you are guaranteed perpetual happiness. Clearly (and this has been stated before and more eloquently than I will) this doesn't allow for chance, death, social factors and most importantly for personality. As the divorce rate in the post-war world adequately showed us, perpetual and monogamous happiness might not actually be a goal that everyone can actualize. The use of 'happily ever after' combined with the 'big lie' of certain gender role representation is a way for formula romance to appeal to certain fantasies, desires and hopes of viewers (male and female, I would argue).

The Love Lie

I think the big lie in romance films is that the relationship is going to work out in the end eventually, no matter what has happened before, but in the end it is all going to be good. Of course many people know that this is not true (therefore the expression 'it's like in the movies') but still I think it does not bother most people because if we wanna see a bad relationship we can just look around. Watching films is also about escaping reality to a certain degree, and in that sense people watch romance movies to see a couple living happily ever after in the end. Of course this is especially appealing to women, who usually enjoy those kind of movies more than men, because (I hate to say this but from my own experiences it is actually true) many women have had bad experiences with men in terms of relationships (don't get me wrong, it's not that I treated one of my girlfriends badly or anything but I have many female friends and almost all of them have had boyfriends who were assholes). In that sense, I think those movies portray an alternative reality where differences can always be overcome in the end.

The Big Lie in Romance

I feel like "The Big Lie" that is presented in romance films and novels is that things will work out in the end, in some form or another. If a woman in the narrative is not paired up with some amazing man, then she will at least find solace in the company of her friends (even if they have already been paired up with the man of their dreams). I think this is unfair both to men and women because it creates ridiculous expectations for women to which no man can live up. This sort of leads into the issue of the "Happily Ever After" ending, which also creates rather ludicrous expectations. It has already been suggested that people go to movies to escape; that is, they do not want to see a sad ending or a "normal" ending in a movie. We have become so inundated with the "Happily Ever After" narrative that when we do encounter a movie that does not end "happily," we leave the theater feeling down and even depressed, even though it very well could be the ending we would expect in our own lives.

The Big Lie

I think the big lie that film and novels feed into woman's brains is the concept of a passionate and eternal love affair. Romance novels give woman the false idea that somewhere out there, there is a person waiting to sweep them off of their feet. Now I don't mean to sound extremely negative, but as most of us know, the chances of having a crazy love affair is pretty rare.

Case and point Twilight. That phenomenon has made young girls and their mothers fall in love with a fictitious vampire who sparkles in the sunlight. Although this film doesn't fit with African American cinema, it fits perfectly into the "happily ever after" mind set..

These happily ever after films usually portray gender roles in a very negative light. With many romantic comedies, they tend to have a young girl who is usually unhappy with her life...UNTIL a man comes into her life. We've seen it all before. These films make woman think that the only way to happiness if aiding and being loved by a man; which is really not true at all. Love doesn't always mean happiness!

For Colored Girls

Well...I'm sorry to say, but I was not a big fan of Tyler Perry's rendition of For Colored Girls.

The main thing I have to say is that it should remain a play and only a play. That could just be my opinion, but I really felt like Perry's use of the monologues really didn't translate on film. I found the film way too melodramatic and over acted on several accounts.

I understand that this movie is supposed to be a very serious, very dramatic film, but half the time I just wanted to laugh. That makes me feel like a horrible person, but it's the truth. I think that Perry could have done a better job at modernizing the story for contemporary viewers.

Big Lie

Basically, the "Big Lie" that women are fed through various forms of media is that in order to be happy, complete, successful, or feminine, we must be in a relationship. It is infuriating to me that so many narratives feature women who are hardworking, strong, and confident, having all the tools to succeed in life, yet only when they find love do they really appear whole. This is teaching young girls that we must depend on men for our happiness, and that all of our effort should be put into attracting the opposite sex. This makes women value themselves according to their relationship status, telling themselves that if they are single, they must not be "good enough." It also dictates how women should act in love, telling us we should be "good girls" and resist the sexual urges only men are supposed to have. This in turn creates a binary as to what is "feminine" and what is "masculine. "

As far as the "Happier Ever After" narrative goes, I believe that it furthers gender roles, claiming men are the rescuers of the helpless women. Fairytales teach us that once we find love, everything will be great, and all of our problems will go away. It creates a femininity that is passive, waiting for the active males to save us, because apparently women cannot help themselves.

The scary part of all of this is that it is so ingrained in our media, and our minds, that most do not recognize it unless it is pointed out to them. The media has a way of normalizing this "Big Lie" that makes women, and men, not think twice about it.

A Big Lie

On reality television the other day there was a man whose girlfriend was complaining about his lack of chivalry. He turned toward the cameramen and said "I blame Hollywood." The "big lie" in Hollywood is closely tied to the notion of living "happily ever after" and the gender roles that are misconstrued because of it. This woman on television fell victim under the thought that this man should be undeniably charming, sweeping her off of her feet. The romantic relationships constructed in Hollywood and romance novels are probably completely foreign to this man. Implicit in this example is the fact that most relationships are more like the couple on reality television than in romance novels. I attributed most of this to temporal differences. Successful films often last around 2 hours. Successful relationships take much longer. Making note of this allows us as viewers to enjoy "the big lie" and the idea of "living happily ever after" while adapting its' values and goals to our own daily lives.

The Big Lie

The problem with the "big lie" and the "happily ever after" themes are that they are central to the Hollywood narrative. The reason for their popularity is because that is what Hollywood believes the people want to see, and rightfully so. If the norm was to portray relationships as they typically exist why would people want to see them? People arguably mainly go to movies to escape. If the norm of movies was the girl gets dumped and is depressed throughout the whole film would that be entertaining? My response is no. People, particularly girls want to believe that all relationships will work out if they want them too. Watching a film that shows the guy leaving the girl might hit too close to home for some people and remind them of the struggles which they have endured. These films and romance novels tell us that we should have all our emotional needs met but that's the lie. The truth is we all go through struggles and when things do finally work out then that's when we get to live "happily ever after." Sorry if that sounded too preachy.

The Big Lie

If romantic comedies do provide nothing more than a big lie, that makes them no different than the any other Hollywood genre films. There may be a big lie of westerns that celebrates a fascist Manichean vision of the old west. There may be a big lie of World War II movies that - in spite of all the horrors of war - still celebrate an idea of war heroism. Romantic comedies promote a hetero-normative vision of romantic coupling, one that proposes marriage as a singular approach to life happiness. Such a "happily ever after" narrative damages gender relations for suggesting that male and female roles must somehow be static.

My own problem with this suggestion is that genres are or can be great things to work with and against. If the standard problem with romantic comedies is that they present static gender roles, what do we do with a film like Adam's Rib, in which Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn are constantly undercutting or reworking the classic marriage paradigm? It's a little easy to write off an entire genre of films, for somehow promoting a problematic vision of gender relations. It's much harder, and much more interesting, to locate irony and self-awareness that exist in even the lamest cultural artifacts.

For Colored Gurls

While I didn't exactly enjoy the film I respect what it was trying to do. If you understand that it is a screenplay written for the stage and not the big screen it is easier to digest. I respect that it stayed true to its form but I think Tyler Perry needs to understand that the audience he is playing to will not enjoy or unlikely to enjoy this type of film. In this same aspect I think the screenplay encouraged overacting as is common in stage acting. There is brilliant acting in this film but the monolouges do not help this much. Things I did enjoy were the progression of the African women in the film is progressive for the Female African American community. They all seperated themselves from the masculine male counterparts. After watching this film I do want to see the play as this is where the story got much of the fame, but as a film I probably will never watch it again.

The "Lovable" Lie

It seems as if the big joke about romantic movies involving African American women, is the gender stereotypes that are never challenged in really any of the films. African American women fall into their predictable roles on screen as sex objects, castrating bitches, or Jezebels. Men, tend to fall into their own respective categories that compliment those female archetypes as well.

In addition to having very little redemptive aspects for the women in these films, there is also something of a formula that produces the "ideal" happy ending. This typically involves a woman looking for a man to settle down with by the film's ending. If a woman does not find a man by the film's ending, she seems to be portrayed as this hopeless whore doomed to be single, but promiscuous for the rest of her life, while the woman who has "succumbed" to a man is awarded with a house and family that she implicitly must maintain.

Big Lie

I think its obvious that the "big lie" is that the majority of films and novels present the idea of the perfect guy and that women find them then have a happy ending. It's that exact idea that draws women into a good romance book or movie, to see it happen fictionally if it hasn't already happened in their own lives. Not to say that all women are unhappy or single, but regardless of relationship status I think most women are drawn to romance in general. The issue with this is that the way hollywood constructs this idea very typically and is not always true to reality. But then again without the general aspects of what is involved in a romantic novel or film, it can't be catergorized under that genre.

Well Duh

Pardon the obvious but I think "Hustle and Flow" would be a great example for this blog. The film is entirely and makes the narrative stronger by the use of music. Djay get the idea to rap about his experiences as a pimp and how hard it is. The rest of the film is either about the difficulties of producing the song (money, building the studio, lyrics, and getting heard) and the other is about experiences that get written into the song. I think this film reaffirms the stereotype that the only way for a black man to get out of the streets from a life of crime is to rap about it and in this rap he/she appeal to young Black Americans. The evident representation of popular rap themes in this film adds to that theory and the experiences of an African American Male. The music isn't so much imaginative as it uses popular rap culture. Other black experience film have music, but none that reference the experiences and strengthen the narration like "Hustle and Flow"

"For Colored Girls"

Before going to see the movie, I heard the movie summed up in just a few words: "too melodramatic." I was afraid that this would affect my experience, but it was totally accurate. Sure, all of the women in the narrative had some pretty horrific things happen to them, but it just seemed to pile on. As we were talking about the movie afterward, we discussed the monologues that each character had. This tool can be very effective in theatre-- and very well could have been in the stage production of this narrative-- but in a motion picture, it just seems a bit out of place, especially when they came as randomly as they did. The one that stuck out the most to me was toward the beginning, when the teenage girl was in her dance class, talking to her classmates about her romantic encounters. I was perplexed at first, because I did not realize what she was trying to do. Was she supposed to sound like she was about to break out into song? Was she just delivering her lines poorly? Even though I finally figured things out, the monologues still seemed a bit overdone.
Another thing that really stuck out to me was the extremely poor portrayal of African-American men in the film. Only two men were "good" to their women, and one of them turned out to have been deceiving his wife by living a sort of a double life and lying about his sexual encounters with other men. Granted, it is not Tyler Perry's job to paint a sterling picture of African-American men through his films, but I think this aspect of the film is just another component of the whole overly-melodramatic tone the film has to it.

For Colored Girls

Well, what can I say that hasn't been said? I think we've covered quite a bit about this last week but still, I found this film to be pretty good, not fantastic, but pretty good at what it was trying to do.

Tyler Perry had a pretty difficult job in trying to transition this from one art to another, and from one chronological context to another. I feel as if he did a satisfactory job at this very thing, but there were still some aspects that were lost in transition. For instance, the Lady in (Khaki, Grey?)'s husband acted more like a Vietnam veteran instead of a Gulf War veteran, like we discussed. I think Perry could have tried to make more of a distinction or go into the character's mentality of why he was abusing alcohol, or if he suffered from PTSD. As a result of his actions, I felt as if the troubles the Lady in Grey dealt with throughout the film were hyperbolic (scrubbing her children's blood off the pavement.) This seemed a little problematic, coupled with the piling on of everyone else's tragedy, it leaves an audience feeling overwhelmed, and I think this can be of detriment to the film.

I do applaud Perry for making Juanita Sims (Lady in Green) a blatant vehicle for educating on contraception, and safe sex coupled with Janet Jackson's character (Lady in Red) contracting AIDS, because as I discussed in my Media and Health Class last week, AIDS is still a disease prevalent in African American Communities around the U.S. with assistance not being rendered in an immediate fashion. I understand Perry could have written this out or changed it, but he didn't, and I applaud him for this.

Nonetheless, I think this movie is an emotional roller coaster, and the movie itself is something of a roller coaster in that there are some good moments that get shadowed by some of the hyperbole and the superficial portrayals of some of the characters.

For Colored Girls...

I have only read parts of For Colored Girls, though I've never seen it performed. I imagine that Shange's poems when performed against a minimalist background on stage, on an arena that suggests but does not define a clear place, would be extremely effective. That said, I may be made of stone, but I don't think I've ever seen a movie in which a woman discovers she is HIV positive, a man drops two children from a five-story building, a woman is raped, and another woman suffers the horrors of a back-alley abortion -- note to Tyler Perry, the abortion procedure can be legally and safely administered in New York state -- that left me this cold. It wasn't laughable, but with a few extra directorial missteps, Perry may have created a Grand Guignol comedy. It was very frustrating seeing some wonderful actresses forced to butcher some lovely words while under the tutelage of a cheap, truly Oprah-fied director.

Perry strives for the sentimental and the easily redemptive, a path Shange refuses to walk. I don't know if there is some fundamentalist Christian streak in him that demands that he punish his characters for their most humane shortcomings. Bitchy career woman. Punishment: HIV. Abused woman who all too patiently suffers a psychotic boyfriend? Punishment: dead kids. You want to abort your child? Oh, Perry's got something special in store for you.

For Colored Girls

The title of the film was supposed to be "For colored girls who have considered sucicide when the rainbow wasnt enuf" so I guess I should have expected the film to be full of tragic stories. Yet through the whole film I was waiting for one character to be the one who inspires the others or who has an uplifting story, but all of the characters had something negative happen in their lives. I did not hate the movie but I definitely didn't like it. I think it promotes the idea that there is nothing positive among black women wheter they are poor or not. The film also gave the idea that you can't trust black men, only two were actually kind to women and one was gay, cheating on his wife and gave her HIV so it doesn't really count. Other parts of the film were over dramatic, such has Michael Ealy's character. I was wondering how Tyler Perry made his decision to show the really graphic events and which ones not to. He didn't show the abortion, or the childrens murder but he showed the rape very dramatically. I also didn't think his transition into the poems from dialogue was very well done, I was confused and didn't understand them. Another intersting aesthetic was when Jo and her husband were talking in the bedroom they weren't facing eachother as they talked, but you'd think when you were confronting your husband about something serious like finding out he gave you HIV and he's been cheating on you you would be a little more confrontational. Over all the film was interesting to see, but not very well done.

"For Colored Girls"

I have to admit, I did not hate the film the way many of you did. I didn't love it, but it had its good moments. It also had its problems, obviously.
First of all, I feel like this movie would have had more of an impact in the 70s, when it was written, as opposed to now. Race is still a significant issue now, but the issues in the movie could have happened to women of any race. To me, the movie was more "For Girls" than for colored girls. It was about the difficulty of dealing with pregnancy, domestic abuse, rape, etc. To me, those issues transcend race. On the other hand, most movies released in mainstream theaters feature mostly white casts. In a way, the title of this movie is fitting, because it has a non-white cast, therefore black women can see women who look like them on the screen. It's their way of saying, even though movies only seem to care about white women's problems, black women have problems too.
Yet this movie really focuses on the problems--I have come to discover that I am not a fan of movies with so many plot lines, especially movies like this, where each plot line is more depressing than the last. I like the idea that they can all support each other, but the melodrama was a bit overwhelming.
Back to the title, and how the movie deals with issues that challenge all women: race is hardly mentioned in the film. When Thandie Newton's character says, "Being colored is a metaphysical dilemma that I haven't conquered yet," I didn't believe her. We're not given reason to believe that her problems are caused by race, or that she is insecure about her race. Many women who are insecure about being colored date white men to avoid their own race. Tanji dated black men. She never talks about her race. Again, maybe the movie would have been more important in the 70s.

For Colored Girls

So I finally saw a Tyler Perry movie and no I did not like it. From the several issues I had with this movie, the main question that struck me (again) was: Why do narratives about black womanhood always have to be centered around rape or another form of abuse? In this film, we had abuse thrown at us every five minutes, there was the woman who got raped, the woman who was abused by her psychotic alcoholic somehow zombie-like husband, the overly promiscuous woman who sort of abused herself by offering herself to every man available, the woman who suffered in an unhappy marriage with a closet gay husband, the woman who was betrayed and left by her lover again and again etc. The 'message' that this film and others convey, think about the abuse scene in She's Gotta Have It or the scene in Waiting To Exhale where she is left by her husband in the meanest way possible after sacrificing everything for him, is that black women's lives are just a huge pile of agony and tears and no matter what they do and how hard they try their shots at happiness are doomed to fail in the end. I haven't seen the original play and I understand that Tyler Perry was trying to make a point that women (and not only black women by the way) often suffer from abuse or get raped, but these scenes in the film were also ruined by ridiculous and exaggerated melodrama and implausible character development. Take the scene where Yasmine is raped in her apartment. This was indeed a strong scene and well acted, although it was clear after the first 5 minutes of the film that one of the characters gets raped because apparently you cannot tell a story about women without involving rape, although my bet was on Thandie Newton's character. But afterwards we see her in the hospital, just hours after she had been raped and experienced a very traumatic situation, and I am supposed to believe that her way of dealing with it is to give an essay-like speech to the policeman about the problems of rape and also society in general? That did not seem very likely to me. Generally, after suffering a terrible situation, each character was given a monologue, which to me often seemed misplaced or too far out of context. The male characters in the film were also too unbelievable to me. Take the rapist for example. He said in the beginning of the film that he had been accompanying Yasmine on her way to work for several weeks, and he took her out to dinner etc. So he has been a nice gentleman for several weeks, put a lot of effort into getting closer to her, but then when she invites him to her house after already going out with him, and it is clear that she likes him and they will soon have sex anyway, he suddenly snaps and transforms into this violent rapist? That seemed too unbelievable for me. Or the guy that Tangie (Thandie Newton) picks up at the bar and takes home, who offers her money and then leaves laughing. She is working as a bartender in a very high-class bar, so why would he assume she is a hooker? Hill Harper's character was the only one that was believable to me, and I am not saying this because he was the only nice guy, but just because his character's actions were the only ones that made any sense to me. I was also disappointed by Michael Ealy's character. Ok he was traumatized by war, without any further explanations given, but the scene in the end where he throws his children out of the window was good for melodramatic effect but again seemed too illogical to me. Did he do it out of jealousy or because she did not want to marry him? And why would he throw his kids out of the window because of that? To achieve what? Just because he is traumatized and drunk is not a good explanation. But that may be just my own perception. Overall, I thought the cast all gave strong performances, although I thought some talent was wasted on narrow character development, for example Whoopi Goldberg as the religious fanatic. One of the biggest problems was also the structure of the narrative. It was basically depicting the suffering of the woman, then let her recite a poem or let her have some other sort of monologue, and then repeat this pattern with every other character for the rest of the movie. What you then had in the end was just a compilation of endless suffering without a real consecutive narrative, and after sitting through this movie for two and a half hours, I just wanted it to end. The repetitive narrative pattern made the characters seem somewhat interchangeable, and in the end instead of several different women with individual destinies, they seemed like one big pile of miserable abused black womanhood. I think the film had way more potential than this, but the filmmakers focused too much on melodrama.

I think...?

The "Big Lie" and "Happily Ever After" serve the purpose of the viewer and I don't think it stops with women, but in the case of this blog I'll focus my thoughts. "Happily Ever After" is the struggle in finding a man to be with. The search through all the awful men as dipicted by the villians in the story. The picture perfect women has to struggle through the awful, mean, rude men until she finds her "perfect" match. Here is the "Big Lie"...your perfect match is probably cheating on you with his younger version of you. You will probably not be happy ever after...40% of marriage ends in divorce and that is an improvement. Women get confused in what makes them happy(as all people are confused). They think love makes them happy, they want to marry the poor stable boy because they are in love, but in todays world she should of married the prince because he was loaded and she would of been a princess. Call me a sell out, but Im going to marry for money and be "Happily Ever After"...call me in 1o years, Ill invite you over to play on my wave runner

Hoop Dreams

I haven't seen the entire film, but hoop dreams to me seems like it is supposed to be a portrayal of how two african american boys are trying to become NBA atheltes and their battle to reach that dream. I didn't think Hoop Dreams was anything special, but it was interesting to watch. As said in class, I did compare it alot to the Lebron documentary alot and was expecting it to be more like that. I was disappointed with the ending in the fact that they did not reach the NBA and it seemed that they had failed in reaching the general stereotype that they had to become star athetles to become successful. I agree with hooks in how she said the film addresses the stereotypes but does not explore them more, like why the one boy and his father had a poor relationship. I think Hoop Dreams does its job in showing the hardships of the boys and their goals, but other than that I was not that impressed with what I saw.

Hoop Dreams

After watching the trailer for Hoop Dreams it is clear that the main theme of the film is the overcoming of harships to reach success. In the case of this film, two black males who live in poorer areas of Chicagoland and attempt to overcome their troubles associated with living there to achieve the American dream. One problem that I have with this concept, which Bell Hooks also argues is that the film reinforces the belief that kids living in these poorer areas can only achieve success if they become rappers or basketball player. No doubt, many kids have this mentality and it would be nice to see a film which shows two inner-city kids trying to become lawyers or doctors, and become successful in the end. In her essay, Hooks also analyzes possible reasons for the popularity of the film. She believes that the film is not a great documentary, but good drama and reflect the culture's obsession with real life stories. I agree with these statements however, it remains a mystery as to why documentaries on PBS and other networks which portray black families and drama are not popular. I think it is due to the fact that the two boys in the film strive to become basketball stars, which tons of kids in poorer neighborhoods and in general idealize.

Hoop Dreams

I watched the trailer for "Hoop Dreams" and the first 10 minutes courtesy of YouTube, it made me want to watch the entire film. The story seemed interesting, unique and I wanted to learn about these kids trying to make it big in the NBA. I watched the clips, before reading the hooks essay, so I formed my own opinion first.

I found the trailer to be inspiring. I thought it showed the lives of some struggling black families, with kids who have talent. I didn't see it as an attack on those who were unfortunate, like hook said a lot of people saw the movie. However, I haven't seen the entire film, so my opinion isn't a very good one.

However, I did find it interesting that hooks, although she felt alienated in the theaters, encourages others to see this film for its "positive aspects of black life that make survival possible." I really liked that statement she made early on in the essay.

Also, since this film is in fact a documentary, it doesn't leave any room for falsities we have seen of black inner city life films. Unlike a film like Juice or Do the Right Thing, this movie depicts the real life struggles inner city families face. It's not all about gangs and violence, but instead the fear of not making it into the NBA, not being good enough.

Hoop Dreams

The cultural work of this trailer is pretty whitewashed, not to be too glib. I mean that specifically in the sense that cultural imperfections that might threaten the rhetoric of the trailer (and thus the film) are subtly obscured. To me this is represented primarily in the disjunction between the script of the voice-over and the actual images presented in the montage. While there is reference made to scholastic, financial and cultural struggle in the words being spoken, they are presented against a backdrop of mostly positive images: boys playing on the court, struggling diligently in school and even matching hoops with Isiah Thomas. While the overt text recited frames a battle for us, we are only given visual dialectics of (seeming) success. Perhaps it is trite to repeat that 'images speak louder than words' but if you say there's going to be a fight and then you show one side winning, are people going to have ambiguous feelings about that? While clearly as a documentary it will have an open ending, it certainly seems that the viewer of this trailer is being sent a message. Even if the trailer brings up some paper tigers for our protagonists to tacitly battle, the triumphant score and the energetic and youthful enthusiasm on display would seem to set fire to them even before the opening titles. Thus as these criticisms explicate, I tend to side with Hooks' propagandic take on this documentary. Skill and money in a specific athletic arena are being presented as anathema to the black culture diaspora, and I think that the truth is much more problematic and complex than either that view or the views of nominal success we see on display in this trailer.

Hoop Dreams

It has been many many years since I've seen Hoop Dreams. At the time, to me it was just a film about two young boys pursuing their dream and I did not think much about the social circumstances surrounding them. Now viewing parts of it again, and especially the trailer, I admit that bell hooks does have a point. To some (black and white) viewers, the film might suggest that certain ethnic groups or minorities should only follow certain preexisting career paths. But I do not think that this is the film's fault or that you can criticize the filmmakers for it, it is rather the larger socio-political problem that is displayed in the film, which limits young black men's access to higher education and training if they come from an urban background.

hoop dreams

I have to agree with bell hooks, that Hoop Dreams was a popular documentary because it portrayed images that the general public was comfortable with. It did not really bring about anything that was controversial. I think that it told a story a lot of people wanted to see, that despite whatever circumstances life gives you, you can overcome them and still succeed in life. I do disagree with bell hooks' argument that the film used black bodies as a commodity, because this argument could be made about any sports movies, describing any body of any color. I think it was interesting that bell hooks brought up that fact that the mothers in the film are unlike common stereotypes of black mothers, and instead offer support and care for their sons. Despite bell hooks' arguments, I think that people just like to see a story about someone accomplishing their dreams, and it makes it even more exciting when it's a true story.

I thought Hoop Dreams was really inspiring when I saw it. But that was a while ago, and I playing basketball at the time. Like the characters, I wanted to be really good. But now that my interest in basketball as a profession has faded, I can see the film's problems. Hoop Dreams works to instill a limited sense of professionalism or extracurricular pursuit. I'm not entirely sure if the film includes any instance of the characters pursuing their academic responsibility, which is problematic because athletes must usually maintain a specific grade average. I agree with bell hooks. The film works to suggest and legitimize a specific skill set that a specific ethnic group should pursue. I imagine the target audience is incredibly diverse, but the workings of the film function as trappings specifically to ethnic/marginalized groups that are mostly "of color". It perpetuates stereotypical interests of African American males while gesturing at ideologies rooted in a colonial era. However, it's difficult to criticize the film for just this reason. I think a more viable critique would be of class, labor and "accessible identity" that function cyclically, maintaining and resisting these cultural notions. The film is not transgressive, but it is "spicy". While almost everyone can identify with some type of struggle or confrontation with adversity, the relationship between the narrative resonates differently and more concretely to an audience member who sees himself on the screen. It's difficult to argue about the film's transgressive or lack of transgressive intent from a truly "transgressive" stance. Both the film and its commentary must be compromised in order to make a point.

Hoop Dreams

I have only seen about 40 minutes of Hoop Dreams and its theatrical trailer, both on YouTube. From what I have gathered from the footage, the directors aimed to paint a picture of two young men in a dire setting and their quest for success. Instead of taking this route, I think they should have framed the story as one which points out the hardships and difficulties young athletes face-- especially those who come from low-income environments. I think this would be more effective because it is the formula a huge percentage of professional athletes (especially basketball players) have followed and it is interesting to see just what goes into that formula.
I think hooks is a little harsh on the film. In particular, I did not like the part about the "auction block mentality" regarding the try-outs for high school basketball. She has a decent argument in that one side (the coaches) has a distinct advantage over the other (the potential players), and that the players' bodies are indeed "expendable" in comparison to those of the coaches, but I think she is reading a bit too much into the whole concept of an athletic try-out. Plain and simple, if a player is not good enough, regardless of color, height, shape, age, etc., he is told that his services are no longer needed. It is not like he is exiled, whipped, publicly humililiated, told he is good for absolutely nothing else except his sport, or killed, like slaves would have been; he is told (maybe not always in the most polite way) that he is not needed on the team.
One thing I liked about both hooks' piece and the film itself is that it points out the harsh reality every athlete with high aspirations faces: the opportunistic, "ruthless" (as hooks writes) agendas of the patriarchy. Everyone wants a piece of the hot player, whether it is Arthur Agee, William Gates, LeBron James, Kobe Bryant, or John Wall. William said that once he gained some local fame, "everybody wants to be my coach," meaning that everybody he comes into contact with has something to say. There is so much to gain for the third-parties, it makes the fortunes made by the gifted individual seem miniscule.

Hoop Dreams

Hoop Dreams is a fairly popular documentary. For documentary film to resonate with a mainstream audience, it often makes narrative concessions that cater to audience expectations. bell hooks seems to make this introspection as well, it is a film about winning and losing. Growing up in America, competition for commodity is hard to escape. In this film, we see all characters struggling with competition for resources. The coaches want the top prospects, the kids want the cool clothes, the parents must make money to send their kids to school. I do think Hoop Dreams can be appreciated though, just for other purposes. It can provide a sense of nostalgia from the footage of the late 80s and early 90s and it can also provide a more realistic type of drama. Though it may fulfill a stereotype, the scene where the Agee family must use a payment plan for Arthur's failed time at St. Mary's is heart-wrenching and their joy with the outcome would be offensive if fictionally contrived.

Failed Dreams

Hoop Dreams to me is frame as a story about to young men coming up from nothing in the Chicago area using basketball as a means of bettering themselves and leaving their community. This feeling is intensified because when I saw the film it was when the popular Lebron James was coming out of high school with huge fame and success. Seeing what I knew was hugely popular movie about African American basketball players out of high school I assumed they would have similar success. I was dissapointed by the ending that only one of the boys had success and even then it wasn't the success that I had built up for him. I think Hooks may of had the same feeling about the film. While it is a good film, I don't think it accomplished a lot in the area of advancement of the African American community. Hooks spend some time on the topic but doesn't (I feel) dive too deep into the topic, because on the surface the film is framed as a success story, but if do dive into it it can be seen as a failure for the boys and the African American community.

As I have eluded to several times through out this class I think any exposure to the urban African communities is positive as the majority of the population needs to be educated to hopefully enhance the betterment of people like the boys from hoop dreams so they don't have to struggle to make it with basketball.

Hoop Dreams

I first saw this movie on the last week it ran in theaters in a majority black and hispanic Maryland suburb of Washington, D.C. There were about three people in the audience, and having walked in drinking the kool-aid that I was about to watch a movie that told me that all things were possible in America, I found the movie a terrible let-down. One subject of this film, William Gates, is mentioned in the first 30 minutes by a local sportscaster as a name to remember in the coming years, possibly as a future NBA draft pick. It becomes clear by the end of the film that that dream is a bit elusive. If anything, unlike hooks, I felt the sad undercurrent message of the film was that Gates and Agee had slightly better chances of success only because of their basketball prowess. The twisted Chicago private school system seemed to favor their athletic potential over that of their (unseen) more academically talented neighbors. There seemed to clearly be something wrong with that picture, and I don't believe the filmmakers did anything to encourage it. That the private school in the film seems to exploit Gates and Agee is relatively clear. I don't see any glorification of that school with its relatively maniacal coach and mostly ethnically homogenous student body.

I suppose the ethical questions that I've considered about the film through the years concern the differences between what the filmmakers and the subjects themselves would consider to be their greater hardships and humiliations. There is a long sequence which depicts a mother methodically removing lightbulbs after the electricity has gone out in the apartment. It seems a relatively common occurence, and one that she doesn't seem to mind, but the camera lingers in a certain way to capture the "horror" of her poverty. At the same time, Gates's new baby appears without showing us a long drawn-out pregnancy. Documentarians make choices, just like every other artist. But I wonder if the dissonance here was one more of class than of race between the filmmaker and subject. The filmmakers could understand living in an apartment with a new mouth to feed. But they could not understand the terror of an apartment without electricity. And so that is where they placed the emphasis.

"Hoop Dreams"

One thing that struck me about hooks's essay about Hoop Dreams was its brevity. Usually she goes much more in-depth about the films, but I felt unsatisfied about her argument.
After watching the trailer on YouTube, I agree that the cultural aspect of the piece seems to be missing from the film. The trailer definitely presents it as an entertaining movie/spectacle, rather than an emotional examination of humanity. I liked how the trailer didn't mention race, though. It wasn't like "The struggle of young African Americans to overcome obstacles..." hooks may disagree, but I like that they portrayed them as Americans, regardless of race. This may detract from the cultural importance, but to me it says they were marketing it as a story about people, not just people of a certain race. They probably did this to attract more white viewers.
After watching the trailer, I looked up the film on Wikipedia. I read about the two boys around which the film centers. Though he struggled with his grades, William Gates played basketball in college, and even trained with Michael Jordan, but was injured. His brother, who was in the film, was murdered in 2001. The other boy, Arthur Agee, also played for his college team. He is currently a motivational speaker, and his father was murdered in 2004.
These facts tell me a few things--that the documentary exploited these boys' dreams, and made a lot of money off of their dreams, but didn't give much back. They still struggled with school, never achieved their dreams, and their families weren't able to move out of the dangerous neighborhoods. Although they seem relatively successful in other careers, their stories are still sad, and the trailer to the movie suggests a happy ending. It seems like the film makers turned their stories into a Hollywood movie, complete with a false happy ending, thus tricking white audiences into believing it.

Hoop Dreams

After reading Bell Hooks' argument, and watching about 2o minutes of the film, I feel as if this film is lost in translation. The film is set up as a documentary of sorts, but it is being passed off in trailers as a film with an established storyline conveniently laced with drama for white audiences.

I agree this movie doesn't necessarily do anything spectacular or groundbreaking for either white or black audiences. However, as a journalist going into broadcast, I don't find Bell Hooks' suggestions for what the documentary film makers should have done to be well advised. She expresses a wish for the film makers to be more critically interrogative about some of the aspects raised throughout the film. On one hand, she is correct, and if this documentary wants to break new ground and shed light on things, they should ask more provocative questions, but to be overly critical when doing so is not there job, provided you are viewing this as a documentary rather than just a film.

I also noticed in one of the short tv trailers that there was product placement at the very end for both Nike and Sports Illustrated. I thought this was sort of strange and out of place for any sort of product endorsement for a documentary/film. I doubt Nike and Sports Illustrated were giving money to these urban communities for renewal projects, and better schools.

Black Women

I think it is definitely possible to have a black female sex worker in a film, and make the narrative transformative. However, it does depend on various other things included in a film. For example, the reason why she is a sex worker. Or the way her character is portrayed on film. If she is a sex worker for the wrong reasons, the transformative nature of the film would be lost. However, if she is doing said acts to pay for something later, that will transform her character, or doing so to help out a family member, then it would definitely be transformative. It is important for the writing and directing to be strong enough to indeed transform the main character.

transformation

I definitely think that a black female sex worker could be an element of a cinematically transformative film. The narrative components of such an undertaking are clearly the hard part. I guess the first question would have to be what is any particular film-maker's connection to such material? No-one would choose to invest time and energy into such a project for the financial payoff - hooks' essay on Girl 6 specifically states that one of the transformative elements of the film is its unconventional (and thus, un-commercial) black female representations - and if they did it would probably be a film that wouldn't be necessarily transformative (black prostitute accidently becomes involved in terrorist plot, for example). The alternative therefore is someone who probably has knowledge/experience of the sex trade and has found some elements that are transformative within it. Even considering that I'm not even sure if 'sex-worker' could properly be called a genre (though there are examples of such films), our society has clearly engrained plenty of stereotypes regarding it. Such films typically are about the tropes of urban despair, which is a fine subject, but I think that a personal connection, again, would be necessary for an original and uniquely transformative film to be created. Because prostitution is so widespread but also illegal and a completely 'underground' lifestyle, it seems to me that if you did a comprehensive study on the subject you would find a wealth of unconventional representations ripe for an extended meditation. There is, for example, a little-known thesis on prostitution in my home-town entitled "Living the Life: Prostitution in the Quad Cities". Given that the quad cities is itself completely unique (four towns stretched over the only west-east flow on the world's 3rd largest river) and that it's style of prostitution is quiet and eternal; it sounds like maybe I should write a script about it.

Representing women as sex workers can be done in a transformative manner. Deconstructing ideologies that work to create a fixed image of Black women as sex works would require great attention to cultural/historical context. After watching Charles Burnett's Killer of Sheep, utilizing visual poetics and juxtapositions would be a necessary component. A transformative film like this might initially be read as degrading; the sociocritical intent runs the risk of being consumed by immediate presumptions and accusations associated with cinema in general. Perhaps a woman could direct this film. But, if it's too arty it wont sell. Similarly, if it's too commercial it might loose that "independent" edge. I think narrative structure, aspects of production/post-production, actors and actresses and publicity will be crucial to the film's success by the director's conceptual initiative. It's more than just a "transformative" depiction on screen, but how it becomes to exist as piece for public consumption that will determine the film's relevance.

Transformative Film Roles

I think it is possible for a filmmaker to represent Black women as sex workers while still maintaining a transformative narrative. Just because a given film features a group of people who tend to be marginalized in American society does not mean that they cannot change as individuals. I believe this could be said for a variety of notorious occupations (pimp, mob boss, thief, assassin, etc.). The quality of an individual's character is not defined by their occupation, or at least it should not, even if he or she works one of these jobs that may be looked down upon by most other people. As long as the filmmaker provides an in-depth look at the character as an individual, and not someone who just works a particular job, I think it should be reasonable to expect that he or she (the director) should be able to create a transformative character.

Transformative sex workers

I would argue that a film about sex workers can indeed be transformative, but of course it largely depends on the script and the character development. Like bell hooks says we learn from movies, and so a film can educate us about the plights and everyday struggles of women who try to make a living by stripping or being a prostitute. In that way, when the script allows the character enough room to show a certain depth in character, the audience might be able to identify with her and her struggle. Take for example the Ice Cube-directed film The Player's Club. The main character in that film starts working as a stripper at a nightclub, but it is shown that she needs the money to pay for her college education and cannot find another job. A lot of students also have trouble to come up with the money for their tuition, and people always have problems with paying their bills, so the audience might be able to understand her motivation. In that way, the character turns from an object to a subject. But it totally depends on the script and the filmmaker's intention.

Black Women representations

I believe that it is possible for a filmmaker to represent Black women as sex workers in a way that is cinematically transformative. What comes to my mind is having a statement on Black sex workers by having a sex worker as the main character in a film to make a statement on them as a whole. By this I mean that the director of such a film should have a headstrong, intelligent, and dominant highly sexualized Black female character. By doing this, you are proving that her sexuality is put aside and you realize her as the intelligent and headstrong human being that she is. Just because she is highly sexualized does not mean that she has to be a caricature, but can be a full-fledged character. Although I cannot think of any examples of this, I still believe that it is possible to have a character that that is transformative yet still realistic. The character would have to undergo a radical transformation throughout the film yet still retaining the qualities that make her strong in the first place. I think that it is possible to use a sex worker as a character to make a statement on sex workers and Black women as a whole.

Sex workers as transformers

It is possible for a film about Black women as sex workers to be cinematically transformative the same way it would be possible for a film about a White male washing dishes. The idea is that they are going through some type of transformation, something the audience can identify with. Like hooks says, "we go to the movies to learn stuff. Often what we learn is life transforming in some way." With that train of thought, subject matter takes a backseat to authenticity. If the story is being told in a realistic manner, with the banalities of life that viewers can identify with, the story is granted agency and the audience is more willing to go through the transformation with the narrative.

Sex worker as transformative...

I think a movie about a sex worker can absolutely be transformative. The important thing is that this woman (or man) has agency. They cannot be represented solely by the fact that the get paid for sexual favors. The must have a voice, and a mind. From what Hooks said about Lee's Girl 6, the main character is a phone sex operator because she cannot get work as an actress. This explanation is a good start to giving this character agency. Being a sex worker does not mean the character has to be belittled, or stereotyped. It can be an empowering way for a woman to be independent and take care of herself, which is much stronger to me than a woman looking for a man to save her. In fact, in Girl 6, the main character's ex-husband leans on her for financial support. I think that is pretty telling. I think it is also an important look at female sexuality, specifically black female sexuality in this film. In this situation, the woman is using sex to empower herself (as opposed to degrading the woman as many other representations have done). Although the woman may also enjoy the sex she is taking part in, she is using it as a tool to get herself ahead in life. I think this is extremely transformative.

Sex workers as transformative?

I think it's possible for a female sex worker to be transformative in film. Obviously, she can't be just a stereotype, but it goes further than that. Is she content with allowing herself to be degraded, or is she struggling with her profession? Does she plan on doing that job forever, or is she trying to break out of it? Does she change? Does she want a better life for herself? Or does she think her only role in life is pleasing men?
bell hooks's essay about "Girl 6" made me curious to see the film. I knew the plot of the film, and I was surprised she praised it so much, but her essay made a lot of sense. Spike Lee tries something new in "Girl 6" when representing women. Even if it's not the ideal representation, it's still important that he's trying--everything comes in time, even if it takes awhile.
I didn't find hooks's arguments about "Exotica" as compelling, and I could hardly follow the plot of the movie. Therefore, I'm still unsure about the "Transormativeness" of the character Christina.

Study in Sex Workers

I do believe that it is possible to depict sex workers in a transformational way, if by transformational you mean to depict a character with some degree of integrity and agency. Truffaut once said that it was impossible to make a truly anti-war movie because the nature of filming a war scene in an engaging way invariably forced the filmmaker to make it seem adventurous and engaging. Hence, The Longest Day, for all its famous depictions of individual soldier's horrors is still remembered fondly as a great adventure movie. Yet, in at least the first 30 minutes of Saving Private Ryan, Steven Spielberg manages to undercut his own professed beliefs in the Greatest Generation myths of heroism through a searing series of sounds and images.

Depicting a female sex worker as a figure with integrity and agency is difficult for another basic factor in the film medium. The camera is always serving as a voyeur. And, whereas in a novel, we can read the internal monologue of a female sex worker's deepest most anxieties, the camera constantly asks us to study and dissect her body, to constantly be aware of her function as a sex object.

That challenge can be overcome if a writer/director immediately recognizes and on some level distrusts the powers of his camera to give his heroine subjectivity. It would require seeing the heroine's sexual experiences, at least at some point, from her point of view. It would require a narrative that presented the choices she made to become a sex worker as a rational decision (not necessarily a good one or a non-destructive one) given her circumstances. A few years ago, the NY Times ran an article about a woman who was attempting to unionize sex workers in Southeast Asia. In the economic realities of that country, these women had chosen a profession that required a half-day's work and a level of humiliation in exchange for 16-hour workdays in grueling factory conditions. These women had interesting stories to tell, and an interesting take on their country's situation. A good filmmaker could capture the weight of their humanity.

The Power Struggle for Women

I've had to think about this question, and I've gone back and forth on this one. On one hand, I think it is incredibly difficult to portray women as sex workers, and making it transformative, because film crew can easily fall victim to turning a woman on film as a sex worker into an object more so than a subject.

On the other hand this could be possible. One of the criticisms I've read about Spike Lee's films is his portrayal of women. He has himself said, he finds it difficult to portray women, because he doesn't see women as other women see each other. Perhaps this sort of thing could be rectified if a female film director/writer were to take the reigns on this particular subject, and work with it instead of a man.

In addition to having a female cast and crew, it might also help to make sure the film's promotional efforts don't quite go down a path similar to Girl 6, in which it seemingly is a film about phone sex for audiences to laugh at or get their voyeuristic jollies.

Spike Lee

The only two Spike Lee films I have seen are do the right thing and now get on the bus. I thought that get on the bus relayed a better message. Do the right thing had an interesting narrative but I don't think the ending brought enough closure to the situation in the film. Get on the bus for me was a much better at representing the differences among the characters, and ended with the idea of unity. Get on the bus was also more interesting because it kept it's audience intrigued even though the setting was so limited spatially. I would like to see more of Spike Lee's films to get a better perspecive of how he represents the "truth" in black culture.

Examples From Class Tonight

Hi everyone,

Here is the example brought up in class today in relationship to School Daze (decontextualized, but remember it is for kids):



And the NPR article: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130653300&sc=fb&cc=fp

And the chapter I was talking about here.

I will bring the film back to talk about what we did not get to, which is the sexual exploitation scene. We can pair it with clips from Girl 6 and She's Gotta Have It.

Also, the film White Dog is on youtube!:

Trailer:


Scene:

Most Transformative Spike Lee film

I think my pick for this question would have to be "The 25th hour". It sticks out for a couple for a couple of reasons. The first is that it is doesn't have African-American characters as a focus, but instead a group of caucasians, which is pretty notable for Spike, and I think the first time that he had done that. The other notable feature is that it was adapted from an existing book, also a first for Spike. More than those firsts, it simply deals with things that he hadn't given much space to in his work. It's a post-911 piece that doesn't put that event in the foreground but doesn't exclude it either. It looks at white bourgeouis drug dealing and organized crime. It tries to get inside the head of a character on his last day before jail and also pays homage to earlier techniques in Lee's other films. Some of these elements are derived from the source material of the text, but in general it is Spike's sure hand at the directorial wheel and his typically beautiful cinematography applied to this out of the ordinary (for him) story that makes it my choice for most transformative, at least as seen against the backdrop of his body of work.

Spike Lee

I think the only films by Spike Lee that I've seen are "Do the Right Thing" and "Get on the Bus". From what I've read, the latter is more the transformative of the two, but neither is his most transformative work. In "Do the Right Thing", Lee's character Mookie doesn't make any true development. He starts the riot at the pizza place where he works--even though his boss has always been good to him--and after the whole riot, he still demands money. I think this is a negative portrayal of the Black urban male. "Get on the Bus" is slightly more transformative, because the characters clearly learn things as the movie progresses.
On page 25 in Massood, Lee's comments about sexuality really struck me. I liked that he wasn't afraid to look critically at gender roles and expectations, especially from a woman's point of view. He admits women are treated unfairly. I've never seen "She's Gotta Have it," but I want to now.

Spike Lee

I haven't seen very many Spike Lee films, so I'll have to talk about his most well known work, Do the Right Thing. There's a reason why people hold Spike Lee with such high regard. It's not because he uses really awesome special affects, and it's not because he's rich. It's because he captures on screen something that is real.

While Michael Bay is off making sub par action films that don't require thought, Spike Lee is out there making films that matter, films that invoke thought. (Now this isn't the case for ALL of his films, but still) With a film like Do the Right Thing, it depicted the lives of city kids not usually shown on screen. It discussed important issues like race, gender, and inequality and used them as a vehicle for making a very transformative film.

When I watched Do the Right Thing for the first time, I knew that it was a big deal. Now this could be because I've been told of how great of a film it is and how it kicked started Spike Lee's movie making career. But, it really was as good as everyone says. It was interesting to watch and made me want to watch other films by him and learn more about his activism and believes in regards to society, race and so on.

He Got Game

Personally, the most transformative Spike Lee film for me is He Got Game. This is more a reason of nostalgia, it was a film I saw at the theater with my mom and it was far too realistic a portrayal for me. I ended up asking to leave early, right around the scene that depicts drug use and what "the life" is like. This montage as I saw it of prostitutes and needle-users still plays over in my mind as I think about this film. It was one of the most memorable experiences I had at the cinema growing up.

Another major impact this film has had on me is the name Jesus Shuttlesworth. I have yet to come across a name I like more in film and I appreciate the amalgam provided by Ray Allen in this role. Jesus and Jake Shuttlesworth make an incredibly dynamic father and son duo, one full of potential and one with all of his wasted. The way Spike films the scene of 1v1 becomes truly operatic, he transforms basketball into life.

Transformative Spike Lee Films

After watching Get on the Bus, I feel that this is the most transformative Spike Lee film I have seen (I have seen four so far). The men who boarded the bus at the beginning of the film did so with the same purpose-- to attend the Million Man March-- but each man was distinctly different (maybe even stereotypically so). However, by the end of the film, they have become much more than a bus full of African-American men. Even though that fact is one thing that unites them, it is one of now many things which does so. One could argue that they all boarded the bus as a bunch of African-American guys headed to the Million Man March, but when they got on the bus to head back to Los Angeles, they boarded the bus as African-American men, even though most of them were already full-grown adults. The experiences they shared on that trip helped shape them as individuals. This aspect is what I found most impressive about the film, and allowed me to push aside the stereotypical (in my opinion) depictions of each man on the bus.

X

I am inclined to call Malcolm X, a film that always leaves me cold, Spike Lee’s most transformational film. Anna Everett writes in her essay what I will admit is a throwaway line: “[F]ew would argue that Lee’s Malcolm X is not an impressive achievement. In fact, the film garnered two Academy Award nominations – best actor for Washington and best costume design for Ruth Carter.” Academy Award nominations are hardly the criteria anyone should employ in deciding whether or not a movie is an “impressive achievement.” I found Lee’s Malcolm X weirdly neutered and I found Lee’s whitewashing of some of X’s more unsavory political ideas standard biopic fare. In that, I would say the film is transformational, in that it turned one of the most feared and beloved black figures in American history into a child-friendly monument that fifth graders could comfortably study for African-American History Month.

The finest appraisals of Malcolm X acknowledge the more problematic aspects of his personality. In Ossie Davis’s famous eulogy, the one in which he kills him “our shining black prince,” he also calls him a “bigot.” Malcolm X’s views on race relations did indeed evolve throughout his life. His autobiography, which is based on interviews conducted over a five year period captures that evolution well. In the last few months he claimed to be an agnostic on whether or not whites and blacks should marry one another, a radical departure from previous statements. Still, to the very end, he remained a rabid anti-Semite. Lee fails to capture the subtlety of X’s changing intelligence. I’d be curious to know how James Baldwin’s original script handled the issue. And he shies away completely from X’s anti-Semitic bullying.

Instead, we get what amounts to a standard hagiography in which the most important aspects of Malcolm X’s life are pinpointed, but which provides no truly satisfying narrative arc. It’s a problem consistent with most Hollywood biopics. Spike Lee made a movie about Malcolm X as bloodless as one that could be made by Norman Jewison. And in that, it may truly be transformational.

Nola

While I'm not familiar with Spike Lee's works, I will say, based on what I've read that the character Nola from "She's Gotta Have it" comes off as a transformative character preempitively within the film.

Her character raises the question similar to what Wallace mentions in her essay regarding Nola's desire to have multiple sexual partners, but not get tied down to commitment. This sort of behavior isn't even questioned in the context of a man of really any race. In fact, in some cases some people might celebrate their lifestyles of having multiple sexual partners at once.

However, when this sort of behavior is emulated by a female it becomes a double standard in which the woman is subject to a bunch of demeaning titles ie. "neighborhood whore." Nola's character challenges this double standard, and I think offers another perspective on the matter not simply for African Americans but also for women as well.

Transformative Films

Although I have not seen many films directed by Spike Lee, one of the films directed by him in which the main character undergoes a radical transformation is 25th Hour. The film is about a a mans last day of freedom before he serve a 7 year long prison sentence for distributing drugs. The film is notable for the drastic transformation that the main character undergoes. Initially we see him as racist, anti-Semitic, homophobic, basically disrespecting everyone imaginable (including himself). Then throughout the course of the film he begins to learn who his true friends are and who he can count on, which is essentially no one since he is so disrespectful. He leans that it doesn't matter what you believe in or where you are from, in the end your actions and your own fate are the only things that truly matter. This is quite similar to the film American History X where the main character (also played by Edward Norton) realizes that he needs to rely on people he despises (African Americans) in order to survive his prison sentence. Both films contain a character that change throughout the course of the film and provide positive examples of people and their ability to transform.

Does Mookie Transform?

I would like to write about "Do the Right Thing", inparticular Mookie. Do the Right Thing is set on one of the hottest days in New York (Bed Stuy). Throughout the film Mookie is about one thing and that is getting paid while working at Sal's Pizzaria. He doesn't seem to have any specific need for the money but consistently asks for early pay. He does have a kid, but the mother doesn't ask for money and he doesn't seem to be invested in her or the baby, and the sister he lives with.

I think more important thing (for this arguments purpose) I recalled about Mookie is his relationship with Sal's and his two boys. I felt like Mookie had a negative relationship with Sal. He didn't respect his job, he started fights with one of the sons Pino, and he was always in conflict with Sal, once for example when he gets upset Sal is favoring his sister. All this evidence would lead me to believe that Mookie does not like or want to be associated with Sal until the end when Sal expresses himself to Mookie and Mookie begins to realize what Sal has done for him.

My argument for the transformation of Mookie is how he reacts to the riot at the end of the film. A blood thirsty crowd is upset with Sal and how he doesn't have any pictures of any famous African Americans. The crowd seemingly wants to beat Sal and his family, and Pino is encouraging the fight. Sal becomes more and more aggressive and violence seems to be likely. In the chaos Mookie throws a trash can through the window of the Pizzaria. The crowds attention is turned off Sal and his family onto destroying the store.

I think most people would argue that Mookie could have done other things to prevent destruction, but I feel in throwing the can through the window he prevented a greater loss in the beating or murder of Sal and his family. The crowd was set on violence and possibly could not have been pursuaded, and they just needed something to revolt against and Mookie destroying the building was the push they needed. It is hard to say if Mookie did transform and realize what Sal meant to him and truly meant to save him or if he himself wanted to Destroy the Pizzaria with this actions. I think that he was trying to take the attention off Sall and did save his life and therefore went through a transformation during the film...

"Hip Hop Cinema"

As I said in class, for me the mainstream appeal of this music and cinema is the glamorization of dangerous elements. I've never lived in an urban area, so I can't assess whether or not they accurately depict life (although I assume it's grossly exaggerated). Most movies and TV are exaggerated--Gossip Girl isn't what high school is really like.
Although, I bet that real life "thugs" rely on the threatening images portrayed in movies. This keeps them in a position of power, and keeps them feared and respected on the streets. This also has a backlash--to ignorant white moviegoers, every urban black person becomes a threat because that's what the movies show. Also, I said in class, this had a similar effect on Italian Americans. I think any time an ethnic group is portrayed one way, ignorant consumers (and there are far too many out there) assume that is an accurate stereotype.
Because hip hop is very popular right now, it is hard to avoid the gangsta stereotype, but just like all stereotypes, it will eventually be revealed as just that.

Film Clips for Smith-Shomade

We will watch the first few scenes as time permits

Part 1 (How Intro Frames Film)


Part 5 (Women, Music (New Jack Swing), Violence)

To say that hip hop encourages or facilitates the violent behavior to which it pertains feels like an easy way out. There had to have been "urban atrocities" to begin with in order to inspire this reactionary art—thus, the anger in a lot of rap and the themes of revenge and police harassment, as well as murder, drive-bys and gang violence. People rapped about issues they felt were not being discussed in other cultural forms; they needed an outlet for urban frustration that was not being expressed. However, yes, by commodifying these events by putting them into a marketable cultural form, it does desensitize people to the idea of violence and "urban atrocities," or at least to their existence in popular culture. I mean, who is going to want to listen to a song — "oh, I'm Black but I feel White people and the police respect me, my life's pretty good." Hip hop by nature comes out of angst and anger, and therefore makes those emotions seem like the norm for those listening, yet while it presents these moods as acceptable, and violence as a frequent occurrence, placing violence within that angry context still makes it seem like a bad thing — if you commit a drive-by shooting, you'll only be unhappy.

Hip Hop Films/Hip Hop Music

I think the phenomenon of Hip-Hop music is definitely too big to be constrained to a discussion of its 'shock factor' per se. It has always contained tales of urban horror because its creators have typically inhabited that sphere - but - there is a wide variety of ways in which many different types of people have represented that on the record. More importantly there is a big difference in the lyrical or technological skills of those who create it, not to mention their backgrounds, influences and thematic interests. This is integral to the question but difficult to define or measure: an ATCQ tale about hustling for money is vastly different from one of gucci mane's strings of Non Sequiturs, and there are lots of levels in-between. I would say that there is a large vein of mainstream hip hop music with lyrical content and production values that are minimal and tired at best, but I'm not sure whether the question of facilitating behavior is as pertinent as why are the same re-treads of songs about "your nine" continue to be so popular with the music business.

As far as the movies go, I wonder if hip-hop films are a relevant enough cultural phenomenon anymore to raise the question anymore. Our readings have illustrated schisms in portrayals and narrative serious enough to question the unity of the films in this category that were released in the early 90s, and I'm not sure that that fractured entity even exists in 2010. It seems to me that the genre was subsumed into more rounded peripheral characters or occasionally leads in both the romance or action genres (Hitch, Training Day, The Ladykillers, The Italian Job). In other words, centralizing hip hop for a few years proved to be culturally significant in the portrayal of African Americans but did not survive as a stable and regular genre.

Hip Hop Cinema?

The main question that I had when I read the article, and this is something that has been annoying me for a long time, is do we mean when we talk about such a thing as hip hop cinema? Personally, I think it is ridiculous to call a film like New Jack City or especially Sugar Hill a hip hop film. What is it that qualifies them as hip hop movies? To me, there are only rare examples of films that could be called a hip hop film, for example Beat Street, Wild Style or also 8 Mile. These are films where the narration focuses either on hip hop as a culture itself or a protagonist who comes from and lives in the culture, and hip hop as a culture, not a soundtrack is prominently featured throughout the film.
In contrast, what makes films such as New Jack City, Sugar Hill or Set It Off a hip hop film? One could say they feature black characters, as do hip hop songs and videos, and they have a hip hop soundtrack and often a rapper plays in the film too. But so does for example Bad Boys, and no one would think that this is a hip hop film, although it has the characters, the soundtrack and the rapper. So it must be something else. When looking at the plots of our example movies, it is obvious that they all tell the same story, the problems of the black ghetto and the characters' struggle to make it out of it by any means, and the fact that they are ultimately forced to become criminals. In contrast, the characters in Bad Boys are cops. So maybe that's it. One could argue that this qualifies those movies as hip hop cinema, since the struggle etc is also a vivid motif in a lot of hip hop songs.
But first of all, this is not representative of hip hop as a whole, those kind of stories belong to the gangsta rap subcategory, which is only a small part of rap music, and rap music again is only a small part of hip hop. Political or conscious rappers also address social problems, but deal with them in a very different way, offering solutions or pointing to whom they feel is responsible, rather than detailing the gangsta lifestyle. And there are dozens of other kinds of rap music. So the films do not deal with hip hop as a culture or social movement or anything, and it is essentially wrong to term those films hip hop films just because they deal with black inner-city issues. That is like saying 'The Wire' or 'Good Times' are hip hop TV series.

Hip-Hop Film and Music

I feel that Hip-Hop Cinema and Music, at their cores, are intended to be reflections of the Black urban experence. Occasionally, however, the product ends up facilitating the negative images a lot of people already associate with Hip-Hop in general (this happens most often in the musical realm, in my opinion). The Game has a song in which he says that people watch a few gangster movies (like "Boyz N The Hood" or "Menace 2 Society") and listen to some gangster music (Dr. Dre, Ice Cube, etc.) and all of a sudden think that they are "gangster" themselves. Game goes on to say that there is a whole lot more to it than just watching some movies and listening to some songs. It starts in the urban community and the artists who make it out use their talents (via film or music) to paint a picture of what they know. There certainly are plenty of examples of Hip-Hop musicians whose product facilitates the negative associations many have with their craft, however. In my opinion, they abandon the formula of recreating the images with which they are familiar and just go with what sells (certainly the opportunistic way, but not the way in which one "keeps it real.")

Most rappers do not accurately represent the communities in which they were born through their music. In some ways ties to an "urban" environment works to legitimize lyrical content, giving the rapper "credibility" within the listener's mind. Many of these characteristics are studio constructions designed by marketing teams in private, yet validated in the public sphere by profit earnings. Attempting to establish a relationship between a persona and a community is problematic in the way either facilitates an archetypal fantasy of Black Americans. I think hip-hop films work in the way "bling" and "fashion" have proven to attract and cultivate a fan base during a specific time period. This link is exploited to sustain a belief in a lucrative image. I think it is interesting to note that individuals can access both publicly but only imagine either as true in private.

I think it's important to remember that a lot of the rapper and hip hop artists were also starring in the movies that some of their music was being heard. This means two things to me. For one thing, it take advantage of the chance to showcase one of its talents, like most films do that include a singer in the cast. Second, it is another way to express the emotions and experience the film is getting across. A lot of the music heard in the hip hop movies is probably what the characters would be listening to in reality, giving the spectator an even deeper sense of being in their world.

I believe that both music and film inspired by "urban atrocities" can be an authentic reflection of tragic events and hardship faced in poverty stricken situations. It is hard for me to believe anyone truly understanding could hear these songs or watch these films and want to take part in these situations.

I work at a pizza place. After a recent Wiz Khalifa concert, I had to serve countless young white males stoned out of their mind wearing flat brim hats and the same Wiz Khalifa t-shirt. It occurred to me this was the manifestation of them finding their identity in a hip-hop culture. Most likely, bored youth from the 'burbs (and many other places) don't do much but smoke weed. Wiz Khalifa doesn't rap about much but smoking weed. It is a comfortable outlet for them to identify with. On the other hand, a much more aggressive, authentic rapper of the moment, Waka Flocka Flame, recently put out an album that may be harder for them to identify with. Flocka has lines like "Shout out to the fuck nigga that tried to rob me at Wal-Mart" or "I fucked my money up, now I can't re-up", rapping about a side of the culture that doesn't always get illuminated in the facade of mainstream rap but is something that may be more authentic to those in "urban" communities actually experiencing the "atrocities".

Life inspires art and art can inspire imitation.

Film and Hip Hop

I believe that there exists a strong correlation between film and the world of hip-hop and this is due to the fact that they are both trying to portray life as it is for a specific demographic. In the documentary that we watched at the IMU (I can't remember the name), the rappers even said that they weren't pleased about white suburban kids listening to their music because they aren't enduring the same hardships as the rappers and their community.

Also, there is little/no way that almost every hip-hop singer and gangsta film would have similar content in their films without it being based on reality.

Finally, one thing that irks me is when kids and teenagers act like the singers and rappers of hip-hop and gangsta films. They are depicting low economic standards of living and chronicling their hardship through life. Why would one want to pretend this is their way of living? Although many kids want to be "cool" and be feared like these individuals, they are not aware that these songs and movies are based on reality and their lives are not so easy.

Goodfellas and Hip Hop

I am a little surprised that this controversy still exists. It feels a little ’90s. A few months ago at the gym, I looked up at the monitor and saw 50 Cent on the Rachael Ray Show. A similar spectacle would have been unthinkable 20 years ago. When I was growing up, there was no way Snoop Dogg was getting a slot on Regis and Kathie Lee. In other words, rap music and hip hop, which long ago overtook rock and roll’s claim to rebellion, may have been softened somehow. No one takes Ice T seriously as a “cop killer” anymore, especially now that he plays a cop on TV. The President of the United States references Jay-Z in his speeches.

I was intrigued by Smith-Shomade’s qualified claims on how women have taken some varied and interesting roles in films like New Jack City, partly by still conforming to masculine ideals. Hip hop has often been scapegoated for perpetuating misogyny and homophobia. (Yes, much of hip hop is misogynistic and homophobic, but it was really odd to see Bill O’Reilly, of all people, bludgeoning the music for those very reasons, some years ago.) That makes the way Smith-Shomade sees ways in which the culture of gangsta cinema may provide a strange small step towards female redefinition more interesting.

I’m tip-toeing around this week’s question: “Is Hip-hop music and hip-hop films a reflection of urban atrocities or does it facilitate the behavior that many critique it for in the public sphere?” I would say that it does a little bit of both. It neutralizes for some a need to commit violence by providing a sharp verbal artistic outlet for a certain kind of aggression. It may also contribute to a culture that consistently degrades women. I think of an almost all-white film like “Goodfellas” which was an honest critique of a world of mafia sociopaths, while still showing all the reasons why a life in the mafia is so appealing. There’s a way in which we rock out to the violence in Goodfellas, to “Layla” and Donovan’s “Atlantis.” That push-pull experience may not be that far from the experience we may have with hip hop culture.

Urban Gangstas

For most people who go to see a movie, they want it to be somewhat realistic, unless their seeing a movie like Avatar. Although some depictions of black in "boyz-n-the-hood" films (a term used by Beretta Smith-Shomade) may seem a little fake or non realistic, for the most part, they do follow the guidelines of what 'gansters' were like.

For directors during the time Do the Right Thing and Juice were being made, it was all about real depictions of 'thug' life. The directors and writers didn't put their time and money into making these films for them to be unrealistic. Now I'm not saying what happens in the film are realistic by any means, but the people in them directly correlate with how people actually acted/dressed in inner cities all over the country.

These directors showed the hardships of these young, black men because most people did not live in the cities and were not apart of the gangs, so they were very unaware. And I really doubt Spike Lee made Do the Right Thing just for fun...

Hip hop and film

I think that hip hop music and films depict some realization in their portrayal, but it also facialities the behavior and stereotypes by the public sphere. Both the music and films give off a gangster vibe that alot of audiences percieve as more of an angry or violent style. The lyrics said in rap songs tend to follow the hardships of personal experience of living in a ghetto, which is displayed in the films and both are examples of african americans in lower class life styles. I can only think of tyler perry's films where he has his black cast living in upper class conditions, and the music performed by black artists that does not discuss those hardships for the most part is classified as R&B, not hip hop. However I think it is important for these things to be viewed, whether they are stereotypical or not because they provide insight and critique.

HIp Hop and Gangsta Films

I think this can fall into both ends of the spectrum. Initially, and for the most part, these films and the music are making an effort to illustrate the atrocities committed in these economically poor, urban settings. In most cases, these movies and the music portray what others don't think about or hear about in other mainstream media outlets.

However, I do think that in some cases when this sort of thing gets into the hands of certain people, and industries a la Vanilla Ice, it does facilitate a behavior many people and scholars tend to critique. The idea of being "ghetto fabulous," and "gangsta" is something that can be marketed as a commodity in some way or form to people, despite the fact that it is something being critiqued or exposed in the gangsta films and in the hip hop music.

I think these two perspectives are stuck butting heads against each other, and it seems to come off as a paradox as both a behavior to be critiqued, and an art form/medium to expose the atrocities.

Growing up Ghetto

I think for the most part it is a reflection of urban atrocities. There are many statistics publish that can review what it is like to grow up in the urban streets. I think thats why it become as popular as it has, especially in the 90s, with hip hop artists like Notorious B.I.G, Tupac, Dr. Dre, Ice Cude, and Snoop Dogg among others were true residents of known urban/ghetto communities. These men that grew up in these communities and were having similar experiences as many young African Americans lead them to popular success. I also (for a short time) lived in downtown/south central Los Angeles. I did not witness anything extreme, but he poverty and gang levels are easy to see and it simple to relate lyrics and films to what I saw everyday.

The films and hip can relate to what the urban atrocities are, but in many ways they also facilitate them. The lyrics especially often talk about murder/selling drugs/crime is a positive way to get to the top and make money. NWA was heavily subject to dispute over their lyrics and how they came down police officers. Many felt this was giving young African Americans a negative role model that would lead to more crime and poverty.

Blaxploitation and Gangstas

Well of course there are certain differences between Blaxploitation and Gangsta films, starting with the characters. Blaxploitation depicted a variety of characters, who were usually on one or the other side of the law. In the Gangsta film, as the name suggests, the protagonists were usually gang members or hoodlums. A similarity in both genres is that the protagonists usually come from the ghetto or at least a black neighborhood, and feel oppressed and alienated by an overall racist white society. However, the Blaxploitation protagonists usually take matters into their own hands, and fight the white oppressors that try to oppress and exploit their people in their respective neighborhood, whereas the Gangstas rather fight each other for every little bit of turf or money. In this sense, in my opinion the Gangsta films capture the hopelessness of the ghetto and the social tensions created by hegemony and oppression in a far more realistic way than Blaxploitation films' unrealistic and overblown plots.

Blaxploitation and Gangsta

I think the most obvious difference between Blaxploitation films of the 70s and Black Gangster films of the 80s and 90s is the era in which both were developed. Blaxploitation films are the obvious 'starter' of the black centered film that we know about today.

I think movies such as Foxy Brown and Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song are what influenced the gangster films of the 80s and 90s. However, even those these movies have 'black people' ideals and are made and star black actors, white directors have been heavily influenced by these films. It is obvious to note Quentin Tarantino, like in the article we read entitled Quentin Tarantino's Phallic Fantasies: A White Boy's 'Baadasssss' Yearnings.

Both blaxploitation and gangster films have the same themes through out each of the films. There is usually a strong black actor in the lead role, there is some violence and over sexualized female character. Like Stephanie Dunn states in her article, these films were made to fulfill the 'cool' factor black audiences wanted to see in their lead roles.