I have neither read the novel nor watched the movie so I base my arguments entirely on Jacqueline Bobo's essay. It did appear to me that she was indeed blaming Spielberg for a lot of what went wrong with the film, which I think is a bit unfair since there are more people that are behind a film, for example the studio, the producers and the screenwriter. I do not know how committed Spielberg was in making the project, so who knows how much influence he had on the changes.
Bobo does make some good points in pointing out the differences between novel and film concerning black womanhood and black characters in general, one good example I think is the character Shug. In the novel, she is a self-conscious woman, whereas in the film, she is an unsure, immature woman with a sexual hunger that is immeasurable. To further weaken her character, the character of her father was invented for the movie, whose constant approval she is seeking, which leats her appear very weak. Moreover, bobo points out that dialogue was added to the film, naming Shug a jezebel, to connect her to the old stereotypes.
well done, and, i like that you name specific instances where speilberg added things (as noted by bobo) to worsen the representations, but that you still step back and remind that there is a whole process of filmic relations to be considered in analyzing "fault" if it is to be framed that way. like the documentary we viewed at the field trip, the film did get people talking even if they hated it, and sometimes we need something to happen that is outrageous to start a conversation. and that film, whether people hated or loved it, certainly did stir up strong positions and incited dialogue.
ReplyDelete