Oh, Spielberg

I don't believe that, in her essay on The Color Purple, Jacqueline Bobo "scapegoats" Steven Spielberg. She is not blaming him for mainstream culture's views, or some cultural product beyond his control expressing those views. Spielberg is (or at least was at the time) "the most successful director in Hollywood's history" (278), and with that history of success, he could receive financial backing for any kind of movie he wanted to do (as he puts it, even an adaptation of the "telephone book" (279)). Yes, some changes would have to be made to Alice Walker's novel (or any novel) in order to adapt it for the silver screen with hope of high box office receipts, but due to Spielberg's power position in Hollywood, all the changes in The Color Purple from book to film can be regarded as his own choice. Jacqueline Bobo is not making a scapegoat of Steven Spielberg, but instead critiquing a film that he chose to make specifically as it was, and I cannot say that I disagree with that critique.

I have not seen The Color Purple, nor have I read the book upon which it is based. Bobo does not describe the story of Purple as explicitly as she could (I had to read a description online in order to fully grasp the plot), but the disparities between the book and the movie—essentially of the book being written as a story of black female empowerment, and the film shifting focus to that of male redemption—substantiate the arguments she makes. Also, Spielberg has kind of a history of racism and sexism in his films, whether purposefully or not, so I can very much see where she is coming from. Many of Spielberg's films could be regarded as "well-intentioned but patronizing and negative" (285), and this tends to anger me because if I point out the racism I see inherent in many Spielberg movies, I'll be met with baffled looks and questions of whether I'm joking. ("But Spielberg's Jewish," is a common reaction.) The obvious example is Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom: Willie Scott embodies the negative "blond bimbo" stereotype; Short Round, the "hilarious foreigner." But what's more frustrating for me are those "well-intentioned" films, like The Color Purple, which Spielberg produces with the aim of being "a different kind of film," ostensibly a sensitive, meaningful kind of film. Bobo's analysis places Purple into this category, and mine puts Schindler's List in there too.

Schindler's List, like The Color Purple, deals with abuse and oppression. Also like Purple, Schindler's List somehow, instead of empowering the oppressed group, becomes the story of a man's redemption, in this case the German Oskar Schindler. A movie about a good German guy in the time when there were a lot of bad German guys? Okay, fine by me. But Schindler's List turns Schindler into a father figure, and thus, the Jewish characters into his children. These oppressed people are still regarded as unequal and helpless, but this time there happens to be a man there to save them. As with The Color Purple, Schindler's List could have been a story of empowerment for a people who were stripped of their power. But Spielberg either doesn't know how or doesn’t want to write that kind of movie. So even though Jacqueline Bobo's argument lost a little of its sting due to my not knowing The Color Purple that well, I feel her critique of Spielberg is entirely justified. And if this is the kind of movie that Spielberg makes when he is trying for something different, then maybe he should just stick with "stereotypically Spielberg" (278) productions.