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.

Blaxploitation-Gangsta Comparison

I think that there is a bit of a difference between these two "uniquely-Black" genres of film. For starters, I feel that Gangsta films, despite the romantic image they create of an otherwise-dire situation of life in urban America, are more authentic, while Blaxploitation films are more of a metaphor. By this I mean that these films are visual representations of the sentiment of Black America at the time. These films were made in the early- and mid-1970s, a time when African-Americans were still fighting for equal footing in the nation. The creation of films depicting strong, independent, attractive African-Americans taking names would have obviously appealed to the target audience, but would have also paralleled the ideas of Black strength and power at the time.

I think the approach directors took when creating Blaxploitation films and 80/90s gangsta films only differs visually. The narrative structures are still very similar and the character roles are merely seasoned to appeal to the particular cultural appetite at either time. I cannot say what motivated the intent of either genre, be it constructively comedic or overtly insensitive and "flat". Exaggerating cultural myths, mystifying the "Ghetto" and romanticizing "black" life for commercial gain are some similarities between the genres. Perhaps the only difference, albeit contested and arguably invalid, are the directors "good" intentions. It might be argued that the films of the 90's were geared to a more self-aware audience, where the images on screen were not so far from reality that some type of sociopolitical action could be evoked. In some cases the Gangsta film depictions exposed many trappings of urban communities. While seemingly constructive, these Gangsta images were also mass produced to be consumed at face value, effectively implicating Black Americans wholly as a "negative" group. Perhaps every commercial Black movie is a "Blaxploitation" film. The only thing that has changed is the "lived space" between the audience and the screen.

While my knowledge of 70s blaxploitation is limited, what I've seen is based on a rather embellished idea of the African-American male. Whether it is "Boss Nigga" or "Sweet Sweet Back" these characters are most often pimps with stereotypical, crowd pleasing agendas. With "gangsta" films of the 90s it seems a more realistic approach was attempted. This grit of films like "Boyz N the Hood" or "Juice" provided a stark difference in content to the blaxploitation films. While this attempt at a more realistic cinema is admirable, it still seems these films focus on stereotypes rather that intricacies of their character's daily life.

Blaxploitation Films

Although I have personally not seen any Blaxploitation films of the 70's, I have seen several gansta films and based on the Seiving article, I believe there is a difference. For me, the gansta films of the 80's and 90's created a more realistic approach to current events and living circumstances rather than some woman shooting up lots of bad guys. Movies such as Boyz in the Hood create a more realistic world and portray the Black culture more accurately. That is not to say that they are dangerous, but rather they capture the atmosphere of the lower class more accurately than films of the 70's. In his essay Sieving states, that most of the films of the 70's contained "female action hero- marked her as an unlikely candidate for stardom" and that these films are "films that are by definition sold on the basis of subject matter rather than stars." Another interesting difference between these two is the posters for the films. The Blaxploitation films often contained violent images from the film with the lead female character towering over everyone in a seductive pose, and usually with a gun. The article also states that: each title/ name connotes blackness, theu are always highly sexualized, and "the whites are all bad mothers involved in a narcotics ring." Given these examples, it seems that there is certain a difference between these two genres of film.

I do not think there is a difference between the two I think they represent the same things and are portrayed in the same ways. I think the viewing and perception changes over time and possibly becomes more accepted...

Blaxploitation in the 70's is/was a hot button issue because of the civil right fight had peaked in the 50/60/70's this vision of African American media was possibly look upon as racist and not what an African American should strive for. An insult...

As time went on and issues "mellowed" and the blaxploitation I FEEL were accepted by the black community and turned in gangsta films. The stereotypes were embraced viewed as African American Hollywood relating to their situation. These gangsta films were typically a way out of poverty for the African American, while one of the differences could be that in blaxploitation the African American was not seen as successful in their work. In the gangsta films they were rich, making something of themselves, and a way out of their current low class community.

Blaxploited Gangstas

After watching "Sweet Sweetback's Badasssss Song," I honestly don't think there are as many differences between the two genres, or rather eras of film. I do think there are quite a few similarities.

Most of the similarities lie in gender roles. The men in most cases tend to be hyper-masculine, hyper-phallic, and in some cases violent.

Women tend to be sexual objects, or given so much agency that they are able to put the male characters in submissive positions throughout films.

The other large similarity I think these two film types have is the portrayal of an urban community often at odds with the hegemonic forces. In some cases these urban, lower socioeconomic classes in film work together to topple or somehow live to fight another day with the hegemony.

However, in modern gangsta films, it seems as if these urban communities are often at odds internally, due to other factors like drugs, violence, and again their lower socioeconomic class. This can cause a schism within the community being portrayed in a film, which may not be overly present in a blaxploitation film.

Blaxpoitation

I think there is a difference, albeit subtle, between the two eras. In the 70s, roles were written as stereotypes and without well rounded consideration. Quentin Tarantino identified with his character Ordell. He connected with him so much that he had difficulty with someone else playing it. He gave the character a lot of thought, and envisioned it as himself--a white man. The fact that Samuel L. Jackson, a black actor, played Ordell suggests the character's race is irrelevant. In the blaxpoitation era, the character's race was everything. It was integral to the plot. Most white filmmakers of that time would never and could never identify with a black character.
In a way, that's progress.

The Comedy of Blaxploitation

There are several distinctions between the blaxploitation films of the ’70s and the gangsta films of the ’80s and ’90s that go well beyond budgetary differences or period markers. Gangsta films of the ’80s and ’90s were, with varying degrees of success, attempts to “keep things real.” If they were not docudramas they purported to have the ambitions of docudramas, to portray what life is really like for the black urban underclass. “Menace II Society,” which opens with a nonsensical slaying at a Korean-owned store, dares its audience to dig deep into its liberal consciousness to find sympathy for its sociopathic heroes. “Boyz N’ the Hood” portrays the terrible state of education provided for inner-city children and the precarious line that exists between a life of crime and death and success at a college. These films are the equivalent of “consciousness” hip-hop.

The blaxploitation films of the ’70s, were in contrast, not only racial fantasies but often comedic racial fantasies. In Black Caesar, Fred Williamson played a gangster who takes back control of Harlem from white mafiosos. Even given the general campiness of the blaxploitation milieu, he’s a funny character. He organizes a drive-by shooting from a horse-drawn Central Park carriage. In the penultimate scene of the film he forces a corrupt racist white cop to wear black face and sing “Mammy.” There’s a hilarity to that moment, just as there’s a comedy in Shaft’s hyper-sexuality and his singular ability to provide white women with their most repressed sexual needs. That comedy comes from the satisfaction of an urge in the collective unconscious of an oppressed people.

As a side note, I would say that Quentin Tarantino understands those urges and is willing to consciously deconstruct them. In “Inglourious Basterds” he satisfies an unsaid need for victims of the Holocaust to no longer be nice Jewish boys, but the badasses who get to carve swastikas in the foreheads of Germans. The problem is that Tarantino’s Nazis are often unnervingly human. His genius in Jackie Brown may not have been merely to have resurrected an ancient blaxploitation fantasy but to consciously dissect it. He allows us to fetishize our image of Pam Grier, the badass heroine of ’70s films, but at the same time to contemplate the instability of that image. Grier’s Jackie Brown is forced to contemplate the indignities of aging and as she does so, we are forced to consciously deconstruct our fetishization of the fantasy that is Pam Grier. At some point the fantasy and the comedy does end.