Every Film Is Racist!
Anthony Kaufman continued the theme I cited yesterday, citing my blog post and noting:
Poland doesn’t seem to read Morris’s point—and mine, as well—that the film’s faults are integrally mixed with its premise. To make a film that purports to be about the struggles of black servitude that is actually just another tale about a white person’s empowerment is grossly irresponsible, from a political perspective, and kind of lame, from a narrative perspective.
Oy.
This is the quagmire. Because I respect the right of Anthony, Wesley, and others to react to this kind of content and I don’t want to mock them for feeling something. But somehow, falling down the PC rabbit hole is okay when an issue touches on something that is, indeed, still a national weakness, but is not when it is perceived as a strength.
Anthony writes: “Forty-six years later, it seems, the American white establishment still can’t seem to understand that they are responsible for racial discrimination and subjugation, and not, as “The Help” would have it, responsible for breaking down those walls. “
Apparently, only the “good” white people have any value in this film, in his eyes. All the racists, who range from overt to rather subtle, do not count towards any self-awareness by white filmmakers and audiences at all. Good job of painting the film into a corner it can never escape.
Just yesterday, I was called out for being a closet racist for pointing out that George Lopez, whose ratings only plummeted after he was pushed an hour later so Conan O’Brien could have his slot (Conan’s ratings have also plummeted), yet there is no hew and cry about Lopez losing his job to some white guy’s failure, whereas there was endless and wild Conan vs Jay fire-breathing, even though Conan got $45 million to leave. Lopez, at the end of a contract, gets a Laurel & Hardy handshake. But if that’s okay, why the anger over Conan getting paid a fortune as a pay out after his failure in the slot?
My point isn’t to readjudicate Coco vs Leno, but to note that I was noting that race worked against Lopez, especially in the public response to his exit (Lopez was much more aggressive on the issue of his skin color than I in his monologue last night). And as a mostly-white guy (haven’t been jew-baited in a while… but not a long while) I was the racist for pointing in that direction. Admittedly, I did it in a smart-ass way… but I set off the alarm with language, not my core idea. And it may have been my fault, but the sensitivity is always a little shocking, given how race pervades every day of our lives in America without notice.
So… here is the absurdist look at this summer… absurdist, but not inaccurate if you want to roll this way. Please note, for the record, I could argue (and most likely would argue) that few of these choices were racially or sexually or ethnically motivated… but for the sake of speaking to this absurdity…
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 – The only Black that mattered in the whole series was Sirius Black. A few token black characters. Was there a single hispanic/latino? How bad was it? They had to double down on a “little” actor to fill two roles, one professor and the other a powerful goblin. And don’t even get me started on making the height-challenged extend their stereotype as goblins!
Transformers: Dark of the Moon – An entire planet of humans and 12 robots are the only ones that can save billions of us humans. That’s hateful! Ironically, the human team is made up of an ethnic cornucopia, led by a skinny jewish kid, a brit model, a studly white male model, a studly black male model, an italian-american, a minnesotan, and an eastern-european who embodies every euro-trash cliche in this film short of a thong. But at least they didn’t have the racist robots back this time.
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides – They added a hispanic to the central cast… but pushed her boobs up into her neck and made a joke out of her underage deflowering by Captain Jack. No blacks in leadership positions, except when it comes to voodoo.
The Hangover Part II – Comes by its racism proudly. According to this film, Asian men have tiny penises, Thailand is loaded with drug dealers, pimps, whores, and really bad driving.
Cars 2 – The whole movie is built around the white-trash stereotype, as well as placing the burden on the British to be supercool.
Thor – Blonde dude is the hero, even though no one else in his family is blonde. He comes to earth and instead of falling for the girl whose pecs are more like his, falls for the smart, skinny jewish girl. Loki gives a bad name to all ethnics with a vowel at the end of their name.
Captain America: The First Avenger – German-bashing, anyone? Isn’t it time that we put Hitler behind us and stop finding it amusing to kill Nazis as though they were props in an action movie? And what kind of message are we giving to the less physically gifted? Get into fights until you lose blood and then some mad jew will inject you with a serum that will make you a 6′ 2″ aryan god who can kick nazi ass? And while The Girl is charmed by the little guy before the shots, would she be kissing him if he didn’t have to wear a shirt two sizes too big for his big thick neck to accommodate his pecs? I think not!
X-Men: First Class- Great series for alienated youth… unless you want the hot chick! Whether she’s made of glass or has blue skin and thorns, she’s going to go along with the bad guys and deliver super sex to them. Why must beautiful women always be seen making the wrong choices in American Cinema?
Rise of the Planet of the Apes – Humans suck. I get it.
Green Lantern – Three people of color in this entire cast. Angela Bassett is slumming it as a doctor. The other two are some other alien color. And how are purple children going to feel about Sinestro? Also, the film makes people with jaundice seem perfectly evil.
Kung Fu Panda 2 – Didn’t see it. But a classic fat white guy teaches the asians how to be a karate hero premise, no?
Cowboys & Aliens – Well, this one gets a pass because there were no black people in the old west. BZZT! Wrong! And the one guy of color with lines is Adam Beach… who’s on the bad side. Boo.
The Smurfs – Children all over the world will hate their skin tone after this movie. Thanks, Neil Patrick Harris!
Super 8 – Again, white kids didn’t know any black kids in the 70s, so no need to make excuses there. Two black people in the film. One is mauled in the opening sequence. The other is, as I recall, one of the bad guys.
Bad Teacher – Avoided the stereotype of the funny black woman by not having any black people being funny in this film. There were some cute black kids. And there is a character of color… Armando the Homeless Guy.
Horrible Bosses – Hey man, there was a black cop! There were a few black cops! And a co-worker. And Jamie Foxx, one of the biggest black stars in the world… as a con artist/hitman.
Bridesmaids – The stereotypes of women are SHOCKING in this film. One is a bitch, one is desperate, one is a desperate bitch, one is a child-hating mother, and Maya Rudolph is pretty much perfect… the stereotype of the magic negro! Couldn’t hey have made Rudolph’s character more complex instead of being just another light-skinned black woman passing in a white world of angry, desperate bitches?
Zookeeper – After finally breaking through in Unstoppable as a naturalistic, powerful person who just happened to be female and of color, Rosario Dawson is put back in her place as an object of white male fat guy lust. Horrors! And why weren’t black men allowed to play the monkey or the gorilla? Afraid of being called out as racist?! Instead, you deny black men the lead animal voice parts?
Crazy, Stupid, Love. – Come on… just give me one person of color! Wait… there’s a cop, a bartender, and a secretary in the film. Great.
Friends with Benefits – I guess Mila Kunis could be considered “of color.” And there she is, being manipulated by the white devil.
Mr. Popper’s Penguins – Half-black characters never had so much fun as when they were owned by a rubbery-faced white man!
Jumping the Broom – Now this is a movie loaded with virtually every stereotype you can imagine. Don’t they invite white people to these events?
Priest – A metaphor for the colonization of the world by a blonde man with a cross.
Something Borrowed – The only colorful name I see on the entire cast list is Gina Hernandez as Drunk Outside Bar.
The Change-Up – Even the projectile excrement in this film refused to be black. Couldn’t there have been a fetish involving a proud woman of color here?
Larry Crowne – Hot young ethnic girl falls for the middle-aged white guy with bad hair and no prospects. Typical!
Winnie the Pooh – It’s The Man, keeping the Eyore down!
Monte Carlo – Two white girls and little hispanic chick who thinks she’s white go to the whitest nation on the planet where the hispanic girl passes for Cordelia Winthrop Scott.
Judy Moody and the NOT Bummer Summer – No idea. Leaving it alone. It had enough trouble at the box office.
Midnight in Paris – A blonde guy goes back in time to a world where there are no black people with lines.
Again… this list is not a statement of my personal or professional opinion of these films (or anyone else’s at Movie City News that I know of) or their mindset about race or the mindset of the filmmakers or execs involved… but if you want to see racism, there are a lot of opportunities.
Maybe the list is funny and maybe it is not. But most of the arguments I lay out – pretending to be of another mind – are not too wide of the raw facts. The question isn’t whether Hollywood’s output mirrors the real world. The question is whether it should be expected to do so, in any regard, ethnicity included.
Yet when does it seem to become an issue? When some film deals with racism, but isn’t edgy enough for certain critics.
If you’re so worried about it, folks, maybe you really should note how few people of color are in wide releases every single weekend. Personally, I think that’s backward thinking too. I got into fights last year accusing some of pushing a hype agenda by coloring the Oscar race as not being ethnic enough even before it was all sorted out. And indeed, in the end, only one person of color, Javier Bardem, was nominated in the top 8 categories.
But I wonder… were the people complaining about that, the same people who were angry that The Blind Side was nominated the year before? You remember, the year there were 7 personal nominations and 2 BP nods in the top 8 categories with 2 wins out of the 7. it was, according to some, the wrong kind of race movie, while Precious was the right kind?
And how do we deal with the hero of a movie that deals with race being white when the villain is white too? Was Monique’s character in Precious a big win for the image of black women?
Like I wrote before, I don’t think these questions are easily answered. And I don’t expect clear consensus on much. Anthony Kaufman and others seem openly proud to hate the movie based on what it is… a story about race that is centered on white characters. So what is supposed to happen? No more black maids in media? Or do we have a quota system, one movie with a black female lead for every one with a black woman playing a maid? What would you guys like?
Finally, I like to think that we’ll see better roles for actresses of color in Andrea Arnold’s Wuthering Heights, Winterbottom’s Trishna, Meirelles 360, Luc Besson’s The Lady, from Viola Davis herself in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, and hopefully others. Dare I mention Tyler Perry? No. I dare not.
Will we see as popular a set of performances by actresses of color as we do in The Help this year? Probably not. But this is a trap. Popular and Good are not the same… nor are they opposites.
But Viola Davis is in five or six wide release films this year. And a TV series. And she plays a maid in only one of those shows. I know, paying the CIA director or a Doctor or Julia Roberts’ friend is just tokenism, right? So there is no win. Only Denzel wins. And he won the Oscar playing a bad guy.
And may I point out, those of you who are slapping at The Help because it is “a film that purports to be about the struggles of black servitude” may want to consider how it purports anything. Did I miss ads about black servitude? Or were the ones I saw, always featuring the white girls and some moments of joy and sadness from the black maids, the ones that purported to be a different movie than we saw. Cause I can’t think of a movie this summer whose marketing was closer to the reality of what I saw on the screen.
The conversation doesn’t get any easier. I just ask that it be a conversation, not a declaration.
PS. The only real Oscar contender with much color is The Help… so get those stories going now or someone else will beat you to it! (It won’t be me.)
Great column! Thought-provoking and terribly inviting for all the people who will eventually tear you apart over misunderstandings of what you wrote…
My initial thoughts are, “what about the Asian representatives in these films?”
-Katie Leung in Harry Potter (she had a few lines)
-Keiko Agena, Ken Takemoto, & Ken Jeong (who stole his scenes) in Trannie 3
-Kung Fu Panda and Hangover are obvious
-I know, I know, I know it’s not a “summer” movie, but Fast Five. C’MON, it’s a SUMMER movie. Yeah, it was release a WEEK away from the official summer start. And it was almost an exclusively minority cast (and director too).
Here, I’ll jew-bait you if you wish:
Mila Kunis isn’t “of color”. She’s Jewish (like both the gals in Something Borrowed, mostly), and certainly more so than baptized half-Jew Shia LaBeouf, who is as Jewish as the actor who plays Harry Potter (LaBeouf and Radcliffe have the same background, except perhaps without the baptism or Bar Mitzvah on Radcliffe’s part).
Dee… 1. That’s not jew-baiting. “What are you doing in this place where you’re not welcome, you fucking kike?” is jew-baiting.
2. Somehow had it in my head that she had some Mediterranean blood just a generation away. My error, I guess.
3. I discounted it early on, with my jew-baiting comment, but many would consider we jews to be “of color.” Certainly not in the context of this argument, as we control all the media.
And I was just going to Minnesota-bait you by pointing out there was no REAL Minnesotan in Transformers 3… but it turns out that wouldn’t be Minnesota-baiting at all.
Damn, Poland, you are on FIRE.
Your list reminds me of the Martin Lawrence character in BOOMERANG, who keeps insisting that the most innocuous aspects of “white” culture are racist.
As far as portrayals of maids in the 60’s are concerned, I was always deeply impressed with the Drapers’ maid in MAD MEN — both the way the character was handled and the actress who portrayed her. It looks like she won’t be back for season five, which is a shame.
Hi David,
A few things.
First off, I know you meant to be facetious in your long list of racist examples in mainstream films, but I actually don’t think you’re that far from the truth. Most of those movies do suffer from racism or xenophobia, either implicitly or explicitly, and I think that’s a problem. You didn’t mention the blatantly racist depiction of the Asian man in “Tranformers.” Were we supposed to laugh at that guy? And isn’t that a problem?
Secondly, the movie is called “The Help,” which suggests to me that it is purportedly about “black servitude.”
Lastly, I didn’t like “Precious,” either. While I was happy to see the main character wasn’t white, nor did a white woman save the protagonist, I found the movie highly problematic, too, and wrote about that fact openly:
http://www.ifc.com/news/2009/11/black-indie-cinema.php
1. Agreed. Like I wrote, a conversation worth having. But it’s not really been a conversation all summer, until this film. That’s my objection to this sudden outrage.
As for the inherent phobic elements, yeah. We see them in black films too. We see them in every country’s films. To some degree, they are part of the dramatic beast.
For me, I would rather see an all-white movie than a white movie with 3 token characters of color to make it all okay. Others would disagree. Not something to fight over, really.
I’m the one who things Ed Zwick is extremely talented but has taken most of his films to task for making the wrong choice at the end. A white guy being, essentially, the last samurai, taking the hill for Matthew Broderick in Glory, etc. I HATE “we did it for the white guy.”
In The Help, the lead character isn’t taking care of the maids. She’s really managing her white racist friends and family. The maids, who are all black, are making use of her offer to help give them a voice. She’s not starting an underground railroad or even going to a march. This is the sin many negative reviews push hard upon.
SPOILER ALERT
The last image of the film isn’t the white girl setting up shop in New York and thinking of her youth in which she help the negroes. It’s one of the maids taking control of her own life, not because white lady has done her some favor, but because she sees a light at the end of the tunnel and she has few other choices, really.
END SPOILER
Of course, none of this means much, really. It’s just a different perspective on the same material.
But pieces like yours come awfully close to saying, “Don’t make this kind of movie anymore” and I’m not sure that notion of censoring one kind of story is any better than the internalized censorship of the film industry not investing in serious movies that tell stories about black lives in America.
2. Seems like a reach to me. And the word is a pejorative used from the perspective of the white ladies. So…
3. Great. My take on the film is a bit harsher, I think. But good job in that article of having the conversation. Didn’t see it, but I assume Jumping The Broom is a moral step above Booty Call.
As we know now, Precious changed nothing. And there is another issue, that may have been less apparent when you did your piece. The DVD market and the VOD market for the “urban” audience is even weaker than the white market. So that’s another reason/excuse for studios not to fund films for primarily black audiences… and to not see them as direct-to-dvd or VOD fodder either.
I so wish that racial analysis of summer films was a DP10. Could have so gone viral Dave.
“The DVD market and the VOD market for the “urban” audience is even weaker than the white market”
The direct to DVD market for “urban” audiences is alive and well. I say this from experience as 75% of my paychecks that come from the film industry come from companies that make content primarily for black audiences. I’ve worked on countless projects that have been designed for direct to dvd films for the urban market that end up with broadcast deals (BET, Showtime) and get International distribution for television and DVD. Theatrical is not a world i live in.
It’s a niche market, and i realize when youre talking in studio terms with big money. And about that, you’re right. The market isnt big enough to sustain a constant flow of well financed studio output. However, there’s money there to be made. A handful of outfits do a pretty good job of keeping the pipeline flowing with content.
oh, and dave, just a note.
your amount of posts about the help, the criticism of it, and the number of pieces generated about the movie come across like someone who is really hoping it does well.
your posts for the help read like io’s about comic book movies.
but in all the posts i’ve read, i can’t quite figure out why you seem so in the corner of this movie. Even as flawed as you admit it to be.
Where there is injustice. THERE IS DP.
Where there is a consensus. THERE IS DP
Where there is a boot being put it. THERE IS DP
DP is the Hancock of Online Film Criticism.
He comes flying in, trying to help but ends up breaking all the furniture.
Thats why we love him!
Anghus, I responded the same way to the Help trailer as I did to Thor trailer, so IN YER FACE :P!
Anghus – Read the posts without your false assumption and it will all make sense
hey man, im just reading what im reading. the assumption comes from nothing more than your words in the three columns regarding the help that have been posted in the last 48 hours and the content of them.
You really seem to be not only defending the film but criticizing the criticism of the film, which seems to be in the vast minority.
This ‘flashpoint’ you speak of seems to be of your own creation. I say this after reading 2 dozen reviews. There are a handful of people that seem concerned about how issues like racism and segregation are handled. Do 2 or 3 critics that no one pays attention to really equate to a ‘flashpoint’?
Yeah, I don’t know, if this were relativism it would be “everything has some bad, so then nothing’s bad” but that doesn’t seem to be what you’re getting at. I know you’re not saying, “Cowboys and Aliens is racist, too! So shuddup and eat yer popcorn and get over it” but there does seem to be a pushback against the notion of one film being singled out for continuing practices some people find abhorrent. Blacks should have the right to get mad when a film is faulty in its portrayal just as geeks have a right to blow a gasket when a title they first loved and embraced is stripped of its zeitgeist.
“What’s the big deal if this character comes before that one in the comic book series?” “Who cares where this ring came from?” “Why does it matter what age a person should be?” “The movie should be able to stand on its own regardless what it does or doesn’t adhere to,” the non-geeks will say. But sometimes bad science or improbability can ruin a picture for even the non-est of geeks. Failure to overcome suspension of disbelief IS a problem of a singular film. Not just a quibble that’s made of the film in relation to some other preconceived notion.
I do believe matters of race are a more critical concern than matters of geekdom. Just as I believe humanity suffering due human frailty, neglect and intentional infliction is of far greater importance than animal abuse. I may question the zeal of some PETA members and wonder how they set their priorities but to try to squelch any argument or protest based only on the premise of some human’s got it worse is to callously ignore the problem of animal abuse all together. Few would say there’s no problem with animal neglect or abuse at all. It may be a small percentage of people, who argue against those who find movies like The Help offensive in their own way, who actually believe there is no racism at all, but the main objections raised get overlooked the moment counter opposition gets raised, regardless of the merit of the initial cause therein.
David’s reaction to Anthony’s quote is so extreme it deliberately seeks to discredit his position by trying to create a polar opposite of absurdity to weigh it against. Much the same way any questioning of a govt policy or account can somehow be balanced against such conspiracy theories as Area 51.
The constant refrain of “PC running amuck,” (not just here), never directly refutes any argument but shifts focus far enough away to never confront any issue. It is akin to* the practice of blaming the victim or the tendency of addicts to lash out at accusers instead of confronting personal behavior issues, much less being willing to change despite the wounds inflicted on others around them. (I said akin to, I’m not calling anyone a victim here. Nor am I calling out anyone as being racist. I’m saying the practice sucks).
While it’s easy to assume or believe the theme, however subtle, of the white savior in The Help far less of an affront than proclaiming “the founding fathers fought against slavery,” the biggest problem is one message gets repeated over and over again and when it’s brought to people’s attention, those who are voicing their objections are often attacked first without regard to the accuracy of what they’re saying. The Help may not be the worst offender of these types of films but chants of “when is enough enough?” are going to preside until a change occurs. But as the practice continues, and arguments are made, however subtle, for their acceptability, the opportunity to make a positive paradigm shift not only decrease in odds but any such film will be rejected in the backlash for cognitively trying to change a norm or mores, no matter how flawed they may be themselves.
A movie like the help gets frith Ed because it’s an obvious issue in the film. Believe many black filmgoers bring these issues up all year round in many movies. Thoughts about the DVD and home video market only hold water if enough of these movies get made. If you go by the one Tyler Perry movie a year international and dvd appeal for black films are weak, use Will Smith’s movies as th standard and it’s a whole new ballgame. It’s like saying super hero movies don’t do well based on Green Lantern alone.
David, thanks for the intelligent discussion about this stuff, and avoiding the sort of niggling blogger feud that too often occurs.
Is it Truffaut who said the best way to criticize a movie is to make another movie? I agree it’s odd that the best role for a black actress this year is likely to be a Mississippi maid in the ’60s, and Viola Davis has been very upfront about her hesitation in accepting the role for that reason. But the response should be to make more movies with diverse roles for actresses like her. Don’t deny The Help’s filmmakers their story.
“David’s reaction to Anthony’s quote is so extreme it deliberately seeks to discredit his position by trying to create a polar opposite of absurdity to weigh it against. Much the same way any questioning of a govt policy or account can somehow be balanced against such conspiracy theories as Area 51.”
nail on the head. that’s how it read to me.
lots of overcompensation in these pieces.
The assertion that The Help is racist or problematic because it tells its story from Emma Stone’s perspective and features “self-reinforcing movie imagery,” doesn’t that presume that all viewers seeing it are stupid? Should audiences be given a little more credit than that? Is someone going to walk out and say, “Gee, times were tough, but it wasn’t really all that bad for black maids in 1960s Mississippi.” Sure it’s eventually an uplifting movie (haven’t seen it, going by what I’ve read), and clearly it isn’t a comprehensive examination of racism in the civil rights-era south, but viewers realize that right? Is it better to get them thinking and talking about racism and prejudice, or would it be better if The Help didn’t exist?
I think that’s right. The underlying assumption of a post like Kaufman’s is that audiences know nothing about this subject, and have never seen it dramatized before.
i did read a funny comment about the help being another ‘magic white person saving the day’ kind of movie with comparisons to Avatar and Last Samurai. Not having seen the movie i have no basis of comparison, but that made me chuckle.
If you want box office success you have to tell your story from the Caucasian persuasion. That’s not racist, that’s just the country you live in.
The Blind Side starring Angela Basset wouldn’t have cracked 50 million. Hell, it might not have ever been put into production. Mind you, that was based on a true story, so casting Angela Basset in that role would have been ludicrous, but you catch my drift….
That’s not racism, that’s just business.
My major gripe with this nonsense is the grandstanding by critics on both sides of an issue that has no side. No offense to you dave, or any other critic online print or otherwise, but if you could just stick to the movie. The creative side, the business side. The ancillary social bullshit is better left for smarter people.
Drew McWeeny asked via twitter (which i saw on the MCN front page) “Here’s a serious question: would you rather we just never make films about the civil rights era at all? Seems like it.”
This just falls into the “all or nothing” mentality that grips every facet of journalism like grim death. Yes Drew, because people criticize the help, i’m sure the statement being made is that no one ever wants to see a civil rights era movie at all.
A handful of critics (still in the vast minority) make some grand and unfounded statements about The Help, and the intelligent response is YOU JUST DONT WANT ANY CIVIL RIGHTS FILMS AT ALL, DO YOU?
Then again, asking that question via twitter where you can only post and respond in 140 characters is a fine example of the laughable nature of trying to have a real discussion. Kudos to you Dave for at least having a series of articles where people can go into depth. Even if the discussion is far more detailed an nuanced than YES or NO, FOR or AGAINST, or RIGHT and WRONG. But that’s the world we live in. Debate is dead and the subject of racism and segregation in film is blown way out of proportion because some uneducated writers decide to determine from what perspective all films about race should be told.
Then some slightly educated critics overreact to the meaningless babble because it gives them something to talk about (which drives site traffic, natch). Much like the political debate, a few idiots make some claim which stirs the pot causing others to react. Before you know it, serious people are engaged in a very pointless debate.
This is very much the case here.
Critical response to The Help = Positive
Audience response to the Help = Positive
For the most part critics and audiences are enjoying the movie. So why are we spending so much effort on the 15-20% of the critics who are taking a reactionary, knee jerk position on the movie?
Because no one reads articles calles “The vast majority seems to really enjoy The Help” or “Hit book becomes hit movie”. Doesn’t quite have the zing of “Every movie is racist”.
Welcome to the lunatic fringe. Your engagement of them only empowers their positions.
I thought the “of color” reference to Mila Kunis meant her being Russian, y’know, half-Viking / half-Mongolian.
Thank you, Anthony.
I just really hope we can all have this argument/discussion some time without it being pinned to a single movie. It’s a hard nut to crack and I don’t think anyone’s intentions are bad (including the people behind the film).
In a world of web punditry that is about trying to scream loud enough to be heard, this is an issue about which the screaming never seems loud enough to make a dent in the real problem. That said, I am uncomfortable seeing any movie (except Hostel II) held up as the pinata when it is, at worse, a symptom, not the disease.
Anghus… that “lunatic fringe” includes some of the most serious-minded critics in the country, whether I agree with them or not.
As I have noted, the inevitable success of the film is, in my eyes, one of the reasons it is being attacked.
But isn’t the overall discussion worth having?
I find it odd – though not offensive… I am not attacking you – that you seem so interested in not having the discussion.
In defense of Ed Zwick, Tom Cruise’s character was not the titular Last Samurai, and he does not “magically” save the day either. The “Last Samurai” would be more accurately interpreted as Ken Watanabe’s character, or alternatively the samurai class in general.
The only questionable content in the film is the white man quickly charming the wife of the man he just killed.
Let me state simply. My position is not that “nothing’s bad.” My position is, “Take each film on its own merits or lack thereof. Do not make this film or any other a poster child for a flawed movie ecosystem and suggest to people that, ‘You Might be a racist if…’ you like The Help.”
I am asking, as I often do, for perspective.
And when I get, “Why are you defending this movie so hard?,” I have to say, it’s depressing. It so rejects what I have written, narrowing it down to such a simplistic idea – which as Anghus himself has noted, I clearly don’t feel a need for in my review – that I fear I might be too subtle in my approach. (HA!)
Desslar… I have had that argument before and don’t think it’s unreasonable…
Except that Cruise does become a samurai, pretty much, and he is the last one standing… a last samurai after the last samurai is dead. (Forgive me if I remember at all wrong. I haven’t seen the film in a while.)
Your first post on The Help I thought was interesting. I didn’t really agree with you, but I thought you made some interesting points.
But now, I think you’re really falling down your own rabbit hole.
“When some film deals with racism, but isn’t edgy enough for certain critics…”
I don’t know if that’s what some people feel, but I don’t think that accurately captures the complaints about The Help.
Making a movie about black struggle and putting a white protagonist at the center is not about being edgy. Making a film that focuses on cartoony racism and not the more subtle systemic racism that was more common on a day-to-day basis is not about being edgy. If the movie downplays the actual physical danger that African Americans faced at that time for resisting racism in any way, I suppose you can call that about being edgy.
Are some taking a “reactionary, knee jerk position” here? Fair point. I’ve seen this so often (The Blind Side, Mississippi Burning, Cry Freedom), that I have this reaction without reading the book or seeing the movie.
So, I’m not criticizing the film; I haven’t seen it yet. But when I read criticism of the book and the film, I completely understand where those people are coming from. And I don’t think it’s entirely about being PC or expecting edgy material.
You have a huge section about underrepresentation of minorities in movies. That’s a very important issue, but I don’t think it has anything to do with The Help.
Should Hollywood’s output be expected to mirror the real world? That’s a fair point. When it comes to a movie that communicates historical events and deals with issues of race that are still relevant today, I don’t think it’s unfair to expect more than you do from Transformers or Harry Potter.
So what is supposed to happen instead of telling stories about race that are centered on white characters? How about stories about race told from the point of view of minorities? Yes, there are those movies. Yes, they don’t seem to do as well as The Help has (in book form) and will (as a movie). Maybe we’re just stuck with this.
Maybe if we could see some stories about the Civil Rights struggle of the Fifties and Sixties that didn’t insist on telling that story through the white perspective. Not because you shouldn’t, but because that’s already been done so often.
“Making a film that focuses on cartoony racism and not the more subtle systemic racism that was more common”
Does that hold true for 1960s Mississippi?
On the other hand, I think your position is correct: “Take each film on its own merits or lack thereof.” We shouldn’t reject any movie out of hand, nor should we ever be afraid to have this discussion. Thanks for addressing this.
i think there’s an interesting discussion to be had on the topic, and i absolutely think it’s worth having. But i think at some point the discussion devolves into “our” opinion and “their” opinion.
You said this:
“I just really hope we can all have this argument/discussion some time without it being pinned to a single movie. It’s a hard nut to crack and I don’t think anyone’s intentions are bad (including the people behind the film).”
and this is exactly how i feel. this topic requires depth, and i will say honestly that you more than anyone else i read online does dig deeper which is why i like coming here.
But the two pieces about critic hate and every film is racist aren’t quite as nuanced as your review. I don’t think you needed the other two pieces. I think by sheer volume it comes across like you sticking up for a film that according to everything i’m reading doesn’t need it.
If you didn’t want The Help to become ‘the flashpoint film’, posting 3 stories about the same film that make 3 variations on the same discussion isn’t exactly contributing to NOT making it the flashpoint film.
My point, if i have one, is that the critics are creating the flashpoint, the media is making the story. The story doesn’t exist outside the circle of critics who are generating the flash.
And the critics that do have the opinion you’re addressing are in the marked minority, no matter their popularity.
This is a story being created by those who write the stories.
edit – and Dave, i dont ever take posts in here as attacking, even if someone disagrees with me or doesnt care for my opinion. So i didnt think you were attacking me.
David,
I guess the Cruise character becomes sort of an honorary samurai (although I believe one would have to be born into the class), but I think he survives at the end of the film merely to serve as a messenger to the Emperor, who is moved by the sacrifice of the last samurai (Watanabe) to change policy.
Of course, they could have had Cruise die and Watanabe survive, but the Emperor probably wouldn’t have been too bothered that some meddling foreigner got himself killed.
That Cruise survives that battle at the end is a ridiculous joke. He dodges bullets and cannon fire like he’s in a Van Damme movie circa mid-1990s. The Last Samurai is a piece of shit.
“Maybe if we could see some stories about the Civil Rights struggle of the Fifties and Sixties that didn’t insist on telling that story through the white perspective.”
Yeah, all those movies took the white-man’s view, but in doing so they took the outsider’s view.
Let’s look at it this way: How many movies have NOT taken an outsider’s view? How many movies started with an insider who has been hacking away at a problem for years, to seemingly no avail? Where would you start a movie like that? What would cause a sudden breakthrough?
An outsider?
Taking on the civil rights movement from an insider’s view would either turn into a series of tedious meetings or become yet another hagiography of Dr King and Malcolm X.
The problem I have with your argument, Pop, is not unlike the problem I have with Conan O’Brien as Victim. There are built-in assumptions about process that are assumed, but neither clear or proven.
In Conan’s case, it was that 11:30 somehow was his and NBC took it away from him. The timeslot was theirs. And much as Leno was “screwed” by them pushing him out of a very successful berth, O’Brien was “screwed” by being removed – at great cost – having had a lot less success in the slot. That’s business, not personal. But it was personalized.
In this case, it is the notion that DreamWorks set out to “mak(e) a movie about black struggle.”
No. They set out to adapt a very popular novel that was based on and set in the real world.
You and many other react as though there was a meeting at DreamWorks and they said, “We need to address the civil rights history… so let’s put the whitest women in Hollywood at the center of it so it will be fun!”
When Spielberg bought Schindler’s List, do you think he considered not telling the story because it centered on a non-Jew (who many feel was made more honorable by Spielberg than he was)?
When someone decided to make Stand & Deliver, should they have not made it because it was about the one guy who had success instead of being about the struggles of most LA School District schools in Los Angeles?
What really shocks me about these arguments is that much of the best cinema in history is about a topic by being about a different topic. Do we think MASH was about Korea or The Godfather just about Italian Americans or Raise The Red Lantern about dying fabric or Kurosawa just about period Japan or the cinema of the Middle East right now about the specific subject matter?
Granted, these films are better than The Help.
I find it shocking that you think The Help is “cartoony racism,” because I have been around those country club racists all of my life. There are cartoony moments in the film and there are certainly less skillful moments, but the weave of subtle racism into social circles that act based on keeping up with the racist joneses is not a joke. It’s not cartoony.
Getting jew-based at La Costa (a resort) is not being put in a concentration camp or a ghetto and being forced to wear a Jewish star on my arm. But it’s still pretty fucked.
That IS “the more subtle systemic racism that was more common on a day-to-day basis.” And that’s what The Help is about.
It certainly is not triumph of the white girl because she deigned to mix with the coloreds. The movie starts with Abilene and ends with Abilene.
Again… not saying this is a masterpiece. And I would have loved to see a more experienced director bring some more toughness to the material Just a touch… because it’s not that other movie.
And I am glad we agree that the lack of roles in Hollywood for black actors and projects about blacks is not relevant to The Help either.
Is Remember the Titans the only drama in the past twenty years to have races mix and not get crap for it?
Let me start by saying that I really disliked your post and I wrote my comments reacting to it.
And then I clicked through and read Anthony Kaufman’s post and I suddenly understood completely why you wrote what you did. Because he is absolutely arguing that the movie should never been made. “How dare you make a movie where black actresses play maids!” “Uh, because it’s a story about black maids in Mississippi?”
Charging “cartoony racism” is probably a very poor way of expressing myself. I was echoing the line Alyssa Rosenberg used in her review: “Its villains, Junior League bigots who wear smart little suits to cover their scales, are so cartoonish that viewers won’t risk recognizing themselves or echoes of their behavior in them.”
Historically, movies about social problems (racism, sexism, etc.) present actions in the most dramatic terms possible (as most movies do). Cops movies doesn’t show real police work realistically. Science fiction doesn’t show scientists realistically. But when movies about actual social problems don’t show those activities realistically, I think viewers tend to think that the criticism doesn’t apply to them.
Which is unfair to The Help. As you point out, the problems are inherent to the original novel. It’s not crazy for DreamWorks (or anybody else) to make a movie out of a bestselling novel. When the studio does so, it doesn’t set out to “mak(e) a movie about black struggle,” it tries to not screw up the popularity of the book. It tries to make a movie that a lot of people will see, so that the studio makes a lot of money.
I don’t agree with the “Every Film Is Racist!” post. But here I am, agreeing with everything else you have to say.
P.S. I’m not convinced Conan was screwed either.
To broaden the question about other films, what about something like Remember the Titans? That dealt with racism in a less “edgy” way, but also had Denzel front and center. Did that get less heat than The Help is getting because of Denzel, or because it’s a sports movie, and is understood by its genre to be less weighty than a normal drama? (To be honest – I can’t remember – did it get a pass from critics?)
SamLowry’s argument that all movies are about the outsider’s view is just silly.
Movies tend to be about rugged individuals, who seem to be rebels. But they’re just idealized versions of ourselves. Is Baby in Dirty Dancing an outsider? Is Maverick in Top Gun an outsider? Is The Guns of Navarone about outsiders? is Leigh Anne in The Blind Side a true outsider?
“Taking on the civil rights movement from an insider’s view would either turn into a series of tedious meetings or become yet another hagiography of Dr King and Malcolm X.”
That’s just stupid. Is any dramatic conflict best told through strategy meetings? Of course not. But that has nothing to do with white or black protagonists. Most films are best told through physical action and dramatic conflict. But that story could be told through the vantage point of African American characters.
As for “another hagiography,” there hasn’t been a single theatrical film that told Dr. King’s story. There’s been one about Malcolm and it portrayed someone more complex than a saint.
And there aren’t movies about “an insider who has been hacking away at a problem for years, to seemingly no avail”? Seriously? Shall we list the examples?
Crap, Krillian – you beat me to Remember(ing) the Titans.
But I do wonder if The Help is being held to more scrutiny because it doesn’t have genre cover to hide behind. Sports movies deal with this stuff all the time in a similar manner. Sci-fi can deal with it, too. If The Help was more of a rom-com, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Uh, yes, Baby and Maverick ARE outsiders. The real story starts when they go someplace new, someplace outside their bubble where their very presence upsets the existing order. Perhaps your mistake lies in believing “outsider = oppressed minority”; it simply means someone who ain’t from around here.
Ever watch “Eyes On the Prize”? Sorry, but every time they focus on SNCC meetings or other procedural crap it’s time to hit FF on the remote, which means you can tear through the entire series in less than an hour.
A movie about “an insider who has been hacking away at a problem for years, to seemingly no avail” would be boring as shit, which is why I stated that the story doesn’t actually begin in that case until an outsider steps in to shake things up.
Dirty Dancing is about Jews in the Catskills. Baby is not an outsider, just an independent thinker. You’re confusing a rebel, who is in every other way just like the other characters, with an actual outsider.
And you’re comparing a 14-hour documentary series with a movie? Please.
Baby is also a good girl who is suddenly exposed to a whole different group of people who shake up her world. In her safe, sanitary world back home, a straight dancer and a unwed pregnant girl might as well be sparkly vampires or werewolves.
Oh, and if Coach Boone had been white, he’d still be considered an outsider for his unorthodox training methods, as well as obviously being the new guy in town. Same as the white QB with long, girly hair–outsider.
SamLowry – That’s perfectly true and has absolutely zero to do with your argument that the Civil Rights struggle of the Fifties and Sixties is best told through an outsider’s perspective, especially a white outsider.
You could tell it through the actions of a tough organizer, along the lines of Costner’s roles in JFK and The Untouchables. You could tell the story of an ordinary person swept up in the struggle, a version of Rosa Parks. You could do it from the perspective of a child, watching the actions of adults, knowing the better world they’re fighting for is for his/her benefit.
There are a ton of ways to do it, without having it be about a white protagonist.
It would be great to see a movie about an inside group coming up with a plan to shake things up, like with Rosa Parks, but such a project might expose some unwelcome truths, like for example that Parks had not been the first black female who refused to move. The first had been a somewhat abrasive teenager whose father was an alcoholic–qualities that disqualified her as being a symbol for a movement, someone entire masses of people would fight for.
SamLowry – Once again, that’s one of the stupidest things I ever heard. We shouldn’t tell Rosa Parks’ story, because the historical truth is uncomfortable?
Elliot Ness wasn’t responsible for the Capone indictment. Columbus wasn’t the first person to discover America. The Gunfight at the O.K. Corral has never been portrayed accurately on film.
Again, this isn’t about historical accuracy, it’s about the value of telling a story of black struggle through the eyes of black characters.
Theres nothing worse than listening to people talk about what something should or shouldnt be. The film is what it is. If you dont like it, go find a best selling novel told from the perspective you find appropriate, option,it, raise fifty million dollars and film the fucker.
What’s with the hyperbole? Pop View must not hear many stupid things if Sam’s comments are near the top of his stupid list. Or maybe I’m wrong and respectful disagreement is one of the stupidest concepts ever.
Sorry for the hyperbole. I just thought that was a dumb response. “How about telling the story from the Rosa Parks angle?” “Well, if we did that then people would find out that Rosa Parks wasn’t really the first.”
What?
Sam’s point (and it’s a fantastic one), is that often times we look for the most convenient version of the truth for our histories because people have trouble dealing with textures.
If anyone ever read any biography of Martin Luther King Jr. you hear accusations of plagarism and extra-marital affairs throughout his life. Does that diminish his value and what he accomplished? Of course not. He fought his entire life to give a voice to people that had none, and died because of it.
But if you bring that subject up, people begin to hammer you as if you spat in their face. People prefer a very safe, very cut and dry version of history. Which is why Rosa Parks is a national hero and the others who tried the same thing before her are unknown to history because of the potential scrutiny of their character.
Honest discussions on race and segregation are nearly an impossibility because it’s such a decisive issue. Can’t you say Martin Luther King Jr. was an amazing man but cheated on his wife frequently and was accused of plagarising his work?
Facts make things messy. This is why people tend to present clean versions of the past.
That’s why when you’re growing up you’re taught in school that Jack Ruby was just a passionate guy who was upset the President had been killed and never hear about Japanese interment camps during the second world war.
Edit – “The Gunfight at the O.K. Corral has never been portrayed accurately on film” – i was curious about this one.
“There are a ton of ways to do it, without having it be about a white protagonist”
But it’s based on a book. Wasn’t she white in the book?
Again, you’re talking hypotehtical “if i was making this film” nonsense. How does that bring anything to this discussion? While most people are talking about the content of the film, you’re talking about a hypothetical film that does not exist from a perspective that it isn’t being told from. You can fault a film for what it is or what it’s lacking, but can you really fault a film for not being written, adapted, cast, and filmed based on a perspective that doesn’t exist for the work this film is based?
I was not suggesting The Help shouldn’t have a white protagonist. That’s what the book is; that’s how the movie should be. I was saying that it would be nice to see other movies about the Civil Rights era that aren’t told through the eyes of a white protagonist.
Having seen the Help, stating Skeeter is anymore a protagonist in the Help than Minny or Aibileen is just fucking ridiculous. They are co-protagonist in this story and nothing anyone states or says changes that fact.
Oh yeah, The Help is my fave film of the Summer and it’s followed by 13 Assassins and Super 8. The next time you malooks give me shit about my taste in film… FACED!
Thanks for the defense, Anghus. You said it better than I ever could.
“When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.”
Claudette Colvin. Fifteen years old, shouted and put up a fight while being dragged off the bus. While her case wound its way through the courts she became a 16 year-old unwed mother.
“Her circumstances would make her an extremely vulnerable standard-bearer.”
Awele Makeba wrote, directed and starred in a one-woman drama, Rage Is Not A 1-Day Thing! about Colvin, and Phillip Hoose won the 2009 National Book Award for Young People’s Literature for his biography about her.
Meanwhile, whose bus is on display at the Henry Ford Museum? Whose name adorns several streets and a highway in Missouri? Who faced OutKast in court and was name-checked in “Barbershop”? Who was awarded two dozen honorary doctorates, the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the Congressional Gold Medal? And who was the first person to lie in state in the Rotunda who was not a governmental official?
Well…it sure wasn’t Claudette Colvin, because she’s still alive.
History likes its heroes simple, mild, and squeaky-clean. Young Colvin was none of those things, so she finds herself lucky to be considered a footnote in the civil rights struggle. No one will make a movie about her even though she was the first because it would be dismissed as sour grapes AND an attack on Rosa Parks.
Surprised no one’s mentioned THE GUARD yet, since it’s essentially a Gaelic IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT: fat, racist white cop is forced to team up with a cool, intellectual black cop (or in this case, FBI agent); he makes tons of offensive remarks, but–NOT A SPOILER, REALLY–gradually comes to respect him (and vice versa). Plus it’s killingly funny.
im looking forward to the guard if it would ever open in my neck of the woods.
i like where i live but fucking a does it take forever to get independent films to screen here.
To be fair, in Harry Potter, Kingsley, the black guy, does become Minister of Magic. But that was in the books and not the movie.