![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Why Blackface? (via Slate)
In Tropic Thunder Robert Downey Jr is playing a pompous Australian method actor, who has his skin surgically altered in order to play a black man. This video asks the question (of Hollywood) Why Blackface?
The video says yes they're satirizing full-of-themselves performers, but it's not ok to use blackface to do so. Without having seen the movie, I'm not prepared to judge whether its use of blackface is wholly ironic and critical, or if it has some strange kernal of institutionalized racism driving it. But this exchange is good:
Speedman (Stiller): What is it with you people?
Lazarus (Downey Jr): What do you mean, you people?
Appo (Jackson): What do YOU mean, you people?
Brandon T. Jackson, who plays Chino Appo, a rapper turned actor, is righteously pissed off at Lazarus - for taking what should have been his role, for appropriating the black experience, and for all his liberal, white ally entitlement.
Slate also had a chat about the movie. On page two of the transcript is this exchange:
Laurel, Md.: I'm a black women who's really not into comedies, but Robert Downey Jr.'s character is the only reason I wanted to see Tropic Thunder in the first place. I can tell he's being genuine. If he was on some Soul Man-type crap then I'd probably be mad, but he actually looks like a black man. The sneak preview I saw was hilarious, and I'm far from offended.
Dana Stevens: Downey's remarkable performance is at the heart of what makes this particular aspect of the movie work so well (leaving Simple Jack and his problems aside for the moment). It is, quite literally, soulful, and lovingly indebted to black actors of the past (like Richard Roundtree of the Shaft movies) without being a minstrel-style race caricature. This isn't just due to Downey, but to the way his part's been written—it's complexly satirical, not just "Ha ha, look at the dude in blackface."
I'm following up your question with one from another black viewer who was annoyed by the movie, or at least the idea of it:
Durham, N.C.: I still don't get it. I understand that Robert Downey Jr. is excellent (I have thought so, for a long time). I don't understand in what universe Ben Stiller thought this was okay. After all is said and done, both Stiller and Downey will continue to have "white male privilege." In the mean time, I have paid them $10 to insult me. As a critique of the industry, the wound is too close. There is a frenzy about Mad Men, when The Wire has been overlooked for years. I hope that Stiller goes out of his way to have a true relationship with black audiences (as well as other folks he has offended). No matter what his intention? This isn't cool. Stiller has not advanced the conversation.
Dana Stevens: This opens up a really touchy question about representation in the entertainment industry: Do white filmmakers have any right to explore issues of race in their work (in any way other than earnestly plodding drama calculated to offend no one)? Spike Lee used blackface as a form of social commentary in his film Bamboozled; is Ben Stiller out of bounds if he does the same? I'd argue that muzzling discourse on race based on who's doing the talking doesn't advance the conversation, either.
I would say that yes, of course white artists have a right to explore issues of race in their work, and yes, in ways that might offend - the trouble comes when white artists think they have a free pass in exploring issues of race, without acknowledging their own privilege and without going beyond "Racism! Gosh that's funny!"
I would also hesitate to rely on 'advancing the discussion' as a justification for artistic endeavors, because all too often it's a good way to shut down particular kinds of discussion (ie we're doing this to advance the discussion in ways that we're comfortable with and interested in, but your points of view, which coincidentally are contrary to ours, take away from the discussion. Shush).
So, anyone actually seen the movie yet?
The video says yes they're satirizing full-of-themselves performers, but it's not ok to use blackface to do so. Without having seen the movie, I'm not prepared to judge whether its use of blackface is wholly ironic and critical, or if it has some strange kernal of institutionalized racism driving it. But this exchange is good:
Speedman (Stiller): What is it with you people?
Lazarus (Downey Jr): What do you mean, you people?
Appo (Jackson): What do YOU mean, you people?
Brandon T. Jackson, who plays Chino Appo, a rapper turned actor, is righteously pissed off at Lazarus - for taking what should have been his role, for appropriating the black experience, and for all his liberal, white ally entitlement.
Slate also had a chat about the movie. On page two of the transcript is this exchange:
Laurel, Md.: I'm a black women who's really not into comedies, but Robert Downey Jr.'s character is the only reason I wanted to see Tropic Thunder in the first place. I can tell he's being genuine. If he was on some Soul Man-type crap then I'd probably be mad, but he actually looks like a black man. The sneak preview I saw was hilarious, and I'm far from offended.
Dana Stevens: Downey's remarkable performance is at the heart of what makes this particular aspect of the movie work so well (leaving Simple Jack and his problems aside for the moment). It is, quite literally, soulful, and lovingly indebted to black actors of the past (like Richard Roundtree of the Shaft movies) without being a minstrel-style race caricature. This isn't just due to Downey, but to the way his part's been written—it's complexly satirical, not just "Ha ha, look at the dude in blackface."
I'm following up your question with one from another black viewer who was annoyed by the movie, or at least the idea of it:
Durham, N.C.: I still don't get it. I understand that Robert Downey Jr. is excellent (I have thought so, for a long time). I don't understand in what universe Ben Stiller thought this was okay. After all is said and done, both Stiller and Downey will continue to have "white male privilege." In the mean time, I have paid them $10 to insult me. As a critique of the industry, the wound is too close. There is a frenzy about Mad Men, when The Wire has been overlooked for years. I hope that Stiller goes out of his way to have a true relationship with black audiences (as well as other folks he has offended). No matter what his intention? This isn't cool. Stiller has not advanced the conversation.
Dana Stevens: This opens up a really touchy question about representation in the entertainment industry: Do white filmmakers have any right to explore issues of race in their work (in any way other than earnestly plodding drama calculated to offend no one)? Spike Lee used blackface as a form of social commentary in his film Bamboozled; is Ben Stiller out of bounds if he does the same? I'd argue that muzzling discourse on race based on who's doing the talking doesn't advance the conversation, either.
I would say that yes, of course white artists have a right to explore issues of race in their work, and yes, in ways that might offend - the trouble comes when white artists think they have a free pass in exploring issues of race, without acknowledging their own privilege and without going beyond "Racism! Gosh that's funny!"
I would also hesitate to rely on 'advancing the discussion' as a justification for artistic endeavors, because all too often it's a good way to shut down particular kinds of discussion (ie we're doing this to advance the discussion in ways that we're comfortable with and interested in, but your points of view, which coincidentally are contrary to ours, take away from the discussion. Shush).
So, anyone actually seen the movie yet?
no subject
no subject
no subject
I'm not an expert but I can't for the life of me remember any of his female characters standing out at all. He seems to really write for The Guys. So in that sense, I'd say that it's probably good to stay away from his films, if you want to develop a career as an independent, female performer. If you're cool with always playing the girlfriend, then his films are a good opportunity.
no subject
There's also the fact that the whole plot is that they think they're filming a movie when in reality they've just been dumped into the jungle with real live "angry natives", so I don't know.
Yeah, that's definitely a point of concern too - does Stiller actually go beyond this? I'd love it if he turned this trope on its ear and had the 'angry natives' be real characters.
I'm so going to have to see this movie, just to find out.