Bamboozled (2000)

Yesterday I watched Spike Lee's film Bamboozled. Damon Wayans plays Pierre Delacroix, a black television show creator who is irritated at the pressure from his white boss to create a stereotypical "black" sitcom. In an effort to point out the underlying racism at the network, Delacroix decides to pitch a horribly offensive idea that they should create a minstrel show in the fashion of early 20th-century blackface comedy. He hoped the show would be so horribly offensive that the reactions would get him fired, but his plans backfire when audiences make "The New Millennium Minstrel Show" a huge success. On the show, instead of white actors dressing up in blackface, black actors make themselves even darker with makeup and imitate the "buffoonery" of old racist television and stage shows.

This film was extremely difficult to watch, and made me feel extremely uncomfortable the whole time. It is almost physically painful to watch Delacroix's white boss, Thomas Dunwitty, interact with his black employees, thinking he has the "right" to use the n-word. He is completely oblivious that Delacroix is mocking him when he pitches the idea for the minstrel show, and Dunwitty just releases this sick pleasure in exploiting black stereotypes. It was also really hard to have to watch the black minstrel show actors have to paint themselves in blackface each time before going on stage. I can't imagine how it would feel for those actors to have to invoke the awful history of that kind of stage performance, in a time where African Americans were subhuman in society.

Bamboozled made me think about the suppressed racism that probably exists in America today. The scene in the writer's boardroom is interesting, yet also disturbing. Delacroix tells the white writers to unleash their inner racists, and sets them off by mentioning the O.J. Simpson trial. It's hard to identify the amount or level of racism (I know, those are very abstract terms) in America today, but it seems that it could definitely be similar to how people act in Bamboozled (although it is obviously exaggerated for the point of the movie).

Overall, I think Bamboozled is a very important film to see, because the discomfort at watching the extremity of stereotypes really forces you to question the prevalence of racism. I think too many people dismiss that it is real anymore, but the idea of white audiences accepting a new minstrel show in the film leads to serious questions about what reactions would be like in the real world. Bamboozled also was a glimpse into how damaging something like blackface was to African Americans in the past, and helps put current trends (like models using blackface for "fashion's sake) into perspective.

Levi "Going Forth"?

After reading an article about race representation in advertisements ("Advertising and People of Color" by Clint C. Wilson II and Felix Gutierrez) I remembered the new ad campaign by Levi Jeans. Minorities have a history of either stereotypes perpetrated through commercials (Latin Americans in Taco Bell commercials), or being ignored altogether (using Native American names for products but leaving actual Native Americans underrepresented).

I keep seeing these "Go Forth" commercials in the time before a movie starts in the theater and their racial diversity is actually pretty striking. I'm so used to stereotypes and racial exclusivity that I usually just block out ads, but this commercial (using a Walt Whitman poem as the voice-over) caught my attention:



The first image after the "America" sign on the screen is a young black girl, so you could assume the advertisers are using her as the image directly associated with the U.S. The ad continues with a mixture of black and white Americans with actually a broad range of [arguably stereotypical] representations of urban black youths and a successful white executive to an apparently middle-class interracial group of hipster friends.

I think this is an interesting step forward for an advertisement, since it gave a relatively broad range of black and white representations. It doesn't ignore the obvious reality of urban life, but it doesn't confine the races to certain economic classes either. One issue could be the lack of inclusion of other minorities of the American population, since there aren't any obviously Hispanic or Native American actors, but there is at least some progress with one American ethnicity [Other versions of this commercial actually do include a woman that appears to be Hispanic]. Anyway, I really think that opening image is especially important, because it doesn't have a middle-class white person as the first thought after "America." It isn't exactly a radical change in race relations to have a racially inclusive advertisement, but I think the more diverse representation is actually pretty inspiring (which was probably the intent of advertisers appealing to the younger generation).

Battling Both Racism and Sexism

Women of all ethnicities are highly sexualized in media today, but the image of the black woman is especially exploited by the white male-dominated industry. bell hooks writes about the dehumanization of black women, which originated in the slave trade hundreds of years ago. She says that today, black models and celebrities are "objectified in a manner similar to that of black female slaves who stood on auction blocks while owners and overseers described their important, salable parts..." When you look at the women that flaunt certain body parts, like their butt, it seems as though the value of African American females is still reliant on the commercial value of their sexual parts. I think this is true for white women as well, but there is an actual history of slavery and selling black women that makes this exploitation particularly intense.

There is also a unique stereotype about the "wildness", or exotic nature of black women that is evident in advertisements especially. Black models are often featured in jungle-like settings or with "untamed" physical characteristics, like the wigs of Tina Turner. bell hooks discusses Tina's relationship with Ike, who shaped her image into "...the black female as wild sexual savage emerged from the impact of a white patriarchal controlled media shaping his perceptions of reality."

When I think about the difference between exploitation of white women in media and black women, there seems to be a huge extra hurdle for black women. White females are conforming to men's perception of beauty, but the idea of beauty for black women goes through two filters: first the white man's, then the white woman's. They often have to imitate the white woman ideal (regarding hair type, lip size, etc.) which is already an artificial mold formed by white male executives. For example, black models with lighter skin are far more common in advertisements, and black female celebrities often wear wigs imitating white hair.

Why are black women conforming to these racist and sexist stereotypes? The door to success in media is very narrow for black women so only a certain image that sells will prevail in the industry. If a woman tried to have display her unconventional, and arguably more natural, beauty (naturally styled hair, facial features that aren't distorted by photoshop) then they probably just wouldn't be hired as a model, actress, or musician. Why isn't there diversity in the representations of what "black beauty" can be?

Green over Black

I recently read an article called "The Fox Network and the Revolution in Black Television" by Kristal Brent Zook discussed the black television shows that were added to the station's programming in the 80s and 90s. Shows like A Different World and The Cosby Show were added to basic channels when more affluent white audiences could afford to use cable or VCRs. It was responding to a new market that included more black viewers, and the result was relatively diverse representations of the black community. Many of these shows even addressed fairly controversial topics such as date rape and racism.

However, later on the station canceled many of these shows when the executives wanted the station to become more mainstream. While some of the remaining programs still had black casts, there was a shortage of minority-controlled programs. The creative and executive power still lies in mostly white hands.

I also just watched a documentary with Henry Louis Gates called America: Beyond the Color Line that used one segment to explore the issue of black representation in Hollywood. Gates interviewed several actors and other people in the film industry and asked them about racism in Hollywood, but I thought it was interesting that most people said its more about money than anybody's personal stereotypes. One director that was interviewed initially said he didn't think there was any discrimination when it came to casting, but then eventually realized that there was definitely less money made when two leads are African American. So, if there's more money to be made with white actors, then they want the money and will hire white people.

Bringing that back to the issue of television, I really think there are not many people, including Rupert Murdoch, saying they don't want black actors or programs or films. For the most part, it seems as though they are responding to public demand. Money is the ultimate goal for media executives, and if mainstream means white, then they will go that direction. But, this is a difficult situation because media could be an important vehicle for challenging certain stereotypes instead of reinforcing them in the search for money. Is it media's responsibility, or does the fault of a lack of representation lie with the audiences?

Is Blackface Ever OK?

We recently read an article on the history of blackface comedy, and our professor showed us this clip from the Daily Show:

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Is Blackface Ever OK?
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

We already discussed the issue in class, but I think it raises some interesting questions that I wanted to ask on here. Traditionally, actors that painted themselves black were also terribly misrepresenting African Americans in order to entertain audiences. This "racial ridicule" (Coleman) involved exploiting stereotypes for the sake of comedy.

So what about the situations presented in this Daily Show clip? Apparently, the models that paint themselves black are doing so for the "sake of fashion" and to show the beauty of black skin. Is there a "beautiful women" exception for the rule about blackface? For me, the thought of invoking the exploitative history of the practice automatically makes the practice wrong to me. Also, why do these models have to pretend to be a different ethnicity in order to represent the beauty of different skin colors? I think a better approach would be for the modeling industry to use actually black women and open up a traditional idea of beauty to include other minorities.

Just because the supposed intentions of the fashion television show does not seem negative, I think its kind of insensitive and pointless to use black paint and pretend to be another ethnicity. Someone in class said that America's Next Top Model often has the models dress up in cultural outfits to "experience" another culture, but that is ridiculous. Dressing up in a costume is not a cultural experience by any stretch of the imagination, just like that newscaster in Germany could not have an authentic experience painting himself black . It's not a one-minute or one-day experience. Living in a culture or actually being a certain ethnicity is the only authentic experience, and I think it is not respectful to those people groups to assume otherwise.

Thelma and Louise!

For extra credit in our class a couple weeks ago, we watched the film Thelma and Louise to reflect on its representations of gender. I really enjoyed the movie, and it was so refreshing to see two women take center stage in a mainstream film without it being some cliche romantic comedy filled with gender stereotypes.

Thelma and Louise were basically the only females in the story, and they were really dynamic characters that set out on for a simple weekend trip that later becomes increasingly complicated. Their journey transforms into an escape from patriarchal society, where they had been raped, mocked, dominated, and trivialized in the past. The police force that is following them (after Louise shoots Thelma's attacker at a bar) is comprised of all men, and they are chasing down the two deviant women. Since most people have seen this movie, I don't feel bad discussing their decision to drive over a cliff rather than give up to the police and return to society.

During the group discussion after the movie, someone thought the movie was saying that when two women become deviants and find liberation outside traditional roles, there is no way for them to reintegrate. The only way they could remain authentic to their new liberated selves was to die. It seems as though either decision, driving off the cliff or turning themselves in, would result in a form of "death". Either they would be killing their new identities or their physical bodies. This film was filled with questions about women in society and oppression within a patriarchal system. I really enjoyed seeing a film like Thelma and Louise that broke out of stereotypical representations and had complex, multi-dimensional female characters that actually faced those questions with a controversial answer.

The Daily Show and "Black Correspondents"

I wanted to continue the theme of my last blog post, African Americans on news stations, but with a little different angle. A few articles I read recently discussed media's perpetuation of the idea that African Americans are the "others" in our society. "When editors think 'an American person', they automatically think 'White'...Automatically, media personnel (most presumably White) think of the normal American as a White person". Only "when cued by the need to represent a group of Americans they realize they should add in some non-protypical types, they recognize their responsibility to reflect America's ethnic diversity."

While the article was referring to images on magazine covers, I think this can also apply to newscasters, correspondents, and politicians. On news stations, a reporter covering generic stories is most often white. However, when there is a story specifically about a race issue, a certain ethnicity, or a certain country being covered, then a minority is called in as an expert on the situation.

The Daily Show has a very interesting parody of this situation, and is a theme through several of their episodes. Whenever they have a story on a "race issue" (i.e. racist comments against Obama in the media, the arrest of Henry Louis-Gate, etc.) they have Larry Wilmore, their "Senior Black Correspondent." Or, if there is a story about the Middle East, India, or North Africa, Aasif Mandvi covers it. He covers any of these countries as the token "Middle-Eastern-looking-correspondent", while his actual ethnicity is unclear.

The media possibly has become more diverse, but I feel that minority correspondents and newscasters are still treated as the "other", and with increasing quantities of them, should start covering more generic stories in order to be seen as "experts" in fields other than situations pertaining to their race.