From The Desk Of
MOC Blog by MOC Blog
Did The New York Times Just Discover Hollywood's Race Problem
Stepin-fetchit Mahohla Dargis and A.O. Scott, the two top film critics for the New York Times, combined their resources this weekend to write a long, well-intentioned piece called "Hollywood's Whiteout," an examination of how this year's 'Best Picture' nominees reflect a disappointing lack of diversity - or another year of whiteness, depending on your perspective - in the broader context of the American
experience. After all, it's 2011 we're told and like every other year in the new century, shouldn't we be farther along on the Progress continuum?
But what I find a little strange - putting aside my reservations that it took not one, but two excellent film critics to write this - is the premise of the whole argument: That somehow, after fits and starts, after progress and retrenchment in the social lives of Americans and their movies, we should somehow be surprised that 2011 returns us right back to familiarity of white America circa 1955.
Uh, hello?
Since when has Hollywood - or any medium in this country, for that matter - been known for it's commitment to diversity? (Look at the liberal news blog The Huffington Post and ask yourself why there are so few news stories about people of color.) Hollywood is one of the most conservative institutions in America. The bottom line is they are in the business of making money and they are not about to take any risks which threaten that bottom line. (Remember the "anti-establishment" movie period from around 1967 to 1981 that followed the end of the classic era? When Hollywood finally got the mood of its audience? Who do you think financed it? It wasn't hippies.)
And Hollywood may hire minorities to work in the back office. They may offer domestic spousal benefits. But at the end of the day, the black movie-going public isn't large enough and white people still aren't comfortable enough with the black, Latino or Asian experience to justify a truly post-racial moviegoing experience that would justify the expense of making and marketing meaningful pictures about the lives of those "others."
It certainly has improved. But if you think exploiting the pathologies of the Annex - Robinson, Bill 'Bojangles'_01
black community - which is exactly what movies like "Precious" did - and then turn around and say to us: "See, we're down with the Black experience" - strikes me as willfully ignorant. (Quick, name five movies from any year that show positive depictions of people of color.) Besides, pick a year, any year, and you'll find that the range and diversity of its nominees is fraught with a "blinding" whiteness that can't be explained away by history, politics or the social milieu in which the movies found themselves even if it is Eddie Murphy in the 1980s, less an example of enlightment and more an example of tokenism if ever there was one.
(If you're interested in learning more about black cinema, I would encourage you to read Donald Bogle's groundbreaking book, "Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, and Bucks: An Interpretive History of Blacks in American Films," an exhaustive, and at times exhausting, look at one of Hollywood's "other" communities.)
(Pictured, Sir Stepin Fetchit, top, and Bill "Bojangles" Robinson, bottom)
No comments
Post a Comment