Sunday, April 23, 2023

Is it time to lose the capes?

     As the summer movie season is almost here, I have had some time to do some reflection and I am starting to think that the superhero genre might be running out of steam. The reason I say this is that I have noticed a repetition in the formula for the standard superhero film. The formula has become so standardized, it has become cliché and a trope for satires on film and the film industry. The reason why superhero films worked in the first place is the reason why successful films are able to succeed, they can effectively suspend the disbelief of the viewer and temporarily allow them to a world of escapism and entertainment which they would be willing to pay to revisit.

    Let's start at the beginning. No, I'm not talking Iron Man. I mean Superman (1978). That is the film that has allowed every other modern superhero film to exist. The film was recently re-released back the theaters. The film still works. The reason the film works is not because it had mind blowing special effects, although they were advanced for the time it was released. The movie works because at its' core, it is a love story and one that still resonates with people.  The interview scene between Christopher Reeve and Margot Kidder has dialogue that most screenwriters couldn't even fathom how to replicate. The big question that I keep asking myself, what happened? Why has that level of writing faded and given way to formulaic plots that do not capture the imaginations of the viewers?

    The modern MCU officially started with Iron Man, although Blade (1998) doesn't get the credit it should for saving Marvel and Howard The Duck is on the disavowed list that only those of us of a certain age remember it as a partial fever dream/HBO staple. Iron Man was great because it was a significant upgrade to the level of filmmaking  in the superhero genre and the protagonist. Tony Stark is the antithesis to Clark Kent, very flawed and self-serving. The film does have a commonality with Superman. They both took risks on leading men who not many people had faith could carry a franchise. Christopher Reeve was a thin Julliard graduate and did not fill out the suit......at first. Robert Downey Jr had all the talent in the world, but his personal demons had stalled his career and threatened to end it. Luckily Jon Favreau and Richard Donner were clairvoyant enough to see their potential and the rest is history. 

    Let's skip forward about 15 years. Marvel and DC seem to be engaged in a mock Cold War for the hearts and minds for cinephiles and nerds like myself. Although, it really isn't much of a battle based on the box office returns. Marvel has been dominating. The reason for said domination is that they created a cohesive cinematic universe that works. The tone for most of their films was light and the humor was present and so was a plethora of CGI laden action set pieces. And audiences have eaten it up like meatloaf, for the most part. 

    DC has been attempting to play catch up, and rather unsuccessfully. Batman has been the one staple that DC has been able to hang their hats on. They have attempted to find the next Christopher Reeve but have unfortunately failed for a number of reasons, not enough time to mention. They have recently undergone a leadership change and James Gunn now has creative control. We will see where this leads. Supposedly The Flash and Blue Beetle are good movies and have done well with test audiences. 

    This leads back to my title question. Has the superhero genre become too formulaic? Is it time to take a "time out" on making the excess amount of superhero films? Ant Man and the Wasp: Quantimania and Shazam 2 have both underperformed in regards to box office and in the case of Shazam 2, it has been an all time failure. I saw both films and thought both films were fine. They did not amaze me by any stretch but I thought they both were entertaining enough for the time I saw them and I wasn't regretful that I saw them. The major complaint that both films have generated from audiences were "boring" and "derivative". Marvel's phase 4 was not a box office failure but it definitely did not carry the adornment of the masses which was a signal that maybe superhero fatigue might be more real than I anticipated.

    The fatigue in the genre is not linked to a fatigue in the theater experience. Top Gun: Maverick, Avatar 2  and Super Mario Bros. have proven that audiences will show up to see a product on the big screen IF that product is captivating and inspiring the imaginations of the audience. Do superhero films do that still? Audiences have seen all types of aliens, interdimensional conflicts, all out wars with god like antagonists. What else is left to captivate audiences? What new territory is left to explore? Moreover are younger viewers actually reading the source material like Gen X and millennials have? Based on my experience with young people, which my profession is based on, I would say that many are not reading comic books anymore. If the next generation is not reading source material, and there seems to be a general fatigue in the genre itself, maybe it is necessary to take a reset.

    Contrary to popular belief, a big budget does not equate to a well received movie. Good screenwriting is becoming a lost art and I hope that maybe IF a reset does occur that maybe new and fresh stories could be created that younger and older audiences could read and become enamored with and then perhaps they could be adapted. I have had a conversation with my friends that Marvel is running out of moves. After the Secret Wars films finally are released, what else is really left? That project is very ambitious and will require masterful storytelling but I do not know where else the company can go. DC has much more opportunity for expansion. Hopefully Mr. Gunn can craft something worthy. But I hope both studios focus on quality over quantity. 

    The best film I have ever seen was The Shawshank Redemption. It did not have a huge budget and unfortunately it was a box office bomb. In retrospect, it was competing against Pulp Fiction, Forrest Gump, and Jurassic Park. But I digress. It's box office failure does not negate its merit as a piece of cinematic excellence. Good stories and competent acting can still work. The best stories are sometimes the most simple. Truth is stranger than fiction and the human experience is one that I hope film makers take the time to explore. It is what connects all of us and transcends all our differences and idiosyncrasies. I hope the film studios consider maybe dialing back the number of new releases to refine their products so that the populous can enjoy going to the movies and not find themselves in a predictable cycle of viewing. 

Thursday, October 20, 2022

The Pride of Prejudice

         A few weeks ago my best friend's daughter suggested that she and I have a playdate. She said she wanted to see the 2023 version of The Little Mermaid. I agreed because I figured that could be a fun outing and maybe my son might want to go as well. About two days later, I saw a social media post on Facebook where someone exposed all the racist images, memes, online petitions against the film. Those images got me thinking about a trend that I have noticed over the past year. Whenever a fictional character is portrayed by a person of color there seems to be a certain amount of casual outrage and controversy surrounding it. The question that I keep coming back to is why? Why is it that a fictional character can elicit such vitriol from seemingly normal and well balanced people? Moreover, why has the suspension of disbelief become such a hard act to comprehend? 

           For those who take the time to read this, which I always appreciate, I want to make sure that this is a legitimate question I have had for some time. This is not a "drop the race card" diatribe. I legitimately am curious because racism has never made sense to me in any form and I have seen it come from minorities and non-minorities alike. I am not saying that all people need to love each other or even like each other. That utopian ideal is unfortunately not possible on this planet. I simply think a more logical reasoning than the amount of melanin or lack thereof in one's skin is the basis for disdain. Intellectual capacity, personal hygiene, blissful ignorance, sadism, and even sports affiliations are far more logical reasons for caring not to spend your time around an individual.

           Let's start back with the first time I really noticed the loyal adoration to fiction. I have always loved the experience of going to the movies. Personally, I find the art of cinema and film to be therapeutic and, in the best cases, educational. One character I have always enjoyed was James Bond. I saw the later Roger Moore films and then Timothy Dalton films, but the first Bond film that I really identified with was Goldeneye and its lead Pierce Brosnan was the Bond of my generation. As beloved as Mr. Brosnan's interpretation was, his time came and it went. Then came a sub six foot tall, blonde haired gentleman named Daniel Craig. Before he became the revered icon he is today, his casting was meticulously scrutinized, and it was believed by many that he couldn't get the job done. But anyone who saw Casino Royale, knows how unwarranted the scrutiny was. Mr. Craig has recently given up the mantle of Bond and it is time for a new 007 to emerge. One of the leading candidates was Idris Elba, but many people were insulted that Mr. Elba was "too street" to play James Bond. https://variety.com/2015/film/news/idris-elba-james-bond-too-street-author-anthony-horowitz-1201582692/.

       I am very well aware that when Ian Fleming created the character he was written as a Caucasian man. But here is the concrete fundamental fact behind any fictional work. It does not really exist. There is no such person as James Bond. And James Bond can take any form that the particular artist framing the story chooses to take. I personally think Mr. Elba would have been a phenomenal James Bond but I think he should have gotten the role 10 years ago if it was going to happen. Unfortunately, I think his would be time has already passed. Plus I read the vitriol that Lashana Lynch received just for portraying a 007 in No Time to Die. I wish that on no one.

         Let's move on to more recent events, HBO's House of the Dragon is the predecessor to Game of Thrones and one of the characters introduced was Lord Corlys Velaryon portrayed by Steve Toussaint. Again, the Velaryons are only described in the novels by George R.R. Martin as being dragon riders with silver hair. They have no specific ethnic background and even Mr. Martin himself enjoys the fact that they are portrayed as black as to distinguish them from the Targaryens, which the show focuses on. Mr. Toussiant himself seems to be perplexed as to issue with his portrayal of Lord Velaryon. The show has mythical flying dragons, wizards, and incestuous relationships but the point of contention is a man of color being a rich sailor?

          There is another popular show called The Lord of the Rings: Rings of Power which streamed on Amazon Prime and just had its season finale. In that series there is a wood elf named Arondir who is portrayed by Ismael Cruz Córdova. The problem does not seem to be with the fact that there are elves or wizards or hobbits. There seems to be an issue with the fact that some of these fictional characters are portrayed by someone of color. The show and its producers seemed to be very deliberate in its casting because the show is very diverse. The cast has black, white, Latino, Asian, and Middle Eastern cast members. Sounds like a good thing, right? Unfortunately, some people do not feel that way and seem to be enamored with the blonde, blue eyed Adonises  that were seen in Peter Jackson's film trilogy. 

      Now, back to mermaids. For some reason, the world has always been fascinated with mermaids. I am of an age that I remember the film Splash with Tom Hanks and Darryl Hannah when I first became keenly aware of how much people loved these fictional fish. The movie was supposed to be a light hearted romantic comedy that kids like myself at the time could see. Spoiler alert; Splash is definitely not a movie for children. It actually has a lot of nudity and poor decision making under the pretense of love because the object of affection just happens to look like supermodel. But I digress. 

        Fortunately for Disney, they realized their miscalculation in what is actually permissible for children and readjusted their formula for man and mermaid cinematic bliss. This produced 1989's The Little Mermaid. For those Gen X and geriatric millennial (if you were born in 1980 as well, that abysmal terminology applies to us) individuals this movie was our childhood. Classic songs, a very convenient plot (Ariel does not talk for half of the movie, similar as to how Madison did not speak for a while in Splash), and a happy ending gave the world all the nice feelings.

      I do understand that Hans Christian Anderson did not write the book featuring a young lady of color. But the original book also features a much darker story with suicide, murder, and a failed romance, so it is possible for artistic license to take effect and alter some details. 

       If you still don't believe the world loves the romance between human and fish, 2017's The Shape of Water  won the Academy Award for Best Picture and it is about a woman who falls in love with a fish/man. So as implausible and unrealistic as the plots may be, people have been paying good money to see these stories for a long time. 

         This leads back to my original question. Why is the 2023 rendition of The Little Mermaid getting scrutinized so acutely? Memes have been created to depict the film and rename it The Little Slave. There is actually an online community called "Christians against The Little Mermaid (Halle Bailey)". So it has come to it that some people who claim to be followers of Jesus Christ, who was historically Middle Eastern, refuse to watch a movie about a fictional character because it offends their moral/religious fiber?

           I am not trying to say that everyone has to see the 2023 film. People are entitled to their opinions, but I am only asking why some people are so distressed over a character that does not exist, has never existed, and is the creation of someone's imagination? If someone would say they don't believe that Ms. Bailey's acting is up to par, that is perfectly acceptable. Maybe the story is silly? Maybe they don't believe that Ms. Bailey's voice measures up to Jodi Benson's from the 1989 animated film? Mrs. Benson has given her blessing and approval to Ms. Bailey but maybe that isn't enough? 

           I have heard some people contend that these actions are too "woke" and if a Caucasian person replaced a black character it would be an issue. Let me address this. If John Shaft was played by George Clooney, that is acceptable. Why? Because John Shaft does not exist in real life. Could Black Panther be portrayed by a white person? If he was written as South African, very possibly. (FYI, Patrick Stewart has played the character of Othello in the play Othello. And by all accounts he was brilliant and the play did not suffer because of this edit).  Now will these imaginary castings ever happen, probably not. And they probably would not be well received publicly, but they are possible and that is the key term. Do I believe in shifting ethnicities for every character, just for the sake of trying to be in vogue? No. Particularly if you are dealing with historical figures. Idris Elba should not play JFK. Meryl Streep should not play Harriet Tubman. Those people actually did exist. But works of fiction, by literal definition, are up to the interpretation of the artist.

          I will leave those still reading this with a thought from Stan Lee. He was asked in an interview what his biggest gripe was. He said it was when comic book readers question the motivation/rationale of the writer. "Why did Spider-Man defeat this character? Why is this character able to survive this? Why does this happen? You wanna know why? Because that's the way I wanted it to be! The artist does what they want to and creates the world/scenario they want to for their work. That's it." One of the greatest gifts that man has is his ability to create from his imagination. Fiction can be a beautiful and wonderous invention, but that invention does not give someone the right to criticize based on the interpretation of someone else's fantasy. 

Tuesday, March 08, 2022

The Batman

 

Once again the caped crusader has come back to screens and audiences once again seem to be fawning and flocking to the megaplexes to see how the latest rendition stacks up against the others. The big question: is it worth it? I will offer my opinion on the positives, negatives, and overall thoughts on the film.

 

The negatives

I want to hit on my criticisms first because I want to end on a more positive note and my criticisms are limited. The most obvious criticism is that it is a long movie. The movie is almost 3 hours and with previews being added in, it is over three hours long. That is a very long time to be sitting in a seat. Did it “feel” like three hours? No. But it definitely felt like it was 2 plus hours and change. The fact that I made it through the entire showing, without using the bathroom before the end credits is a small victory that this 41 year old will gladly take.

Secondly, the third act of the movie had a couple of pieces that I just wasn’t feeling too much. I don’t want to readily dismiss it as “lazy writing” but it just seemed to just not jive together. And there seemed to be multiple endings like Lord of the Rings: Return of the King did, which took me out of the viewing experience. The endgame for the Riddler was a little lackluster for me. For someone who is characterized by his lunacy and creativity, I thought his final plan was a little vanilla.

Oh, for those expecting to see a lot of the new version of the Batmobile, don’t get your hopes up. I’m just saying. It was good while it lasted, but…..it didn’t last that long.

 

The positives

                The film is a very GOOD film. I did like the film. Part of the reason I did like the movie is mostly because of the performances of the stellar cast. The cast did a great job. Robert Pattinson became Batman. He embodied the character fully. He became “The Dark Knight” in more ways than one. He was dark, brooding, methodical, and very adept at the physicality of the role. He isn’t my “favorite” Batman but I don’t think he needed to be. He put his spin on it and it was a very good one.

                Zoe Kravitz was also very good as Selina Kyle/Catwoman. She will be compared to Michelle Pfeiffer and  while they might have played the same character technically, they are completely different. Catwoman from Batman Returns seemed to always be teetering on the edge of insanity and balanced it with her sex appeal. Zoe Kravitz’s version is far less sadistic and much more refined. Still a woman scorned but not so much unhinged.

                The rest of the supporting cast is good. Paul Dano is sinister as the Riddler. I’ve heard comparisons to Se7en and that is not accurate in my opinion. He was not scary. Creepy as hell but not scary. I like Jeffery Wright in most films/shows and this film is no different. He was a very good Jim Gordon. Andy Serkis was a very good Alfred, but unfortunately his role is not as large as I would have liked. Collin Ferrell was unrecognizable as the Penguin but if you go into this thinking you are going to see Danny DeVito redux from Batman Returns, he is not that. His version of Oswald Cobblepot is more underboss and less mastermind or aristocrat.

                The score is outstanding and definitely magnifies the depth of the film. It definitely captures the drama and gravity of the film. One commonality between all the Batman incarnations is that they have had outstanding scores. Whether it be Danny Elfman, Hans Zimmer, or now Michael Giacchino, they are all stellar.

Overall thoughts

I liked the movie, but I did not love the movie. And. As previously stated, that is ok. Unfortunately, people like to compare and contrast comic book movie adaptations holistically and argue which is the greatest of all time. The Batman is a good movie. In my personal opinion, it is not my favorite incarnation of the character, but the movie was still good. The cast did a good job, the story was good, and I think if there are potential sequels, Robert Pattinson is more than capable of carrying the heavy luggage.

                We are currently in a golden era of comic book films/adaptations. What Marvel has done successfully and DC has attempted to replicate is a way of elevating the world around us via the adventures of these superheroes. The real world is basically a perpetual mess and these films provide an escape from that and a small promise that morality/decency/empathy/sacrifice are possible. That’s why I believe these films are so popular. Despite the fact that some cinephiles dismiss their artistic integrity, I think they are worthy pieces of film and I think the fact that The Batman can elicit strong responses from viewers validates that fact.  

 

Monday, February 15, 2021

Judas and the Black Messiah (review)

        Zora Neale Hurston once wrote "All your skin folk ain't your kinfolk." That maxim could be none more evident than with Shaka King's film Judas and the Black Messiah. The film came out on HBO Max and theatrical release this past weekend. My wife and I watched it last night and it affected us both greatly. I think the film brilliantly displayed how the terms "hero", "villain", "terrorist" and "threat" are all subjective. 
        The basic premise of the is the infiltration of the Black Panther Party by Bill O'Neal (brilliantly played by LaKeith Stanfield) in order to get close to Fred Hampton (also brilliant Daniel Kaluuya). O'Neal is recruited by Roy Mitchell (very good Jesse Plemons) because of a trumped up charge of impersonating a police officer and grand theft auto. But what Mitchell really offers O'Neal is the illusion of equity. Equity is the same principle at the heart of the Black Panthers and their goals.
        The Black Panthers were seen as a threat by many people, particularly those in positions of power at the state and federal level. They were compared to the Ku Klux Klan. That is ironical. The Ku Klux Klan was organized to subvert black voting in the United States, particularly the South. The Black Panthers were organized to subvert police brutality and oppression in the United States, starting in Oakland, California and eventually forming many chapters in the United States. They also didn't wear hoods to protect their identities. I am not saying that the Black Panthers were a group of alter boys/women, because (as the film shows) there were definitely extremists within the organization and those extremists made some very grave mistakes but those people did not reflect the overall goals of the group.
            Fred Hampton is quite simple a tour de force every time he is on screen. His magnetic charisma is only magnified by his resolve to empower "the people". "Wherever there are people, there is power" quotes Hampton and this is true. That also is the reason for the target on his back. He desperately wants to empower all disenfranchised people to rise up and control their own destiny. If history has taught us anything it is that the status quo absolutely loathes to be challenged. Particularly by groups of people deemed to be fit to be marginalized. The same fight that was happening in 1968-1969, the timetable for the film, is happening today. It is unfortunate that most people are very unwilling to learn.
            There is an overarching theme in the film of manipulation. O'Neal is being manipulated by Mitchell in order to attempt to manipulate and deceive Hampton. Mitchell himself is being manipulated by FBI director J. Edgar Hoover a (very creepy and effective Martin Sheen) to try to protect and preserve the moral center of America from the perceived corruption that the Black Panthers would bring and even more scary than that to Mr. Hoover was the sense of racial/economic equity that Mr. Hampton advocated for. There is a scene where J. Edgar Hoover prods Jesse Plemons's character by asking him, "What will happen when your daughter brings home a negro?" The exchange is interesting because it once again shows how patriotism can some easily can transformed into a casual racism. This is even more dangerous when Roy Mitchell was able to control O'Neal by offering him a literal seat at the table to fine dining in Chicago restaurants (where he would otherwise be denied), supposed respect, and supposed mentorship. If you don't believe that history doesn't repeat itself look at former University of Texas coach Tom Herman's comments on BLM and the nature of fandom vs equality (https://www.espn.com/college-football/story/_/id/29269030/longhorns-coach-tom-herman-join-protests-george-floyd-death)
            One of the most powerful scenes in the film is when Danial Kaluuya's character goes to a rally with an all Caucasian audience, where a confederate flag is prominently displayed and convinces them that their struggle and cause is the same struggle and cause of the Black Panther Party. Poverty is colorblind. Always has been. Hampton was attempting to form a rainbow coalition with Black, White, and Latino groups to try to gain equality. For that very brief time when they were unified, they were also sealing their own doom. A world in which power is shared has been and will always be a serious threat to some people.
            It would be very easy to vilify LaKeith Stanfield's character, but he is deftly played as a man caught between two worlds. I believe he was captivated by the words and actions of Fred Hampton. And I believe he thought the Black Panthers were a positive impact on the community in Chicago. But he also enjoyed the privileges, both monetary and social, that came from working with Jesse Plemons's character. The term "sell out" is casually tossed around, particularly in the African-American lexicon, but this individual actually DID literally sell out his fellow Black Panther Party members. It did cause a mental scarring that is evident throughout the film. But he still did it. William O'Neal says that history will judge him and his actions. I believe the film shows that he allowed himself to be manipulated,
        The only complaint I had with the film is that the context of the plight of the characters was slightly lost in translation. In reality, William O'Neal was 17 years old when he was recruited by the FBI as an informant. Fred Hampton was 20-21 years old when this film is set. The actors portraying them are in their early 30s, thereby giving the illusion of emotional/physical maturity that comes with being older. The reality of the situation is that those young men were barely out of high school when they were in this struggle. At 21, I was concerned with playing rugby, taking classes, and trying to seduce co-eds. I definitely was not trying to lead a multiethnic coalition that was concerned with social and economic equality. The legacy of Fred Hampton and the downfall of the Black Panther Party can be tied together in the "what if" category. Both ultimately had a lot of promise that was never fulfilled because of outside political sabotage.  
        I hope this film is not solely relegated to the sub category of African-American films and only dusted off every February because that is the acceptable time to learn about the lessons that this film offers. This movie isn't a "good black movie". It's a good movie period. It should be taught in every American Government class, every US History class, and every Sociology class. Every actor did a fine part and crafted an excellent story that deserves to be told. 

Wednesday, July 01, 2020

A chance at peace or the Jay Bullworth plan


              Since I have ventured back into the world of blogging, a few friends have asked if I would tackle the task of solving the issue of racial politics/injustice in this country. I have thought about it, since it is such a large issue, and there are no easy answers. But I do think maybe I have some suggestions that could get the ball rolling in a positive direction that might allow some changes to become permanent. Again, there is no guarantee that these suggestions will ever happen, but if they do, maybe some good will come.  I preface these suggestions by saying that the timetable on these needs to be realistic. This nation is almost 250 years old legally and the problems that are now all over the airwaves, social media, and other multimedia platforms have been brewing for long before that time. Ergo, it is impossible to fix something that took several centuries to deteriorate in a matter of weeks or even years. In case no one else has said it, I’ll pull the cat out of the bag, it will take several generations of consistent push for racial equity to produce substantial and sustainable change.

Education
              
              I’ll start with education because it is the field I have the most expertise in and actually have some suggestions that might help push along the agenda of sustained racial equality. The American education system is fundamentally flawed and I personally believe it is flawed is because of an arrogance that we, as Americans, kind of have about ourselves. In order to try to sustain equality I believe we need to be honest, particularly in regards to the history of this nation.
                The founding fathers of this country were great politicians and made many sacrifices to forge this nation. But, many of them were also slave holders and did despicable acts at one time or another throughout their lives. None of us are perfect, myself included, but the problem is that there is an overwhelming desire to glorify some historical figures as if they were secular. Putting people on pedestals is very problematic. Christopher Columbus has been exposed, as of late, because it has taken several centuries to finally realize that it might not be a good idea to celebrate someone who gets credit for discovering an already inhabited nation and slaughtering its indigenous population. Here’s another tidbit, Abraham Lincoln wasn’t ever really the civil rights leader he is proclaimed to be:

                I am not conveying that Mr. Lincoln needs to be erased from history or that the founding fathers do not deserve recognition for their contributions for the creation of the United States but let’s be very honest about the history. Not just the supposed glorious battles and victories in the Revolutionary War, World War I, and World War II. But let’s educate people on the Trail of Tears, Japanese internment camps, anti-immigrant legislation, McCarthyism, the failure of Reconstruction, and the centuries of systematic and legal rape and murder of minorities (Black, Hispanic, Asian, Native American). Also, we need to be VERY careful of how slippery a slope lies between perception and reality. Example:
               
         Some might be reading this and thinking that the advent of Black History Month, Hispanic History Month, and Women’s History month is enough. I think that those months are very positive and their intents are noble. But Black History Month usually is dismissed arbitrarily in most schools as Dr. King/Malcolm X/Rosa Parks week. And those figures are important but African-American history is composed of hundreds of figures and stories that have relevance. The same goes from Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, Middle Eastern Americans, and other cultures. If it becomes acceptable to put those achievements in a designated time frame, I believe those cultures that are meant to be highlighted, are actually being marginalized. History should be all encompassing and classes should be able to cross curriculums and build off one another to reflect that.  

Politics
                
                    In this era, where America is supposedly making its triumphant return to greatness, I do think it is readily apparent that bi-partisan politics are not working and a viable third party and possible fourth party are needed in order to give voters more options. I will confess that in the political spectrum I lean towards to the left. But I have never voted a straight ticket and if anyone does any research on politics at all they will see that both major political parties are flawed and feature candidates that may not represent the best interests of the country. Also, political parties usually have agendas and those agendas might not always be for the benefit of their supposed constituencies.
                What do politics have to do with race? A lot. Many people unfortunately align their ethnicity with a certain political party. I know I was told at an early age that only African-Americans voted democrat. And I’m pretty sure my household wasn’t the only one that had similar conversations. Which led to my confusion when I voted for the first time in the 2000 republican primary for John McCain, who I thought was the best candidate. He didn’t win, but it was the first experience I had actually thinking for myself and seeing the confused look at the polling place when I walked in. My point is that bi-partisan politics is affecting the information we receive, our perception of said information, and leaving us in a position where we are choosing between the lesser or two evils and that results in voter apathy and I believe 2016 has shown the consequences of said apathy.
               
Hollywood
                
                  This one is tricky. I love movies/tv. Always have. But I have to be honest, the perception of minorities hasn’t always been the most positive. If you don’t believe me watch Breakfast at Tiffany’s and look at Mickey Rooney’s depiction of an Asian-American man. It’s pretty awful. Amos and Andy featuring two Caucasian men dressed in blackface was immensely popular. Stepin Fetchit was a very popular African-American character, but he invoked thoughts of mental weakness, laziness, and unrefinement. There weren’t many jobs for African-American actors so many had to portray roles that were beneath them.
                Let’s skip ahead to my lifetime. I was born in 1980. Guess how many black romantic comedies I have seen in my lifetime? Nine. (The Best Man, Best Man Holiday, Love Jones, How Stella Got Her Groove Back, Love and Basketball, The Wood, Brown Sugar, About Last Night, Think Like a Man/Think Like a Man Too)  I guess I should consider myself lucky that Sanaa Lathan and Taye Diggs got work in the late 90s/early 2000s. I never thought about it until my father went to go see The Photograph and explained how he rarely sees romantic movies with two black leads. I had to think about it myself. There are hundreds of romantic comedies and movies that are normalized into the consciousness of the viewing public, but it’s kind of alarming when in almost 40 years I can’t remember maybe seeing about 10. I’m sure there are other films but off the top of my head, there aren’t many.
                Moreover, look at roles which have garnered award recognition. Hattie McDaniel in Gone With the Wind, Denzel Washington in Glory and Training Day, Octavia Spencer in The Help, Halle Berry in Monsters Ball, Lupita Nyong’o in 12 Years a Slave, and even Mahershala Ali in Green Book. There seems to be an overarching belief that “white guilt” movies and “white savior” films always do well at the Oscars. And there does seem to be evidence of that. I’m not discrediting the actors or their performances. They are all excellent and all are worthy of their recognition but when that recognition represents a theme of marginalization that begins to be problematic. There are exceptions of course: Sidney Portier in Lilies of the Field, Morgan Freeman in Million Dollar Baby and Louis Gossett Jr. in An Officer and A Gentleman come to mind. But there are a lot of roles and films that portray minorities in a positive light that seem to go unrecognized and unlettered.
It’s not just blacks in film, in which there is finally just a glimmer of diversity. Millennials and Gen Z don’t know how lucky they are to see a movie like Black Panther. All I had growing up was Meteor Man, Bruce Leroy, and Action Jackson. I loved them all but it was a different time. It is important to be able to see a reflection of yourself on screen. My dad got that with Shaft and Superfly. Where is the next Indian hero? Native American hero? Hispanic hero? I liked Crazy Rich Asians but I hadn’t seen a movie like that with an all Asian cast since Memoirs of a Geisha and The Joy Luck Club (great movies but not really “feel good” stories). There seems to be a conscious effort to try to diversify movies and television but it needs to be consistent and not just a “black movie for February” or an “Asian movie” or a “Hispanic movie”. I hate when people have to label movies based on ethnicity. We need to get to the point where a “black movie/tv show” can just be a movie or tv show.

Stereotypes
                
            Stereotypes are a slippery slope because they have the potential to be non-threatening. I heard a comic recently say the he thought stereotypes for black people were great. He said this based on the stereotype that black males are well endowed and are excellent athletes. While I can see how, from the outside, those seem to be some great stereotypes. Who wouldn’t want the reputation for being well endowed or to be athletic? But there is a flip side to that. That being the reputation that black males have for being “hood”, lazy, and shiftless (hence where the “n” word came from). And sexual prowess and athleticism don’t have to apply to people. The same compliments are usually made towards animals for breeding and mating. Just saying.  There is also stereotype that black women are difficult to talk to, consistently moody, and unsophisticated. Or the really painful one that an articulate person of color isn’t REALLY a person of color and they are “talking white”, which simultaneously insults two ethnicities.
                There are other seemingly positive stereotypes. Asian people are great at math and science. Jewish people are good with money. Italian people are great cooks. Mexican people are great gardeners/laborers. There is nothing wrong with having a skill. We all have something we are good at. The problem is that those supposed compliments come with a consequence of marginalizing an entire ethnicity an also conferring other stereotypes that are negative and probably not true. My mother is one of the kindest people I have ever met, my college rugby coach was a Mexican and a scientist, some white people are great athletes as well (not just “sneaky fast”), my pediatrician was a native American man, and I can neither sing, dance, nor dunk. Sometimes we need to be very careful about what we assume about people before getting to know them. Jokes are great. It is great to have a laugh. Blazing Saddles is the funniest film I have ever seen and the genius behind Mel Brooks masterpiece is that he took the racist stereotypes/archetypes present in the old west genre and flipped them by having a black man as the hero and exposing the fundamental idiocy behind the racism in the stereotypes.

Media
                
                 It is an old cliché but there is a media bias. Is there “fake news”? Don’t know. But is there skewed news? I certainly think so. Depending on the news outlet that you prescribe to, the stories that you receive do have a degree of editorializing. The days of Edward R. Murrow/Walter Cronkite are over. There are plenty of respectable journalists who go to work to present the news in the best way they know how. The problem is that news stations/media outlets usually have agendas and are concerned with revenue streams through their sponsors. I hope that there is more oversight and accountability for all media outlets to attempt to bring a more accurate depiction of daily events. If you don’t think there is editorialization just revisit the Duke lacrosse case in 2006, the depictions of Travyon Martin, the riots in Ferguson, MO or Los Angeles in 1992. Or you can listen to Sublime’s epic song “April 26, 1992”. Perception is not reality. That’s all I’m saying.

A requiem for Jay Bullworth
               
              We, as a nation, need to be very careful about how we are move forward from this moment in time. My mother in law said history has a way of repeating itself. She lived through the 60s and 70s and saw the Civil Rights movement, rise/fall of the black panthers, the LA riots, Watts riots, Rodney King upheaval and Ferguson riots. Will Smith said it best when he said racism hasn’t changed, it’s just being filmed now. The point being is there have been moments of unrest in this country over racial politics before. This is nothing new. I hope that this is a movement and not just a moment in history, and that movement, as I have said,  requires commitment from people for generations. This is not a 1-2 year fix. This is a 100-200 year fix, and that will make some people disillusioned because we will all be deceased by then, but that does not negate that the potential prize is not worth trying to attain. Racial equality, even if I never see it in my lifetime, is a victory that I want someone from my familial line to truly experience.
                Think about how relatively new we are as a nation in trying to get equality. Women have only had the right to vote for barely a century. In the grand scheme of things, that’s not that long ago. Women have not been a large part of the workforce for more than 80 years. Again, not that long. The civil rights acts of 1964 and 1968 are not that long ago and in the wheelhouse of my parents. That’s why the problems that we are seeing really shouldn’t be unexpected. We are still relatively new in trying to have racial and gender equality.
                Even if none of my prescribed suggestions happen, and there is a chance they won’t, I am not too pessimistic about the status of race relations in this country. As I was thinking about what I wanted to write, I was reminded of a movie that I once saw called Bullworth. Those reading this might not have seen it or even heard of it. It’s a 1998 political satire starring Warren Beatty as Senator Jay Bullworth and he is involved in several scandals and decides that death is better than getting caught and that way his family can collect the insurance policy he has on himself. He puts a contract out on his own life and he decides to have some fun before his demise by finally telling the truth. One particular scene sticks out because he gives a clue to how racism is eventually going to end itself.


             So, as you can see, either by revolution or by human nature things are going to change. I hope for better because the country does deserve to actually be great. As we look forward to our July 4th weekends/plans I hope whoever reads this takes time to consider the concept of America and if it truly lives up to our current reality.

Thursday, June 11, 2020

The problem with semantics


There has been a lot of rhetoric used in the past few weeks. With said rhetoric a lot of messages have been sent and that means that those messages have to be interpreted. That’s where things get tricky. I think that there are some people who are more concerned with semantics than the actual messages being delivered.

I’ll start with the phrase that is now saturated in social media and the social consciousnesses of most of the country and that is “Black Lives Matter”. That phrase has transformed society into two camps. There are those who understand the underlying message for the need for equality and the systematic discrimination that needs to be eradicated. And then there are those people who seem to be so offended by the term “Black Lives Matter” because they probably believe that Blacks are being pushed for a position of superiority and not equality, that there is a movement made to solely emphasize the plight of people of color. Therefore, this camp has adopted the counter terminology “All Lives Matter”. The “All Lives Matter” term is problematic now because it has basically been equated to calling a person of color the “n” word because it is so dismissive of the other camp.

The origin of the Black Lives Matter movement started at the University of Missouri in the fall of 2015. It was part of the shockwave caused by the riots in Ferguson, MO in the summer of 2014 which were a result of the killing of Mike Brown and the subsequent lack of legal action taken against the officer who killed him. I bring this slight history lesson up because this hits home for me on two fronts. The first is that I am from the St. Louis metropolitan area, so the university and the city are very familiar to me. The second is that I spent quite a significant time in Ferguson for about 2 year while playing rugby in STL because of the practice field for my club being in the city limits. The Quick Trip that burned down was a frequent spot my teammates and I would go to after practice. To see it looted and burned was heartbreaking. And that is because it was personal.

When I first heard of the Black Lives Matter movement, I was confused by it. I was confused because I assumed that the movement was negating the rest of the world. I am a black man but I fully acknowledge and actually take comfort in the fact that the world is a multitude of ethnicities. I was part of the “All Lives Matter” camp. I knew there was racism. I’ve personally experienced racism. I just always thought that if “All Lives Matter” it would be a unifying call to arms. I was wrong, I was very wrong. And the person who showed me the error of my ways was not who I was expecting it would be, It wasn’t an academic. It was a comedian. Chris Rock eloquently put forth an analogy that just really resonated with me. He said “Just because someone says “Black Lives Matter” doesn’t mean that other lives don’t. Of course all lives matter. It’s just like people who say “Save the whales” doesn’t mean fuck other animals.”

I was ignorant of the fact that those students were trying to promote a wholesale end to the same institutions which have led to the deaths of countless people of color. I didn’t get the complete message, so I was ignorant. Ignorant is a term that people find to be offensive but it really isn’t. It is just a state of not knowing. Sometimes you don’t know what you don’t know. Whether it be automotive repair, sports, classical art, poetry, or the history of racial politics in this country. A person cannot fully articulate over 400 years of oppression and degradation in a simple hashtag. It’s far too complicated and unfortunately when a complex message is relayed more often than not, a part of that message is lost in translation. Once I realized that the students were trying to push for equality because for centuries people of color were not seen as equal but as subservient and bestial and therefore their murders were hardly ever seen as criminal actions the phrase became personal. Black lives do not matter to a lot of people unfortunately. And until they do, the murders of men and women like Ahmud Arbury, Breonna Taylor, George Floyd and countless others will be a moot point.

There has been another term that has been saturated on social media lately and it is really upsetting to some people. That term is “White privilege”. Many people have tried to explain what it means and some people have started to acknowledge that it does exists and it is an issue. Again, there is another camp that is dismissive and offended by the terminology. White privilege is not a reference to socioeconomic status. There are plenty of Caucasian people who grow up in poverty. Those who have traveled outside of the United States and into Europe can attest to the fact that some of those individuals exist in war zones that I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy. What the term white privilege is trying to articulate is that social perception of Caucasians, by and large, affords certain social benefits that many African-Americans do not receive. The treatment by law enforcement is the most publicized use of privilege but it is even more apparent in other arenas such as job applications, bank loans, tax rates,  home ownership, and other financial arenas. Again, the term is being construed by some as implying a superiority. White privilege does not mean every single white person was born with a silver spoon in their mouth or that they will not endure hardships. Life has a way of testing us all. But certain people will have an inherent advantage in “the struggle” because of the overwhelming public perception of one group versus another group that has a different melanin level.

The last term I want to throw out is one that hasn’t become part of the standard jargon yet. But it is a term that I think carries probably the most weight going forward. That term is “casual racism”. What I mean by casual racism is a prejudice that is not so blunt as to be obvious but a prejudice which gives the public illusion of tolerance yet harbors similar resentment and tones of bigotry. When most people hear the term racist, they think of the individual who is a boisterous extremist. They will spew hate speech, dress in racist regalia, and make their viewpoints very visible. Surprisingly, these people never really bothered me because they were easy to avoid because they were honest. They never tried to be anything than their hateful selves, so they were easy to spot.

The casual racist is a much tougher case to crack. The casual racist doesn’t wear a hood and would never repeat the n word, well at least in public. They might even have……..a black friend, which of course subdues any thoughts of possible bigotry. But what a casual racist MAY do is still continue to stereotype the same individuals that claim to have the back of. A casual racist still would have a huge issue with their family member becoming involved in an interracial relationship despite the fact that they might find certain black/brown celebrities to be appealing. The biggest tell of a casual racist is the “and/but” argument. The casual racist will “and/but” often. Example: George Floyd didn’t deserve to get murdered BUT he wasn’t a good guy. Black people are getting murdered by police officers BUT what are they doing to be in question in the first place. I believe in the movement BUT it needs to happen in a way that I find to be socially acceptable, a la Dr. Martin Luther King Jr (who was assassinated for his beliefs by the way). The hot topic right now is social equality and I truly hope it continues and the fire doesn’t subside. To anyone who actually reads this, I implore you, if you have a question about race relations, please ask. I do not represent all black people. I can only represent myself, my frame of experience, and my own belief system but I am always more than willing to discuss. We are all ignorant at one time or another. That’s not an insult. It’s a fact. Progress can only be forged when we decide we don’t want to be ignorant and seek some answers to become knowledgeable.  

Tuesday, June 02, 2020

When movies eventually come back


              If there is a word that can best describe the “new normal” its crucial. Facets of life that were once considered crucial have now been discovered to be trivial. Anyone who has had even the most basic interactions with me is well aware that I am a movie aficionado. I love going to the movies. The factor that makes me slightly different from the casual movie goer is that I have always thought that the cinema is supposed to be an experience. I never thought that people just pay money to sit in a seat and eat some popcorn. It’s supposed to be an event. One where you go to be entertained, dress accordingly, and leave in such a way that you are emotionally affected.

               It has been almost three months since the last new release came from a major Hollywood studio. Since then, multiple movies have either been delayed or taken the risky gambit of being released to a digital streaming service. I have nothing against personal streaming services. I have a Netflix, Hulu, and an Amazon Prime account. But they all pale in comparison to the experience of going to the movies to see a new release on opening night. I have heard the arguments for streaming services. The most popular argument is that of convenience. While I do understand why some people would favor it, it just seems like a trade off that is not equal.

              Let’s Examine just some of the films that have been altered from the regular theatrical release schedule due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  A Quiet Place 2, Mulan, No Time to Die, Fast and Furious 9 (seriously), Black Widow, Wonder Woman:1984, Top Gun 2, and Ghostbusters: Afterlife are just a few of the movies that have been delayed. All of the previously mentioned movies were designed for the big screen and for a reason. The intimacy of an individual living room and watching a movie there is nice but it can never convey the sociological experience that comes when an audience of complete strangers with different backgrounds, experience the same movie and react to it. It’s a chemistry experiment which can either make or break the movie going experience.

             The summer movie schedule has always been something that I, and many movie lovers like myself, planned around. That is unfortunately not a likely possibility this year. The first new theatrical release that is supposed to happen this summer, Tenet, doesn’t even have a release date anymore. That points to the underlying belief that it would be delayed, which would in turn cause a chain reaction and further delay even more movies based on studio confidence. I cannot wait for movies to come back. But as much as I genuinely yearn to watch movies in the theater again, I am not prepared to potentially risk my health or the health of my wife and son just for entertainment value. Movies have the potential to capture the mind and spirit and leave a person in awe, joy, horror, laughter, or sadness. The great movies can elicit multiple emotions, and in a single scene at times. But the time just isn’t right yet.

           But one day the time will be right. In the meantime, the drive-in movie theater has experienced a renaissance and I think it is long overdue. The drive-in has always been the best option for families in my personal opinion , based on entertainment value/cost ratio. Unfortunately, the megaplexes have made drive-in movie theaters a relic from the past in many cases. Not that many even exist anymore. I was always spoiled because my hometown had the Skyview Drive-In and it always did well during the summer season. But not every drive-in is that fortunate. The reinvigorated drive-in’s are showing classic movies like Grease, E.T. and Jurassic Park. New releases aren’t possible and certain classic movies cannot be viewed due to licensing rights issues. But there is a desperation for human interaction and to get out of the house and do something. Ergo, even classics are becoming in vogue again because people want that movie theater experience and the drive-in offers a safe way to provide entertainment. Once again proving sometimes that the old ways are the best.

Love and Life in the time of COVID-19


           During this time of uncertainty and unparalleled division, I think it’s time to try to gain some perspective on the current state of the world. I haven’t done this in a while so I hope whoever takes the time to actually read this forgives my ramblings and lack of cohesion. I guess I have just felt compelled to reflect on the state of things as they exist currently.
As an almost 40-year-old man, I have seen many things occur during my lifetime: political shifts, ideological shifts, technological progress. But the past three months have been some of the most bizarre in my lifetime. March 13, 2020 was the last day I saw my students in a classroom. It was relevant because the boys basketball team was SUPPOSED to play in a sectional championship game. The NCAA basketball tournament was SUPPOSED to commence. Life, in all its splendor and sometimes triviality, was supposed to occur. But then it didn’t.

             By now, we know what happened. Priorities shifted. Schools transitioned to online learning, Sports stopped. Movies stopped. The world became at odds with an invisible virus. But I don’t think the virus is what the world, and particularly the United States, were upset with. I think that the issue was with empathy and entitlement. I say that because it has become decidedly obvious that there is a segment of society that was so enamored with their own way of life that they were willing to take up arms and protest in their various states. Some people never adhered to the advice of the CDC. Other people did.

                 I’m not trying to cast blame but ask questions. And TRY to get some answers. Why were some people so enraged by the stay at home order? I think that maybe it’s because for the sake of being comfortable. People hate being uncomfortable. People hate change. I think that is why the current state of racial strife is so high in this nation. Simple things like dinner/lunch routines, watching a game, going to a movie, getting a haircut are so interwoven into the DNA of Americana that some people believe that their identities are being fundamentally augmented.
The legitimacy of the virus has been at the forefront of the pandemic. Some people doubt that the pandemic is an actual pandemic at all. That the death rate isn’t really a problem. The numbers are skewed. Or that it is all a big government conspiracy to either discredit the president, cause a mass genocide of people of color, or purposely create a sense of fear for some other nefarious purpose. I can’t pretend to be a disease specialist. Or even understand the rationale of some of these people. But there have been over 100,000 deaths. That has happened. People are scared. And while my individual routine has been altered, I gladly pay that price to preserve my life and the lives of my family, friends, and neighbors.

               I’ll go back to the word “empathy” for a second because the lack of empathy is the real virus. Some people seem to have absolutely no regard for each other as sentient human beings. It transcends political preferences, socioeconomic status, ethnic background, and sexual orientation. Even though we, as a world, are more connected than ever before through various social media platforms, we are more disconnected and apathetic than ever before. Since everyone has a voice now that they cam share across multiple platforms, that creates egos that deal in absolutes. And that is very dangerous. There is no middle ground, No room for compromise or compassion. And as I have said this isn’t a one group is in the light and the other side are a pack of demidevils. There is a divide that exists currently and I feel a great swell of pity because it is going to require some difficult conversations to make it dissipate and I don’t know if we are mentally/emotionally prepared to do that.

           This pandemic has shown the best and worst of us. I have personally witnessed great acts of simple kindness: sending a birthday message at a distance, carrying food to those stranded, desperately trying to educate students despite a lack of resources, virtual church services, zoom meetings with old friends. But I have also seen race riots, marches on capital buildings, hate speech, indifference to hate speech, and attempting to create humor from hate speech.

           Where do we go from here? I think we have hit the proverbial “rock bottom”. When the nation is simultaneously getting sick and burning itself in the process, the only way to go is up. America is a great country. It is the land of opportunity. But it is also the land of racism, sexism, nepotism, and homophobia. Two things can be true. I think that unless people admit that America as a nation is fallible and there are underlying issues of inequity, entitlement, and indifference which are systemic than we will never reach our potential and that is truly unfortunate because wasted potential is one of the worst destinies for an individual or nation. The issue comes back to comfortability. It is going to require a series of very uncomfortable conversations to try to rebuild and reconstruct this nation. It’s time to become uncomfortable.