For many, Shaft was a major turning point when it came to African Americans in film. Well, African American men, that is. Like most people, I noticed the way black men were portrayed in this movie: they held leadership roles, they had influence, they were badasses, and they were very sexual.
I think the most notable of these is sexuality. John was not only shown to have many partners but there were even active sex scenes, content which has not been very abundant for black men. This is because previous influential works, such as The Birth of a Nation, have portrayed black men as predators and rapists, whose one goal was to hurt women, which in turn instills fear and prejudice into the population that struggles to go away. Shaft's portrayal then, over half a century later, was practically revolutionary.
This was a good thing, right? Despite the (luckily decreasing) taboo around it, it has to be admitted that humans have sex. It's just how we are. So portraying this positively, especially with a black man at the center, is a good thing! It helps to embrace human nature while working to break down stereotypes and prejudice. Yeah... too bad women, a kind of big part in SEXuality, play minimal roles in this movie in the first place, and the ones they do play? Incredibly sexist.
It's great that this movie worked to flip some stereotypes over, but I don't like that it felt the need to put others down to get there. Of course, women as sexual beings is not the issue, not even close. Just like men, women are human, and just like men, they desire sex. I actually think it's a good thing to portray women as sexual. My problem is that is almost all they do in this movie.
From the beginning to the end, John is seen with multiple women for sex and sex only. He has a girlfriend, who we get a sex scene with, but instead of portraying some type of love or mutuality alongside this, we see him cheating on her with a white woman.
Other than Marcy, who I'll get to in a second, this is literally all women do in this movie: have sex with John. We don't see any personality, ambition, plot, a little job isn't even mentioned, nothing relates to them outside of sexual relations with Shaft. As stated earlier, there is nothing wrong with sexuality in a movie, in fact, I encourage it - but when it's played off as women's only purpose, it becomes an issue.
Marcy Jonas was the one female character to not be sexualized in the movie, but her part wasn't any less revolting to me. At the beginning of the movie, John meets with Bumpy Jonas, who reveals that his daughter has been kidnapped and asks John to rescue her, and thus begins the plot. Can you tell where I'm going with this?
Yes, the one woman not portrayed solely as a sexual object is a damsel in distress.
From the very beginning, rescuing the helpless little girl is the mission. When we finally see her, all she does is get held at gunpoint and threatened, then rescued by a group of men a few minutes later. And that's it. That's all we get: a stereotype surrounding femininity as weak and useless, unable to navigate the world without men to guide her.
For a movie that breaks a lot of stereotypes surrounding black men, it sure encourages them in women.
It shouldn't take bringing one group down to lift another, and I honestly find it a little sad that a movie about black people, a group that has been oppressed for so long, couldn't understand this.
For as many men as we see in this movie, was it really so hard to have just one woman in a position of strength and/or power? Even just in the background? It would have been incredibly easy to just replace a couple of the men with women - and they didn't even need to be major characters. One of the more minor police could have taken that role and it would have succeeded in portraying women as more than just sex objects and damsels in distress.
I can definitely see the appeal of John's position, but I don't think it is something that I can enjoy because it puts down half of the population to get there. Instead, I'd like to see more movies with similar ideas in relation to black men, but with the addition of portraying women as actual people with actual roles and desires.
A Raisin in the Sun is easily my favorite movie we've seen in class this year. Even though the vast majority of the runtime took place in the same room, I enjoyed the plot and I loved the characters. Each member of the Younger family impacted the story in their own way, even if some had more depth and/or importance than others.
For instance, Ruth and Walter's son Travis barely appears on-screen. He has very few lines, there's just not much to him, and yet he is probably the most important character in the movie. Lena and her children may have more to do, but Travis is the motive for much of the major points, especially towards the end.
That's because he represents the future, and by extension, hope.
Throughout the movie, it's often referenced by the others how he has to wear old shoes and sleep on the couch because they don't have money and space for his own bedroom. At the end, when Walter is about to crack and sell the family's new house, Lena insists he does it in front of his son, "make him understand what you're doing." While there are of course other factors, a lot of what drives the family to succeed is to give Travis the life he deserves.
He is even directly referenced as the next generation of America, and he is a big reason as to why the ending is so hopeful, even if it's not sure what's going to happen next.
Ruth was on-screen a lot more, but I personally felt she didn't have very much personality, especially when compared to the likes of Walter, Lena and Beneatha. She was there more for exposition and situational issues. For example, she introduces the audience to the rest of the family in the opening scenes before the main 3 take over. We see her get out of bed, wake Travis from his spot on the couch, and cook for her husband while they argue over their financial problems. Once they've set this up, however, she doesn't do much else, at least in her own terms.
I think the argument could be made that she had a bit more of a role when considering her morals and dedication to her family, but I think she was there mostly to encourage others to continue the plot. After the first section, she mostly exists in the background, cleaning or watching the actions by other characters unfold. She doesn't contribute very much and she spends a lot of time resting in her room. Halfway through, she discovers she is pregnant and decides to consider abortion since she cannot afford another child. However, this is quickly overtaken by the main 3 as Lena argues with her children over the "miracle of life" versus responsibility, while Ruth, the one who is actually pregnant, just rests in her bed off-screen.
Even if Ruth may not be the best character in terms of personality, she's still pretty likable and manages to impact the plot and dynamics of the others.
Walter. I hate Walter.
He spends much of the movie running around in a drunken rage, punching things and yelling, insisting he is the man of the house. He is sexist and doesn't believe in his sister. As time progresses, the audience sees this is because he struggles with a lot of anxiety about not amounting to anything, but he still spends a good majority of the film as the definition of 'toxic masculinity.' I bet he'd be the type of person to smash his TV if his team lost the Superbowl. If your family, especially your wife, flinches away from you whenever you get mad, even once, I don't like you and never will. That's not to say he isn't a good character, though. There is a lot of depth to him in every stage of the movie.
At the beginning, Walter is snarky, undermining his wife and starting arguments among his family, but is still functional. In the middle, he really seems to go off the deep-end. This is where the borderline abuse comes in, as he's often out late drinking and appears to be in a semipermanent stage of rage. He appears to get better once Lena gives him the rest of her insurance money, and is hopeful when they first see their new house, but once his partner steals his money and leaves, he reverts back into his anger, screaming about how he is the head of the house while calling the man from the neighorhood back so he can sell.
Once Lena draws attention to his son's future, however, he finally understands his family. He considers his son, honors his father, and tells everyone in the room he is proud of his sister. He decides to not sell, and is later seen laughing with his family while they move out.
Without a doubt, Walter has the most depth of any character in the movie. I have very little to say about this because I don't think it needs much justification. Bottom line is: the plot revolves around him, focusing on his financial troubles and his worries about his family and their futures. The story follows his highs and lows and we see how his opinions change and affect his decisions. While the others may contribute to conflict, he is almost always the instigator. Things may be done for Travis, but are almost always done by Walter.
Lena is another character I hate and for similar reasons. She is very much like her son. Overall, she wants the best for her family, especially Travis, but she can also be very tyrannical in her beliefs, becoming overwhelmingly angry when people don't agree with her. Beneatha said she wasn't religious and Lena walked up and hit her before forcing her to recant, practically radiating in anger. Walter's family may be scared of him, but at least he doesn't physically abuse them.
We see her in all sorts of moods, from a loving mother who spends time with her family to a grieving wife who wants to honor her husband to straight-up terrifying in her attempts to enforce her beliefs, and we see each of these beliefs multiple times, as if she cycles through them regularly.
Her impact was undeniable. Her anger establishes her as a driving force. When she tells Walter he is a disgrace to his father's memory, he comes back to it when considering a decision. In that same decision, Lena's anger in regards to Travis's future also helps to change his mind.
These coupled with the simple facts that her money is what got them the house in the first place and that she gave the rest to Walter, which later drives the rest of the story, marks her as one of the most influential and improtant characters within the story.
I knew from the moment she appeared on-screen that Beneatha was going to be my favorite character. She has so much personality and ambition as well as some rather progressive views for the 1960's. Despite my love for her, I feel she has a role somewhat opposite of Ruth's. She has a lot of personality, is often on-screen, and interacts with the rest of the family a lot (which is why I consider her in the 'main 3'), but I feel she has little impact when considering the big picture.
A lot of her ideas drive conflict, such as suggesting that Ruth get an abortion and her views on religion, both which anger Lena, but these conflicts are minor and relatively short-lived. They do work in bits to showcase some of the relationships between the family, but that's really kind of it. We see her bring men home while she tries to find love (and herself), and we watch as she tries to navigate her way through a white and male-dominated field knowing her family has little faith in her.
All of these, however, do little in the ways of progressing the story or dynamics. Her love and self-image issues don't do anything in terms of finances and are mostly there to progress her rather than the plot. In other words, her story, while honestly more enjoyable to me than the main plot, was really just filler.
Her school funds are mentioned a few times in relation to finances, but it never felt like too big an issue compared to those of Walter's, and it was sort of forgotten when Lena finally got her insurance money. She gave it to Walter, said some was for Beneatha, and that was it. Once Walter lost the money, the focus was on him and his store as well as the family's new house. Beneatha's school was mostly pushed to the side.
It's not that Beneatha has no impact, but the impact she does have is either minimal to the overarching story or is dedicated to herself rather than her family. Despite this, I think she's without a contest the most enjoyable character in the movie and I loved every second she was on-screen.
Even if I personally liked some characters more than others, I appreciated the writing for each Younger and I loved that they all had a dedicated role that impacted the story in their own way.
While Stormy Weather does not have much of a plot, it was still a delightful and underrated movie. The music was catchy, the dancing was impressive, and the stages were beautiful.
Despite the lack of a plot, I feel the main idea of the movie was well done. The nature of the film felt like a breath of fresh air considering the subject matter we've seen in some of the other movies in class.
Discussing race is essential in media of course, but it's also nice to take a break from the heavy stuff here and there and just enjoy the little things: in this case, black music and culture. The majority of the movie is dedicated to the characters performing their individual routines which blend together into one product, notably Lena Horne's singing and Bill Robinson's tap-dancing, only interrupting for small "plot breaks."
In Colorization, Wil Haygood discusses many black films throughout the years, and one common feature among most of them is their reception: many face criticism from white or black audiences, sometimes even both, whether it be for the plot, acting, handling of race, etc.
Although it wasn't a smash hit, Stormy Weather was almost universally well-received among its audiences, which I feel says a lot about it. It avoids too much controversy since race as an issue is not really discussed, but I also feel that this lack of criticism comes from the appreciation for the music it produced.
One thing I remain unsure about, however, is the production. Not only was the director, Andrew Stone, white, but the black actors faced extreme racism during production despite the movie's nature.
According to Tinubu, segregation was heavily enforced, white dressing rooms were on set but black actors had to leave campus. The (white) director himself was a lazy addition by producers, and he allegedly "talked down to his cast" (Tinubu).
There were other issues as well: Lena Horne herself stated that although she was happy that she was not forced into a maid role, which was so infamously stereotypical for black actresses at the time, she could not do anything else either. In other words, Selina's character was only there to look pretty and sing, eventually giving up her career for domesticity.
Ignoring this blatant sexism (as well as other... issues... mentioned), however, I want to attempt to consider these on-set issues in terms of blackness. Stormy Weather is beloved by black audiences. It tells black stories and it honors black music, but its black actors and staff were treated horrendously by its white director.
For me, this raises the question of authenticity and legacy. Considering I had trouble finding more on this, this background does not seem to be very well-known (and is it even true? most likely, but without more sources I cannot say for sure), and I think it should be. I think audiences should be aware of what the cast and crew were subjected to before watching the movie itself, whether it influences the movie's legacy itself or not.
I do not know how I feel about this movie now. While it isn't the best movie out there, I enjoyed it enough at first, but now I feel conflicted. I wonder what others would think about this topic, and if their opinion on the movie would change because of it.
Although Stormy Weather has never been exactly famous or even remembered as a "classic" by today's standards, audiences then and now still found ways to appreciate it, to the point it has avoided much criticism as well as been considered significant for black culture. Should this movie really be honored?
Imitation of Life is a 1933 novel by Fannie Hurst that tackled issues such as race and class and was adapted twice: one in 1934 and another in 1959. For a premise that prides itself on exploring race, however, there really wasn't much focus on the black characters.
For this post, I'm going to focus on the 1959 adaptation, but I believe the 1934 version holds some merit in considering this film.
The plot follows two single mothers and their daughters: Annie Johnson, a black maid, and her daughter Sarah Jane, whose skin is so light she often "passes" as white. It also follows Lora Meredith, a wannabe actress, and her daughter Susie.
At the beginning of the movie, Lora takes in Annie as her maid, and she and Sarah Jane live with Lora and Susie while Lora begins to find roles within Broadway and develops a romance with Steve. Occasional scenes through the first part show Sarah Jane's internal struggle with her race, becoming angry with herself and her mother for their blackness while insisting she is white. Once Lora finds her first big role, an eleven-year time skip follows and Lora is rich and famous, living in luxury, while Annie is still her maid. The story continues fairly similarly as in the first half, with the addition of Sarah Jane running away to live a "white" life. The story ends with Annie's death and Sarah Jane's regret.
Fame stories have been told in Hollywood for decades, so the more interesting and unique story here was clearly the distress between Sarah Jane and Annie, but the movie placed much more emphasis on Lora and Susie and their love triangle with Steve, which was just... weird as a plot device in itself, but especially when compared to such severe subject matter as internalized hatred. Very little of the runtime, however, was dedicated to Annie and Sarah Jane. The vast majority focused on Lora and her career.
What little we do see is dedicated to Annie's life as a maid, caring for the same woman for over a decade. Nothing special there in my opinion. Something that's really interesting, though, is Sarah Jane's hatred for herself, her mother, and her race, but there isn't enough time given for them to flesh it out.
It's disappointing because I feel Annie had some very powerful lines.
My problem is that they aren't expanded on. There are no reasons given as to why it's so difficult for black people, why some of them hate themselves for it, and God knows some of the audience needs to see it, especially in the midst of the Civil Rights movement. More contexts and more insight into black life would have been nice. For example, I would have loved to see how Sarah Jane was treated by her peers before and after finding out she was black. We saw a little of this with her boyfriend, but it was only one scene and a fairly short one, and we only saw his reaction to her blackness and nothing about their relationship before.
Another quote is "it is nothing to be ashamed of" in reference to being black. This is another example of a beautiful quote that fails to be expanded on. The rest of the film, again, focuses almost solely on Annie as a loyal friend and maid while Sarah Jane denies her true self, but viewers don't get to see the wonders of black life. That is, we don't see ambition from Annie, acceptance from Sarah Jane, or even black culture (until the funeral scene, which is such a tiny sliver of the movie it barely counts at all).
Alongside these structural issues was the casting, and by extension, the acting, which I do not think helped the story at all. The 1934 version plays an important role in discussing this. Before I get to that, however, I should mention that the characters were renamed in the 1959 version.
Paola and Sarah Jane are the same characters. The casting is what is important here, though. Paola is played by a black actress while Sarah Jane is played by a white one, but they are both black characters.
Their roles are focused around wanting to pass as white, though, and the struggles that come with knowing they are actually black. The decision to cast a white actress to play a black role in the 1959 version plays into the neglect of the black stories that are already in the script because a white person can never understand what it is like to be black, so how can her portrayal be accurate? This was an incredibly sizable oversight on the casting and for the life of me, I cannot understand what they were thinking.
Even if the original movie had many of the same issues, Fredi Washington added a lot because she had some understanding of what the character actually was feeling because she had lived life as a black woman.
Washington's delivery in certain scenes was incredible, her big smile when working in a white store, her trembling lip and shaking voice when discussing her blackness, and her disgust with her mother are all noteworthy because they add depth to her feelings. Her performance felt so much more genuine, and I felt I could feel her internal hatred and remorse.
Susan Kohner just did not have that same experience so Sarah Jane, coming off as more of a jealous, angry teenager, suffered, and so did the story.
It's disappointing how in one of the few white movies that attempt to focus on race, its message is ultimately abandoned. I think the amount of time dedicated to the black characters should tell you enough about how this movie functions, let alone the casting decisions. It is a movie (in part) about race. It discusses race. But it neglects its black characters and black stories.
Many online reviews and comments, such as the one below, seem to believe this style was smart: to fool audiences into thinking that they were really watching Lora's story while the main focus was on Annie and Sarah Jane, but I disagree.
For white Hollywood at the time, this was undoubtedly very progressive, but I still think that it could have done more. Many of the topics mentioned by Better With Bob are good points, specifically the mammy stereotype (I would have liked to see more from Annie, but I understand and appreciate his insight as to why we did not) and Sarah Jane's feelings, but I feel like it wasn't enough and I don't personally believe they were handled as well as he claims. There wasn't enough time dedicated to expanding and explaining the stories and plotlines that had been set up.
Kudos to them for trying, but there is only so much that white people can know about black life so I don't think this should be held up as the "blueprint" of racial films.
I think this movie could have benefited from more time dedicated to the black stories, a black actress for Sarah Jane, and more black writers behind the scenes.
I enjoyed the movie in isolation, but its black characters and stories were not handled very well and I believe putting it on a pedestal simply for being "better" than other white movies at the time is not the right thing to do, because no matter how progressive it was, for a movie that prides itself on considering racial issues, it neglects its black stories, black characters, and black audience.
