The Seventies represents a very interesting, rich, and yet deleterious period in African-American cinema. With the success of movies like Shaft, Sweet Sweetback's Baad Asssss Song, and Cotton Comes to Harlem, Hollywood studios recognized that black directed, black cast, black themed movies could be highly profitable vehicles. These movies ushered in the period aptly labeled Blaxsploitation. One cannot deny the cinematic importance of this time, nor can one outright criticize the strides made in black cinema when compared against the almost colorless eighties film landscape when most black actors not named Eddie Murphy could not get a major role. What also cannot be denied is the tremendous influence those movies filmed in the seventies has had over black culture directly and indirectly through the translation of its themes and iconography by Hip Hop. But there was and has not been a selectivity in terms of what was appropriated and what was not. The good has come along with the bad.
Taking the good first, Blaxsploitation films tended to feature strong black main characters that exhibited control and agency over their fate and destiny. These men (mostly) and women (especially in the case of one Ms. Pam Grier) seemed to be driven by the black power energy of the late Sixties, rebelling against the establishment and sticking it the ubiquitous Man. Because police were viewed as outsiders to black urban communities and as adversaries of black liberation, many films depicted characters who did not cooperate with the law. Shaft of course comes to mind as the black P.I., but then there was Sweetback, Superfly, and Dolemite. This anti-establishment theme led to a glorification of illegality and those who rose to the heights of it. Superfly was the cocaine dealer who needed to make one last deal to get out of the game. Dolemite was the pimp.
While these characters were progressive to the extent that the previous entire history of Hollywood had rarely if ever presented black protagonists that as their motto were not going to cooperate with white supremacy and by there very image were threatening to white America in a way that stirred some pride in a people who had been historically the victims of domestic terrorism at the hands of white Americans from the moment they first reached this continent. However, black characters were heavily stereotyped and these protagonists who were anti-law became glorified criminals. Not only were they portrayed as cool but also as liberators. Presently, this has had terrible effects on the black community when one conjoins idealized criminal icons with a historic distrust for the law. This dialectical relationship has in part contributed to a celebration of gang culture and incarceration.
Dolemite individually probably has had the widest influence, rivaled possibly only by Shaft. Cinematically speaking, it is one of the higher quality films to be produced from the genre. However, the film glorified the character of the pimp. It is not difficult to see the lasting influence such glorification has had. From Jay-Z's coined phrase, "big pimpin'", to Nelly's Pimp Juice, to 50 Cent's P.I.M.P. the image is well alive and celebrated in our society that seems to believe it can easily disconnect the imagined new idea of what a pimp is and what an actual pimp is. One can even find Snoop Dogg bringing girls to awards shows wearing leashes and collars in very pimpesque fashion. Indeed, Snoop has claimed to "clock hoes like his name was Dolemite" (I paraphrase). And how can we not be shocked by the celebration of Bishop Magic Don Juan, the pimp of the the 20th century?
All through my high school and college years, I too deceived myself into thinking that it was cool and okay to call myself a pimp because I did not mean an actual pimp. I thought that there was no consequence for my language. However, through engaging in many conversations, reading many articles and books, and thinking critically about the issue I have come the conclusion our widespread use of the term pimp and the glorification and celebration of the image does not mollify the term but assuages our conscious disgust of actual pimps and the exploitation of women through prostitution. This argument is not meant to enter into a debate on prostitution. Rather I look at the reality of American prostitution and the pimps associated with much of it. The majority of prostitutes in this country do not actively choose their profession but are economically or chemically (by the need to support drug addiction) forced into it. In addition, many prostitutes in this country are themselves survivors of sexually and/or physically abusive upbringing. Many prostitutes are also not even legal adults. Given these realities, it is easy to conclude that prostitution's current state, at least, in this country is a negative one. Pimps prey on hopeless women. They exploit and abuse them. Physically, sexually, and especially psychologically they dominate and control girls. Demeaning women who are not given enough options or support or help is terrible and so it's important not to outright judge and label working women. However, pimps are a different breed. They should be ridiculed and scorned and never celebrated. By changing pimp from a pejorative image to sought-after label, we necessarily downplay the destructiveness of actual pimps. In this way, we are complicit in the sugar-coating of the realities of most prostitution in the same vein as Pretty Woman, the prostitution Cinderella story. I used to celebrate the term and refer to myself as a P.I.M.P., but I am now committed to extricating the positive use of the word from my lexicon. I am big pimpin' no more.
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Monday, April 25, 2005
The Spectrum of Secularism
The Christian Right and Republicans who claim to be its standard bearers have begun their latest round of attacks on Democrats over judicial nominees. This past Sunday, a program was aired into an estimated 60 million households labeling Democrats as "against people of faith." The telecast was given tremendous legitimacy by an address by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist who is steadfastly building a coalition to change the Senate rules eliminating the filibuster for judicial nominations, the so-called nuclear option, in a break with the history of minority power in that chamber. Chief among their complaints is an adamant Democratic insistence that judicial nominees not insert their own religious views on the issue of abortion into their rulings and rather abide by the principle of stare decisis and rule in accordance with Roe v. Wade. But the truth is, their displeasure with Democrats and so-called activists courts does not stop there. They also are troubled by recent rulings that have in one case forced a monument of the Ten Commandments to be removed from a court house gallery and in another denied that the federal courts had any jurisdiction over the state of Florida and its joint legislative and judicial process in the case of Terri Schiavo.
The debate between the right and the left is really one about how secular our political process should be and not our politicians. While the radicals right who currently control the Republican party and agenda would love to label Democrats as Godless and opposed to people with religious values, the truth is Democrats merely draw the line in the sand that separates church and state at a different spot than do Republicans. There are many deeply religious Democrats who nevertheless do not feel that their religious beliefs should be forced upon others. They are championing freedom of religion and freedom from religion - important constituent parts of individual freedom. Republicans on the other hand would like to, in many instances, legislate or adjudicate their religious views and values onto society. From abortion, to stem-cell research, to Terri Schiavo, to Sponge Bob and his square pants, to PBS programming, to adoption, to the bedroom the radical Republicans are pushing for bigger government, increased judicial and legislative activism to insert religion into the homes of every man, woman, and child in America. When they claim that government should protect the religious values of people what they really mean is that government should be an instrument to insert a narrowly defined set of Christian values into public and private life.
There is a larger perspective that Republicans fail to see and perhaps the rest of the country does as well - the spectrum of secularism. Today's American spectrum of secularism is dominated by two factions, one that is slightly left of center and another that is very right of center but still not the most extreme. Democrats feel that politicians can be people of faith and that faith should have a seat at the table of public discourse but that it should not direct it nor should it dominate others that don't subscribe to it. Republicans would like to insert their narrowly defined version of Christian faith into many aspects of people's lives to dictate what freedoms they can and cannot enjoy. Yet this is not the full spectrum. Out-flanking Democrats would be the political landscape of a far more secular Europe. There are some who would go so far as to say that politicians should never refer to their religious beliefs. Countries like Kuwait or Iran that have the Koran as a central element of political life are the ones outflanking the Republican right. Like it or not, Republicans are pushing for our societies to be more like the Middle Eastern theocracies where one religion whose truths are narrowly understood and defined is the supreme authority on individual freedoms and lives. In fact, it is not surprising that there are strong echoes in claims made by the radical right in this country and the radical right in those countries, most notably on women's subservience to men.
The radical Republicans may succeed in transforming America into a country that looks more and more like theocracies of other parts of the world, but that would be catastrophic for our society. All religions have important roles to play in our public discourse as do all voices. Currently our government works to strike a balance between keeping religions free from government and vice versa. If Republicans have it their way no one will be free in their choices from how the radical pontificators of the Republican right have defined Christianity. Some food for thought, though, for Republicans: if Catholics had it their way, abortion would be illegal but so would the death penalty. Should Catholics call Republicans, traditionally the strongest supporters of the death penalty, and our current President "against people of faith"?
The debate between the right and the left is really one about how secular our political process should be and not our politicians. While the radicals right who currently control the Republican party and agenda would love to label Democrats as Godless and opposed to people with religious values, the truth is Democrats merely draw the line in the sand that separates church and state at a different spot than do Republicans. There are many deeply religious Democrats who nevertheless do not feel that their religious beliefs should be forced upon others. They are championing freedom of religion and freedom from religion - important constituent parts of individual freedom. Republicans on the other hand would like to, in many instances, legislate or adjudicate their religious views and values onto society. From abortion, to stem-cell research, to Terri Schiavo, to Sponge Bob and his square pants, to PBS programming, to adoption, to the bedroom the radical Republicans are pushing for bigger government, increased judicial and legislative activism to insert religion into the homes of every man, woman, and child in America. When they claim that government should protect the religious values of people what they really mean is that government should be an instrument to insert a narrowly defined set of Christian values into public and private life.
There is a larger perspective that Republicans fail to see and perhaps the rest of the country does as well - the spectrum of secularism. Today's American spectrum of secularism is dominated by two factions, one that is slightly left of center and another that is very right of center but still not the most extreme. Democrats feel that politicians can be people of faith and that faith should have a seat at the table of public discourse but that it should not direct it nor should it dominate others that don't subscribe to it. Republicans would like to insert their narrowly defined version of Christian faith into many aspects of people's lives to dictate what freedoms they can and cannot enjoy. Yet this is not the full spectrum. Out-flanking Democrats would be the political landscape of a far more secular Europe. There are some who would go so far as to say that politicians should never refer to their religious beliefs. Countries like Kuwait or Iran that have the Koran as a central element of political life are the ones outflanking the Republican right. Like it or not, Republicans are pushing for our societies to be more like the Middle Eastern theocracies where one religion whose truths are narrowly understood and defined is the supreme authority on individual freedoms and lives. In fact, it is not surprising that there are strong echoes in claims made by the radical right in this country and the radical right in those countries, most notably on women's subservience to men.
The radical Republicans may succeed in transforming America into a country that looks more and more like theocracies of other parts of the world, but that would be catastrophic for our society. All religions have important roles to play in our public discourse as do all voices. Currently our government works to strike a balance between keeping religions free from government and vice versa. If Republicans have it their way no one will be free in their choices from how the radical pontificators of the Republican right have defined Christianity. Some food for thought, though, for Republicans: if Catholics had it their way, abortion would be illegal but so would the death penalty. Should Catholics call Republicans, traditionally the strongest supporters of the death penalty, and our current President "against people of faith"?
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
The Blower's Daughter
Every once in a while a movie comes along that strikes a chord with you. Its themes, its lines, and its characters resonate with you on a subconscious level. Director Mike Nichol's "Closer" is one such movie for me. I saw it three times in theaters and have subsequently purchased it on DVD. This is perhaps borderline obsessive. What follows is my trying to make sense of what it is about "Closer" that I have found to be so beautiful and true.
As the movie opens, Damien Rice's "The Blower's Daughter" plays in the background while we see two strangers, Jude Law and Natalie Portman, walking the crowded streets of London. They catch each other's eyes and cannot turn away. Not preoccupied with selfconscious embarrassment, they continue to stare at one another as they draw closer, smiles ablaze. They pause at an intersection, no twenty feet apart now. Ms. Portman looks instinctively to the left for traffic and seeing none proceeds to cross. However, being in London, traffic comes from the other side and she is instantly hit. Thus begins her and Mr. Law's romance.
The movie's opening prepares us for a love story not unlike most that is guided by the hand of fate. In this case, the two lovers are thrown hopelessly together by the initial tragedy and this will bind them forevermore. But "Closer" is not one of those kinds of movies. We as an audience are very much like Ms. Portman's character in that we look the wrong way at first only preparing ourselves to get hit.
The movie which also features Julia Roberts and Clive Owen relies on stellar performances from this ensemble cast as they lay bear the raw human emotion that is built up and ripped to shreds in the course of relationships. They show beauty, ugliness, hurt, pain, anxiety and anger in synchronized dance with each other. The cast take on demanding roles and nail the performances. We do not see the characters at all parts of their relationships. Rather Patrick Marber's screenplay only gives vinettes of the different critical junctures where sparks first occur, where choices that pass the point of no return are made, and where weeks and months of inevitable decline finally lead the only possible outcome, a fight and break. As an audience, we are not surprised by what occurs in the next scenes because they are the only logical resolutions of what we have just seen.
The most challenging assertion that "Closer" makes is at once the most true and perhaps because of its truth the most scary. The movie suggests that the romantic notions of love, the idea that we are fated to be with a special someone, are bogus. Instead, the characters in this film are with the person they are with. While the movie's opening sets us up for the typical romantic narrative, the rest of the film is a far cry from it. In most movies pertaining to love, there is some notion of absolutism in regards to love. That is to say, there are two people who are supposed to end up together and if they do it is a comedy and if they do not it is a tragedy. At the end of "Closer," Mr. Owen and Ms. Roberts are together and Ms. Portman and Mr. Law are alone. However, there is no feeling that things turned out contrary to fate or in accordance with fate which would leave this movie in the limbo of the typical romantic dichotomy. But "Closer" attempts to challenge this dichotomy and problematize it. We can see this through the two male characters of the film.
Owen is in many ways the brutish barbaric character. He refers to himself as a caveman. He likes his talk dirty, his sex carnal, and his women whores. But though he be a Neanderthal in many regards, there is a softer side of him as well. He more than any other character loves in this film. He loves unconditionally. He shows that love is joy and pain and can ravage the soul. When he is weary from love, he looks it. He can forgive and move on. He can get over the prehistoric hang-up men have with another man being with his woman. Though upset, he can move past it. Though he will scream and shout, he will never strike a woman. Owen's character understands that love does not come from the cosmos but more often must claw its way out of Hell. Law's character subscribes to the notion of fate and so is the appropriate foil. He however is so steeped up in the notion of fate that he cannot move past that first moment where he realizes love with someone else. For Ms. Portman, it is that moment in the opening scene. He is still awed by it five years later, which is amazing, touching, pathetic and sad. There isn't any other moment is their entire relationships that is worth remembering for him. Where Mr. Owen is brutish, Mr. Law is effeminate. He treats women as ladies. But he himself cannot forgive. He cannot settle. He also is pushed in one scene to strike Ms. Portman. It is almost as if where Owen knows he is a man and is secure in that knowledge, Law chases that security the entire movie. He strikes Portman not because he is violent, but because he does not feel in control. Not necessarily of her, but of himself and his own fate. He strikes her to reassure himself that as a man he can make things happen. It's pathetic, it's regressive, and it shows Law to be in many ways less evolved than Owen.
Ms. Portman is the most naive character in the film. Her street crossing mishap is merely emblematic of this and foreshadows that it will cause her to be hurt. We can't help but laugh when she tells Mr. Law that if you love someone, you don't leave. The audience knows that love does not have the holding power that Ms. Portman supposes it to have. Our laughter, to ourselves though it may be, is also a troubled one because we have to question why isn't love enough? Why do people in love cheat? Why do people in love leave? At the end of the movie, though, we come to realize that Portman's character is not as naive as we supposed it to be. While she allows her heart to get closer to Law, making her a parallel of Mr. Owen, she constructs an imaginary identity. While she gets hurt tremendously, when she chooses, when she falls out of love, she can leave never to be seen, heard from, or found again.
Ms. Portman's character also makes the most insightful comment in the movie when talking about an exhibition of Ms. Roberts: "It's a lie. It's a bunch of sad strangers photographed beautifully and all the glittering assholes who appreciate art say it's beautiful because that's what they want to see. But the people in the photos are sad and alone, but the pictures make the world seem beautiful, so the exhibition's reassuring which makes it a lie, and everyone loves a big fat lie." This sums up why "Closer" is so beautiful. It does not reassure like so much of art. It looks at love and relationships through a raw and uncompromising lens.
"Closer" is indeed a movie that we can't help but feel ambivalent about. We hate it because it destroys notions of romanticism in society where half of all marriages end in divorce and where tabloids clutter every check-out isle of the supermarket detailing the latest in a string of celebrity infidelities. We hate it because the characters behave abominably to each other and cheat like there is no tomorrow. We hate it because deep down somewhere, we have a lingering suspicion that it is true. It's truth is the reason we love it too. Inundated with stories in romantic comedies and tragedies of epic loves that were inevitable that seem to desonate with reality, "Closer" seems closer to reality. It argues that love is a choice. Cheating is a choice. We take actions and we have agency. We love by proximity. We love that which is closer to us. In the end, we do not end up with or without that person we were supposed to be with. We end up with the person we choose to be with. "Closer" ends without closure because this is how life actually is. As Damian Rice sings, "And so it is/ Just like you said it would be/ Life goes easy for me/ Most of the time..."
As the movie opens, Damien Rice's "The Blower's Daughter" plays in the background while we see two strangers, Jude Law and Natalie Portman, walking the crowded streets of London. They catch each other's eyes and cannot turn away. Not preoccupied with selfconscious embarrassment, they continue to stare at one another as they draw closer, smiles ablaze. They pause at an intersection, no twenty feet apart now. Ms. Portman looks instinctively to the left for traffic and seeing none proceeds to cross. However, being in London, traffic comes from the other side and she is instantly hit. Thus begins her and Mr. Law's romance.
The movie's opening prepares us for a love story not unlike most that is guided by the hand of fate. In this case, the two lovers are thrown hopelessly together by the initial tragedy and this will bind them forevermore. But "Closer" is not one of those kinds of movies. We as an audience are very much like Ms. Portman's character in that we look the wrong way at first only preparing ourselves to get hit.
The movie which also features Julia Roberts and Clive Owen relies on stellar performances from this ensemble cast as they lay bear the raw human emotion that is built up and ripped to shreds in the course of relationships. They show beauty, ugliness, hurt, pain, anxiety and anger in synchronized dance with each other. The cast take on demanding roles and nail the performances. We do not see the characters at all parts of their relationships. Rather Patrick Marber's screenplay only gives vinettes of the different critical junctures where sparks first occur, where choices that pass the point of no return are made, and where weeks and months of inevitable decline finally lead the only possible outcome, a fight and break. As an audience, we are not surprised by what occurs in the next scenes because they are the only logical resolutions of what we have just seen.
The most challenging assertion that "Closer" makes is at once the most true and perhaps because of its truth the most scary. The movie suggests that the romantic notions of love, the idea that we are fated to be with a special someone, are bogus. Instead, the characters in this film are with the person they are with. While the movie's opening sets us up for the typical romantic narrative, the rest of the film is a far cry from it. In most movies pertaining to love, there is some notion of absolutism in regards to love. That is to say, there are two people who are supposed to end up together and if they do it is a comedy and if they do not it is a tragedy. At the end of "Closer," Mr. Owen and Ms. Roberts are together and Ms. Portman and Mr. Law are alone. However, there is no feeling that things turned out contrary to fate or in accordance with fate which would leave this movie in the limbo of the typical romantic dichotomy. But "Closer" attempts to challenge this dichotomy and problematize it. We can see this through the two male characters of the film.
Owen is in many ways the brutish barbaric character. He refers to himself as a caveman. He likes his talk dirty, his sex carnal, and his women whores. But though he be a Neanderthal in many regards, there is a softer side of him as well. He more than any other character loves in this film. He loves unconditionally. He shows that love is joy and pain and can ravage the soul. When he is weary from love, he looks it. He can forgive and move on. He can get over the prehistoric hang-up men have with another man being with his woman. Though upset, he can move past it. Though he will scream and shout, he will never strike a woman. Owen's character understands that love does not come from the cosmos but more often must claw its way out of Hell. Law's character subscribes to the notion of fate and so is the appropriate foil. He however is so steeped up in the notion of fate that he cannot move past that first moment where he realizes love with someone else. For Ms. Portman, it is that moment in the opening scene. He is still awed by it five years later, which is amazing, touching, pathetic and sad. There isn't any other moment is their entire relationships that is worth remembering for him. Where Mr. Owen is brutish, Mr. Law is effeminate. He treats women as ladies. But he himself cannot forgive. He cannot settle. He also is pushed in one scene to strike Ms. Portman. It is almost as if where Owen knows he is a man and is secure in that knowledge, Law chases that security the entire movie. He strikes Portman not because he is violent, but because he does not feel in control. Not necessarily of her, but of himself and his own fate. He strikes her to reassure himself that as a man he can make things happen. It's pathetic, it's regressive, and it shows Law to be in many ways less evolved than Owen.
Ms. Portman is the most naive character in the film. Her street crossing mishap is merely emblematic of this and foreshadows that it will cause her to be hurt. We can't help but laugh when she tells Mr. Law that if you love someone, you don't leave. The audience knows that love does not have the holding power that Ms. Portman supposes it to have. Our laughter, to ourselves though it may be, is also a troubled one because we have to question why isn't love enough? Why do people in love cheat? Why do people in love leave? At the end of the movie, though, we come to realize that Portman's character is not as naive as we supposed it to be. While she allows her heart to get closer to Law, making her a parallel of Mr. Owen, she constructs an imaginary identity. While she gets hurt tremendously, when she chooses, when she falls out of love, she can leave never to be seen, heard from, or found again.
Ms. Portman's character also makes the most insightful comment in the movie when talking about an exhibition of Ms. Roberts: "It's a lie. It's a bunch of sad strangers photographed beautifully and all the glittering assholes who appreciate art say it's beautiful because that's what they want to see. But the people in the photos are sad and alone, but the pictures make the world seem beautiful, so the exhibition's reassuring which makes it a lie, and everyone loves a big fat lie." This sums up why "Closer" is so beautiful. It does not reassure like so much of art. It looks at love and relationships through a raw and uncompromising lens.
"Closer" is indeed a movie that we can't help but feel ambivalent about. We hate it because it destroys notions of romanticism in society where half of all marriages end in divorce and where tabloids clutter every check-out isle of the supermarket detailing the latest in a string of celebrity infidelities. We hate it because the characters behave abominably to each other and cheat like there is no tomorrow. We hate it because deep down somewhere, we have a lingering suspicion that it is true. It's truth is the reason we love it too. Inundated with stories in romantic comedies and tragedies of epic loves that were inevitable that seem to desonate with reality, "Closer" seems closer to reality. It argues that love is a choice. Cheating is a choice. We take actions and we have agency. We love by proximity. We love that which is closer to us. In the end, we do not end up with or without that person we were supposed to be with. We end up with the person we choose to be with. "Closer" ends without closure because this is how life actually is. As Damian Rice sings, "And so it is/ Just like you said it would be/ Life goes easy for me/ Most of the time..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)