While reading, The Critical Eye, I found some information that would be very useful for me when it is time to analyze and deconstruct the films this semester. However, for just about every one thing that I found useful in this book, I probable read two or three things that I felt people should already know when analyzing movies. But it is an introduction to looking at movies, so I guess I should have been more patient. Therefore, for this blog, I will only mention the things that I personally found interesting or useful when I read the book.
In chapter two, I liked the information provided about symbols. I was very interested to read about The Seventh Seal on page twenty-eight. The symbolism was the idea of the chess board being this symbol for the game of life, and how even though the knight may be able to win this game against death, “ultimately” he has to lose. I love any type of symbolism in movies, and I especially like linking symbolism with different motifs that may be present historically or culturally at the time.
I also liked the chapter that mentioned the special effects that are done by cameras. I had a “duh” moment when I realized that they actually just duplicate extras in a set or in a baseball stadium. Naively, I actually believed that they could film a movie with thousands of people in a stadium or concert. But subconsciously, as I have gotten older, I must have realized that all the people shown are actually an illusion. At least I would like to hope that I realized it was an illusion.
In chapter seven, the concept of socio-historical background interested me because I thought it was interesting that during, “the mid-to-late 1960’s…a growing antiestablishment mood reflected the disappointment felt by many Americans”(136). This disgruntlement also influenced films heavily, and during this films, “first signaled a shift in cultural values with offbeat protagonists and counterculture themes”(136). After reading this chapter, I wondered if some of those influences would also change the values, goals, or perceptions evident in any of the Jazz films being produced during the times. Either way, I think the cinematic concept of socio-historical background is something that is very important and should be considered with any Jazz film viewed this semester. Especially since the historical link between blackface, Jazz films and the 20th century are so important.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Monday, January 21, 2008
Black like you: Reader Response.
For this post, I will first critique the novel by deconstructing some of Strausbaugk points and reveal some of his structural fallacies within his arguments. Then, for the second part of the post, I will mention the points that I believe help strengthen the overall framework of Strausbaugk’s book.
In the first chapter of, Black Like you, Strausbaugk begins his book with a story about his experience with the white gay comic Shirley Q. Liquor and his mixed feelings about her dressed in blackface portraying the life of black women. More importantly, Strausbaugk extends his argument by doing a comparative analysis between white comics who perform blackface and black comics who perform whiteface. When Strausbaugk makes those comparisons, he states there is a natural bias because whiteface becomes more acceptable while blackface is automatically labeled as racist or hate speech. And of course in certain contexts Strausbaugk makes a very accurate and well worthy point.
But when I first read about Shirley Q I was not only irritated but also very angry. Truthfully, I do not support whiteface or blackface. And it is a generalization to believe that all black people, whom disagree with blackface, will then laugh at Eddie Murphy or other black comics when they mimic whites. But as a black woman, I could not help but have a negative response when Strausbaugk quoted Shirley Q. in chapter one when she explains why she portrays black women, “My character…was created in celebration of, not to downgrade, black women…My comedy isn’t racist, nor am I.” (9)
The biggest problem however is that Shirley Q is not a black woman, but a gay male. And it is very presumptuous of her to think that she is able to portray the experience, (be it stereotypically or true) of black woman. When I read Shirley Q’s response I automatically thought that she is not portraying my mother, grandmother or great-grandmother, because she does not know them. In addition, Shirley Q is not accurately portraying my black friends and more importantly she is not representing me.
Now some will say that my perception of Shirley Q is an exaggeration. Her performance is meant as a joke, nothing more and nothing less. But because Shirley Q has decided to mimic black women, it cannot help but affect me because it helps construct my identity as a black woman. In addition, what Shirley Q. does not understand is that she is helping to construct layered identities that have been influencing black women and their social identity for a long time in America.
As Patricia Hill Collins theory explains, intersecting identities or structures both effect and play on each other. For black women the different power matrices that help construct their identity are gender, race, sexuality, and socio-economic status. Therefore, the controlling images of black female sexuality are something that not only influences racism but helps constructs intersecting matrices of oppressions. Something that Strausbaugk does not recognize when he discusses Shirley Q’s character. In fact, overall throughout the novel, Strausbaugk has not rigorously critiqued the important links between race and gender, and how blackface helps to socially construct both identities.
One example, I wanted to specifically point out in the book, was Strausbaugk segment on the first three Blaxploitation flicks. As Strausbaugk explains, these films were a response to white stereotypical images of black males. In these three films black men become quite strong heroes and make, “the black male a walking phallus irresistible to white and black women.”(257) But Strausbaugk misses a great opportunity to rigorously discuss how these films have helped construct sexuality through race. He does not critique the gender construction of the characters in blackface and how it influences white or black masculinity and femininity. More specifically, Strausbaugk never critiques or explores why it was necessary to portray these black men in hyper-sexualized roles in only heterosexual relationships.
As I continued to read through Strausbaugk book, I stumbled on another problem with his perception of race. When I first read the passage, I actually placed a question mark by it. I then went back to the passage to understand why it bothered me and I later realized that Strausbaugk falls into the racial trap of what Postmodern theorist define as essentialism. When Strausbaugk writes, “It’s ludicrously obvious that they’re White men in blackface. The shape of their heads, their ears, their noses, their flat butts, the way they move…none of it is remotely authentic to the way Black people would look or move,” he is actually subscribing to an essentialist notion of race.(213)
On the surface, it could be perceived that Strausbaugk in this passage is being satirical of his own race. He critiques their noses and flat butts and explains that it is extremely obvious that those characters are white, but Strausbaugk also is participating in generalizations and is subconsciously aligning a particular set of characteristics to a certain race. When he critiques those white actors for their flat butts, their heads or noses, does it then mean that Strausbaugk would expect others of a different race to specifically have a set of genetic characteristics? But that ideology or perception in itself is interesting when there is no racial genetic makeup that can define someone to a particular race. Especially, since it has been proven that race is socially constructed.
Nevertheless, I actually found some things that I enjoyed about the book. One of the best arguments that I believed Strausbaugk makes very strongly in his book is the idea that in order to rigorously begin to critique racial politics in America is by discussing them. Strausbaugk makes a very good point when he states, “The opposing view is that no history is best forgotten. It’s foolish and dangerous to censor historical events we’re not comfortable remembering.” (207) I think that this is a brilliant point and one that should be practiced by professors in higher education. Even though the idea of Shirley Q. Liquor’s blackface performance irritates me that does not mean that it should be erased from history, or worse not conversed about in cultural discourse.
Another thing that I particular liked in this book was the story about Tar baby and Uncle Remus. Last semester, I had discovered the positive aspect of Tar baby, and I was immensely happy to discover some of the original poems in Strausbaugk book. I was also surprised that I had watched many of the Blaxploitation flicks such as Shaft, Blacula, and The Wiz. I actually grew up on many of those films and enjoyed them immensely.
In the first chapter of, Black Like you, Strausbaugk begins his book with a story about his experience with the white gay comic Shirley Q. Liquor and his mixed feelings about her dressed in blackface portraying the life of black women. More importantly, Strausbaugk extends his argument by doing a comparative analysis between white comics who perform blackface and black comics who perform whiteface. When Strausbaugk makes those comparisons, he states there is a natural bias because whiteface becomes more acceptable while blackface is automatically labeled as racist or hate speech. And of course in certain contexts Strausbaugk makes a very accurate and well worthy point.
But when I first read about Shirley Q I was not only irritated but also very angry. Truthfully, I do not support whiteface or blackface. And it is a generalization to believe that all black people, whom disagree with blackface, will then laugh at Eddie Murphy or other black comics when they mimic whites. But as a black woman, I could not help but have a negative response when Strausbaugk quoted Shirley Q. in chapter one when she explains why she portrays black women, “My character…was created in celebration of, not to downgrade, black women…My comedy isn’t racist, nor am I.” (9)
The biggest problem however is that Shirley Q is not a black woman, but a gay male. And it is very presumptuous of her to think that she is able to portray the experience, (be it stereotypically or true) of black woman. When I read Shirley Q’s response I automatically thought that she is not portraying my mother, grandmother or great-grandmother, because she does not know them. In addition, Shirley Q is not accurately portraying my black friends and more importantly she is not representing me.
Now some will say that my perception of Shirley Q is an exaggeration. Her performance is meant as a joke, nothing more and nothing less. But because Shirley Q has decided to mimic black women, it cannot help but affect me because it helps construct my identity as a black woman. In addition, what Shirley Q. does not understand is that she is helping to construct layered identities that have been influencing black women and their social identity for a long time in America.
As Patricia Hill Collins theory explains, intersecting identities or structures both effect and play on each other. For black women the different power matrices that help construct their identity are gender, race, sexuality, and socio-economic status. Therefore, the controlling images of black female sexuality are something that not only influences racism but helps constructs intersecting matrices of oppressions. Something that Strausbaugk does not recognize when he discusses Shirley Q’s character. In fact, overall throughout the novel, Strausbaugk has not rigorously critiqued the important links between race and gender, and how blackface helps to socially construct both identities.
One example, I wanted to specifically point out in the book, was Strausbaugk segment on the first three Blaxploitation flicks. As Strausbaugk explains, these films were a response to white stereotypical images of black males. In these three films black men become quite strong heroes and make, “the black male a walking phallus irresistible to white and black women.”(257) But Strausbaugk misses a great opportunity to rigorously discuss how these films have helped construct sexuality through race. He does not critique the gender construction of the characters in blackface and how it influences white or black masculinity and femininity. More specifically, Strausbaugk never critiques or explores why it was necessary to portray these black men in hyper-sexualized roles in only heterosexual relationships.
As I continued to read through Strausbaugk book, I stumbled on another problem with his perception of race. When I first read the passage, I actually placed a question mark by it. I then went back to the passage to understand why it bothered me and I later realized that Strausbaugk falls into the racial trap of what Postmodern theorist define as essentialism. When Strausbaugk writes, “It’s ludicrously obvious that they’re White men in blackface. The shape of their heads, their ears, their noses, their flat butts, the way they move…none of it is remotely authentic to the way Black people would look or move,” he is actually subscribing to an essentialist notion of race.(213)
On the surface, it could be perceived that Strausbaugk in this passage is being satirical of his own race. He critiques their noses and flat butts and explains that it is extremely obvious that those characters are white, but Strausbaugk also is participating in generalizations and is subconsciously aligning a particular set of characteristics to a certain race. When he critiques those white actors for their flat butts, their heads or noses, does it then mean that Strausbaugk would expect others of a different race to specifically have a set of genetic characteristics? But that ideology or perception in itself is interesting when there is no racial genetic makeup that can define someone to a particular race. Especially, since it has been proven that race is socially constructed.
Nevertheless, I actually found some things that I enjoyed about the book. One of the best arguments that I believed Strausbaugk makes very strongly in his book is the idea that in order to rigorously begin to critique racial politics in America is by discussing them. Strausbaugk makes a very good point when he states, “The opposing view is that no history is best forgotten. It’s foolish and dangerous to censor historical events we’re not comfortable remembering.” (207) I think that this is a brilliant point and one that should be practiced by professors in higher education. Even though the idea of Shirley Q. Liquor’s blackface performance irritates me that does not mean that it should be erased from history, or worse not conversed about in cultural discourse.
Another thing that I particular liked in this book was the story about Tar baby and Uncle Remus. Last semester, I had discovered the positive aspect of Tar baby, and I was immensely happy to discover some of the original poems in Strausbaugk book. I was also surprised that I had watched many of the Blaxploitation flicks such as Shaft, Blacula, and The Wiz. I actually grew up on many of those films and enjoyed them immensely.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
