|
 The mild controversy surrounding Robert Downey, Jr.’s portrayal of a white actor dressed in blackface to play a role originally intended for an African American actor in Ben Stiller’s film, Tropic Thunder, has ruffled new feathers regarding whether (and in what context) it is appropriate for European American people to “act” as African American people on the screen. My friend first sent me the link to the movie weeks ago. Initially, I shrugged it off, finding the whole premise a bit silly and unnecessary. After all, it is a Ben Stiller comedy, and so not exactly a body of work designed to invoke critical thought…or is it? Over the past several weeks, I’ve noticed an increase in the notes and text messages I’m receiving regarding this movie–everything from “Monique, what do you think of Robert Downey, Jr. as a Black man?” or “Here we go again!”
I’ve realized that while none of the messages appear to show outrage, they do suggest a discomfort with the idea that Black identity can be usurped by anyone who dresses the part and changes his or her ennunciation to “sound Black.” According to previews, there is a scene in the film in which Downey’s character tries to bond with a real African American castmate by singing the theme song to The Jeffersons….another not-so-brilliant reflection of mainstream America’s cultural incompetence toward African Americans. Still, Downey claims that his interpretation of the character is a far cry from C. Thomas Howell’s characterization of “blackness” in the 1986 film, Soul Man…maybe. Maybe not.
The discomfort lies in the fact that every now and again, Hollywood tests the waters to see whether people are paying attention…or whether they’ve mastered make-up so well that we cannot tell the difference. Well, the fact is, we always know and we care, because the wounds are still open from a discriminating image of people of color that prevents us from full participation in the world of entertainment. We knew that Angelina Jolie (no matter how much she poked out her semi-full lips) was not a woman of color in A Mighty Heart, and we cared because women of color still have to fight for leading, meaningful roles in Hollywood. We certainly knew that Anthony Hopkins was not African American in The Human Stain, and we cared because the whole premise was ludicrous. There is nothing about Anthony Hopkins that is African American. We try to suspend our disbelief and enjoy the plot, even if David Carradine isn’t really Chinese American or Robert Downey, Jr. really African American. But that’s hard to do.
It might be possible to suspend disbelief if America were really over its racial divide and if the racialization of Hollywood films weren’t so obvious. If African American, Latino, and Asian entertainers had ample opportunities to play characters that represent the full spectrum of our lives, maybe our collective feathers wouldn’t rustle each time we see a white actor play the role of a person of color.
Maybe the whole intention of the Stiller movie is to get us to ask questions about how we see race in entertainment. Maybe he wants us to take a moment and think about how much our cultural divides continue to wedge Americans. Until we’ve seen the film (if we decide to support the film), all we can do is speculate. Of course, if America decided to walk through life with its collective eyes open, we wouldn’t need another film like this to tell us what’s up.
Resources:
Long Island University: African Americans in Motion Pictures
The Color of Film Collaborative
The Johns Hopkins University Press: Asian Americans in Film and Theater
Latino Images in Film: Stereotypes, Subversion and Resistance by Charles Ramirez Berg
|
|
I don’t remember ever being as interested and engaged in the daily politics of the race for U.S. President as I am now. It could be that I am more inclined to watch CNN’s coverage of the 2008 election because I am older. It could be that this presidential election is more compelling because, for the first time, the Democratic candidates represent two core components of my identity. It could be that I have found a candidate that I really feel motivated to support. Whatever is drawing me to this election, I am most excited by the fact that I am not alone. Each day, I see more and more young adults wearing political t-shirts, sporting buttons, and walking around with backpacks tagged with the names of presidential candidates. This is interesting (to say the least) given that for many years, young people have been perceived as apathetic to what has been seen as a predictable, antiquated system of American politics that presented the public with a prototype of a “president” that, honestly, never looked much different from election year to election year.
In 2004, several campaigns were underway to engage young voters. It was hard to turn on a television set without looking at a celebrity challenging the viewer to “Vote or Die.” While the campaign may have inspired many young people to register to vote, it was more important, in my opinion, to help young people understand why voting is a necessary and urgent part of the American culture of civic participation. During that time, I worked with a number of amazing people to pull together “Think Critically!” conferences in the Bay Area and in New York, in an effort to get young people to not only accept the urgency of civic participation, but also to feel empowered to formulate their own ideas about why they should be so involved. In many communities, young potential voters–particularly those of color–have not engaged in the political process because they don’t see why it will matter. Many communities grappling with poverty have never had faith in the political process, because its leaders have not reflected their history, shared in their struggles, and actually delivered on promises to make things better. For many older people in these communities, there is a memory of the Civil Rights Movement and the presidents who helped implement policies that were crucial to generating equal justice. But for younger people, particularly those who remained impoverished during the Reagan and Bush Administrations and whose families were ripped apart by Clinton Administration criminal justice policies, there is little difference between any of them. The voices of this skeptical segment of our greater community often do not get heard in the public sphere beyond what might appear on an occasional hip hop CD. These skeptics are usually marginalized from the public discourse on politics, left to stand to the side, arms folded, while everyone speculates about what they are feeling.
Recently, there has been a tremendous amount of speculation about the way(s) in which young voters might respond should Superdelegates have the ultimate say in who will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. Pundits have speculated that young voters, a demographic that has largely supported Senator Barack Obama, could potentially disengage should Superdelegates decide that ultimately, Hillary Clinton is more “electable” than Barack Obama. To me–and many others seeking to mobilize the civic energy of young people–that simply is not good enough. I wanted to reach out to young voters and get a sense of whether they even understand what is happening around them. While the method was not scientific, I developed a brief survey that could at least inform my initial understanding of how young voters are processing the “talk” of Superdelegates. The survey was completed by over 200 young voters, age 18-25 and affiliated with community centers, colleges, and direct-service providers in California, New York, and Massachusetts, over a 2-week period.
The good news is that just under half of young people who responded to the survey knew the function of a Superdelegate. This a high percentage, though not surprising given the public access to resources that fully describe the form and function of the Superdelegate. Still, over half of the respondents expressed a rather negative attitude toward Superdelegates, admitting feeling “somewhat unfavorable” or “not favorable at all” toward the role of a Superdelegate. Only 13% expressed feeling “very favorable” or “somewhat favorable” toward the role of a Superdelegate; but more than that, almost 23%, expressed that they didn’t care. According to this survey, apathy is still relatively high for this population. Forty percent of respondents reported feeling “somewhat favorable” of the electoral process, while 30% reported feeling “somewhat unfavorable” of the process. However, when asked whether a Superdelegate-decided nomination in the Democratic Presidential race would change how they feel about the electoral process, 52% of the survey respondents indicated that it would. Considering the high percentage of young voters who suggested a negative attitude toward the role of the Superdelegate, it is likely that young voters would be turned away from the political process if they feel their will–and the will of the general voting population–is overturned by Superdelegates.
But the story doesn’t end there. Hip hop artist and activist Talib Kweli, an ardent critic of the American political system has said that he might consider voting, if he has the opportunity to vote for Barack Obama. This is a major step for Talib Kweli, and many like him, who have risked being called unpatriotic for trying to hold this nation accountable to its claim of being a great Democracy. Years ago, he might have said, “I don’t care” in response to the electoral process because he felt so strongly that it was broken. Today, there is a chance he, and others like him, might actually vote. If Superdelegates do not consider the voices of young voters, some may disengage, yes. Others might never engage. Plain and simple.
Where do we go from here? What do we do about the lingering apathy or disconnect between young people and the electoral process, and how will the decision making process surrounding the presidential election impact this issue? Over the next few months, I plan to continue reaching out to young voters in this process, again to reinforce the fact that it is not only important to engage, but that the engagement means something to the larger political process, and to the community transformation that accompanies feeling entitled to engage. As this election continues to unfold, this conversation will be continued.
|
At a recent parent-teacher meeting, my daughter’s teacher shared a notebook in which students are able to create their own dictionary. The book is intended to give children a chance to fill their dictionary with words they want to include in their vocabulary. As she thumbed through the pages of the notebook, I noticed that my daughter had added her own set of words under the “B” category. Even though the first name is misspelled, I cherish the fact that she is still moved…B is for Barack!
