Chris Utley:
I just saw "She Hate Me" and I'm compelled to start another round-table discussion.
Two questions:
Question #1. What's your take on the depiction of African-American negative sexual stereotypes in entertainment? Do those stereotypes reinforce any of your personal beliefs. Please be honest, guys.
(Incidentally, I was supposed to write a review of "Soul Plane" a few months ago but refused to write it in protest of the film's blatant sexual stereotypes).
Question #2. Do you believe that sexuality is a gift from God or a curse from Satan. Has there been any films you've seen that have promoted sexuality as a gift from God that we need not be ashamed of?
Darrel Manson:
Response to #1. You mean like that you bucks all have huge members and go all night long? (Please note that my tongue is firmly planted in cheek with no offense.) Do they reinforce my personal beliefs, no. Do they reinforce and inform the way many people think, more than likely. Does it matter if it is done in a film by someone who just makes entertainment as opposed to someone making serious film? Does it matter if it's done by
a white or African-American director? (Translation for all this: What is Spike Lee thinking?!?!?)
Response to <<Incidentally, I was supposed to write a review of "Soul Plane" a few months ago but refused to write it in protest of the film's blatant sexual stereotypes.>>
Ah, that is when you probably should have reviewed it and blasted it. Reviews are not promo pieces; they are analysis and we should say when things are wrong and even sinful.
Response to #2. I most certainly view sexuality as a gift from God. Not sure I can think of a film off the top of my head. Also not sure just how that message would be conveyed.
Maurice G Broaddus:
Response to #2. That was my dilemma, too. You would have to have a married couple who enjoy themselves sexually (while not depicted their sex lives too explicitly, lest we foment lustful thoughts). Sadly, I see this done better in "family" sitcoms (though the husband usually is constantly
begging for it) than in movies.
Chris Utley:
That's why I posed the question. Even with married people, sex in American society is seen as more than a curse than a gift. Think about all the MARRIED men who are begging their wives for it in REAL LIFE!
Remember all the flak Tom and Nicole got regarding their scenes together in "Eyes Wide Shut"? The more I think of my reaction at the time, the more I see how hypocritical I was.
Maurice G Broaddus:
Response to #1. <<What's your take on the depiction of African-American negative sexual stereotypes in entertainment?>>
Please, first and foremost, understand that I am discussing this point strictly from the point of view of Hollywood, not Christian, standards.
Spike Lee's first film was a movie called She's Gotta Have It, a movie with its main thesis being an exploration of a sexually liberated woman. One of the reasons Spike Lee made that movie was because, even more so at the time, Hollywood was afraid of depicting black people in real sexual relationships. Afraid being the operative word and the only conclusion one could draw considering that Hollywood often turned even their black sex symbols into little more than asexual
eunuchs. An example that pops into my mind, don't ask me why, is the movie The Pelican Brief. In that movie, Julia Roberts and Denzel Washington fight this grand conspiracy. A typical Hollywood thriller, EXCEPT that the two of them at the end of the movie, barely kiss. Two of the sexiest people in Hollywood, in a thriller, and they barely kiss. It's not that I'm advocating sex in my movies, especially since She's Gotta Have It is a barely watchable
piece of film-making. Nor is a forced, in the heat/stress of the moment, relationship good-storytelling. But by Hollywood standards, they should have fallen in love, if not in bed.
She's Gotta Have It (which I have seen), Girl 6, and She Hate Me (neither of the latter I have seen, but they are both Spike Lee films dealing with sexuality) represent the other side of the spectrum. While I like his depictions of black people engaged in real/sexual relationships [Do the Right Thing, Jungle Fever (which I'll come back to in a minute), Mo Better Blues] it should be a tool in a storytelling
kit.
What I am getting at is that there aren't enough The Best Man, a romantic comedy featuring an all black cast. There is a market for black romance movies, in fact, it is a market starving to be served.
Chris Utley:
There's been a few flicks along the lines of "The Best Man" including "Deliver Us From Eva", "Two Can Play That Game", "The Brothers", and, most recently, "Breakin All The Rules". That market is being served ...however the $$$ ain't quite ringing in ...mostly because of the bootleg market.
Maurice G Broaddus:
The problem is that black sexuality is too often defined by rap videos. The mentality of video hos only after money and men who are little more than dogs in heat defining their masculinity and success by cars and conquered women has infected too much of black culture period.
I don't have time for modern day minstrel shows passing themselves off as entertainment. I'm not saying that She Hate Me, or Soul Plane for that matter, fall into this assessment, but I am saying that we (and by "we" I mean black people) need to be conscientious of the images that we put up of ourselves, because Hollywood, at best, will take its cues from us.
In response to Chris Utley <<Do those stereotypes reinforce any of your personal beliefs. Please be honest, guys.>>
Back to Jungle Fever. One of the themes of the movie was exploring whether or not interracial relationships were based strictly on curiosity about sexual stereotypes. Its conclusion seemed to be (I say "seemed" because its thesis was muddied by the issue of adultery) that relationships formed on the stereotypes were doomed to fail, but those based on people seeing each other as people have the potential to work. And, it depicted sexuality as both a positive
and negative force, depending on how it was used. Between Wesley Snipes' character and his wife, sex was a source of joy, pleasure, and in the end of the movie, healing. When his character had sex outside of marriage (regardless of the color of the woman he was having sex with, thus the muddying of the interracial aspect of the film), sex was a destructive force. For the marriage. For both the involved's family. For their respective communities.
I mention this because I am married to a white woman. And while these stereotypes don't reinforce any of my personal beliefs, they do make me especially sensitive to them. Don't get me wrong, if you want complete honesty, some stereotypes concerning black men you won't exactly see me starting a protest against. But I am against minstrelsy as entertainment, even if it is by "us" for "us".
Taking it out of the realm of sexuality, I'll mention the Dave Chappelle Show. Or, Chris Rock. Both are brilliant comedians whose shows have left me on the ground, in tears, from laughter. If you take their comedy correctly, either can be a springboard into real discussions about race relations. Taken incorrectly, well, let's just say the last thing I need after a long day is a white guy thinking that he can be a writer for either comedian.
Chris Utley:
Good stuff.
Lyn Mellone:One question I had for you Chris, after I read the review, was whether there's any possibility that the director was trying to be deliberately facetious and you just "took it the wrong way"? I guess it's just that from your description, the flaunting of sexuality sounded as if it was too far over
the top to be taken seriously. But then maybe I'm still too naive!
I believe that the Bible makes it clear that sexuality is a gift from God that has been corrupted by Satan. The Enemy is always out to pervert "every good gift and every perfect gift" from above, which "cometh down from the Father of lights."
Maurice G Broaddus:
The problem that we will run into, the buzzsaw, is whether or not sexuality, right or wrong, NEEDS to be depicted. I believe that sex scenes are necessary only if they are germane to the story that is being told. For example, the sex scenes in Jungle Fever were absolutely necessary. Think of putting the story of David and Bathsheba in a movie. You kind of miss the point of the story if the two of them don't have sex. Then, I think people often confuse the "are
sex scenes needed" argument with "how graphic do they need to be" which is another argument entirely.
I am off this week to a horror convention called HorrorFind. One of the things that I will be doing is moderating a panel discussion on "African American Writers in Horror." We'll be discussing the lack of black writers as well as the lack of catering to a black audience. Someone e-mailed me to tell me that such a panel wasn't necessary because the market was being served. The problem,
as I pointed out to him, was that most the "African American Writers in Horror" would be on the panel (that would be 6) and that the number of black fans represented at the convention could probably be counted on both hands.
I counted five movies that you listed, and I'm sure there's more if either of us sat down to think about it, over the past few years. Now, during the course of one year in Hollywood, how many romantic comedies would you say are released?
The money argument doesn't ring quite true, either. Those movies don't have the same budgets as other romantic comedies (for one reason, they aren't paying the salary of say a Julia Roberts or Renee Zellwiger), so they don't have to pull in as much money to be profitable.
Greg Wright:
Let me offer some white-guy responses.
Response to Chris: <<Do you believe that sexuality is a gift from God or a curse from Satan. Has there been any films you've seen that have promoted sexuality as a gift from God that we need not be ashamed of?>>
First, the sexual appetite, like our other appetites, are natural and healthy when not perverted by unnatural desires. Second, I can't think of a single film that really has promoted sexuality in a healthy manner. (I do think Wings of the Dove genuinely portrayed the bankrupt nature of misdirected sexuality.)
Nobody will buy tickets to see movies about wholly positive treatments of ANY subject, much less sex. Good people simply aren't interesting.
So if you want to make money through film (whether you're black or white or yellow or red or whatever), what you tend to do is compromise (and shuck and jive) in whatever direction the market takes you. And ultimately we're back to audiences. Hollywood will serve up what they buy. And they buy a lot of junk.
Some other misc. notes.
I did think that the sex scenes in Do The Right Thing were pretty gentle and erotic without being in-your-face or lascivious. He Got Game, though, was downright pornographic (and I am something of an authority on that subject). I don't remember much about Jungle Fever except how annoying Samuel L. Jackson was (that WAS that one, right?). And I don't remember anything very
sexual about Malcolm X, Crooklyn, Clockers or 25th Hour. So I don't know that I would lump Spike in with the worst of them.
Lyn Mellone:
Can't it just be that some people prefer not to be exposed to strong portrayals of sexuality in action? Why should something that God gave us as a private expression of love be comfortable for any of us to watch on screen? Why should we "accept" it as appropriate even when portrayed "tastefully"?
Perhaps there are cultures in which public nudity is accepted and sexual acts are not private, but those are NOT our culture, and whether we see our culture as a product of misguided Christianity is not the issue. I don't believe that filmmakers put "private acts" on film because they are necessary for the story being told; it has a lot more to do with money than anything else. Like Greg said, "Nobody will buy tickets to see movies about wholly positive treatments of
ANY subject, much less sex."
If we want to talk about exploitation, let's not forget the simultaneous trivializing and sensationalizing of this most precious of gifts. According to my Bible, God tells us "We carefully protect from the eyes of others those parts that should not be seen" (1 Cor 12:23 LB) or "Our unseemly parts or those unsuitable for exposure are treated with seemliness (modesty and decorum)." (Amplified)
Maurice G Broaddus:
Response to Lyn: <<Can't it just be that some people prefer not to be exposed to strong portrayals of sexuality in action?>>
It can very much simply be that. I, for one, prefer not to be exposed to long, drawn out, or gratuitous sex scenes. But at the same time, it seems that we are drawing a line in the sand that we don't make (and maybe we should) with profanity or violence. It's not like I long for either of those, but, like a sex scene, it might be necessary to the story or to define a character.
Response to Lyn: <<I don't believe that filmmakers put "private acts" on film because they are necessary for the story being told; it has a lot more to do with money than anything else.>>
I don't think that I buy that argument. It has been well documented, and Hollywood is very cognizant of the fact, that rated R movies (much less NC-17) don't make as much money. In fact, it was a big deal that last year so many rated R movies were launched over the summer for that very reason, and the main reason was because they were sequels to well established movies. But, if you dissect the number one grossing movie of all time, Titanic, what do you have? A sex
scene that isn't necessarily "tasteful", but does define the characters idea of love and a gratuitous nude scene, which while "tasteful" is nevertheless gratuitous.
Don't get me wrong, it's not that I even necessarily disagree with you. Sex (scenes) are rarely handled in a way that denotes their preciousness as a gift from God. And I use the word "rarely" in a "I can't think of a time when they've done this off the top of my head" sort of way. But, I will always argue the point that sometimes they really are necessary to propell the story or define a character.
