Seeing Slavery Through A New Hollywood- Are We Ready?

Hello again world and welcome back to my blog. Today's entry will attempt to decipher a question that will no doubt permeate audiences' minds within the coming months and maybe years- in this modern society, are we ready to see Hollywood depict America's past with slavery? Two upcoming film projects seem to beg the question- the first will be director Quentin Tarantino's spaghetti western/blaxploitation inspired "Django Unchained", and the second, based on the true story of Solomon Northup, is "12 Years A Slave". It is important to note that both films boast A-list casting, with "Django" having the likes of Jamie Foxx and Leonardo DiCaprio, and "12 Years" lining up Chiwetel Ejiofor and Brad Pitt. As these stars and productions prepare for this gamble and ask their audiences to place their bets upon release, I wonder exactly how films with slavery in the main role will be interpreted by our generation.



Though slavery in America has been depicted in Hollywood before, the sensitivity of the subject has caused its story to be told in between lapses of time. Also keep in mind that historical films, as with other film genres, are perceived not by the era they depict but rather by the era in which they are made. Take for example D.W. Griffith's 1915 Civil War epic "The Birth of A Nation" (a film I have seen clips of, but not yet in its entirety for fear of anger); not only are blacks and slaves portrayed by white actors in blackface, but they are portrayed as stupid, selfish and barbaric in response to their "heroic" white Confederate counterparts. Now let's jump to an American film standard, 1939's "Gone With the Wind"; though it shows a kinder, more modern phase of race relations towards the 1860's South, viewers still see subservience in blacks even after their release from bondage.



Undoubtedly, the biggest production thus far to have its audience see the complete totality of slavery in America is the 1977 television miniseries "Roots". Based from the novel of writer Alex Haley, "Roots" traces an African and his American descendants' journey into slavery, from capture to freedom. As it was made after the Civil Rights era, the main characters' roles- especially that of the African, Kunta Kinte- were portrayed as more dignified, defiant and resourceful towards their situations and aspirations. "Roots" would become a cultural landmark, still remaining one of the highest watched television programs in American history. However, in the time since "Roots", most Hollywood productions involving blacks in antebellum/Civil War era America (i.e "Glory" and "Amistad") have had slavery as a shadowy, looming backdrop against their crusade.



Now with these past narratives in mind, how will Hollywood interpret American slavery in today's post-black, Obama-era society? As "Django" and "12 Years" works toward answering this question, I personally assume that the modern audience will need their protagonist slave to be heroically resistant against their bondage, resulting in their freedom by the end of the film. I also believe that these protagonists will be a more symbolic hero whose journey relates a more one-on-one, intimate correlation with their audience. Essentially, this new model of past American slavery will have to represent a combination of society's past truths with its current ambitions while not relying on the hurtful stereotypes of that past.

For fear of these stereotypes, there are some that believe that these films could regress the psyche of blacks in cinema; that the "angry, violent, black man" has been done and over. These are valid concerns, but from what I understand to know of these films' developments it seems that the protagonists' anger is justifiable and the violence (though expected to be more cartoonish for "Django") is needed when necessary. Also, remember that the top tier casting in these films says something about the material, as I'm sure these actors would not gamble on a project that they felt would totally destroy their credibility or careers. Therefore, I eagerly look forward to the production and release of these films with the thought that this particular new model of black uprising could lead to a new sort of "black superhero" to be seen and identified by our generation specifically. So I myself am ready to see how slavery can depicted in today's Hollywood- but I am one of many, some of that many agreeing with this anticipation while the others do not. Nevertheless, the opinions, debates and possibilities of seeing an American slave liberate himself in our generation's time are infinite and groundbreaking.

Well, I think that's about it for now folks. Thanks for taking the time to read this blog, and let me know what you think about this and other entries. Until next time, peace out.

The Visual Legacy of David and Goliath

Hello again world and welcome back to my blog. Today's entry is a fusion of art, history and religion that centers on a principal subject for each genre, King David. As he is mostly remembered and depicted for slaying the behemoth Goliath, David has become a symbol for taking a stand against oppression; for this reason he is my favorite biblical character (not just because he and I share the same name). To me, David's story resonates because of his being the ultimate "underdog" who not only has the courage to face his opposition but stands victorious over it. I see this story as a great parable for life, as we all will have to face Goliath-like enemies or problems within our lifetime and have the courage to fight against them. Thus, in the spirit of this relation, David has become a muse for generations of writers, musicians, and- here in particular- visual artists. What I find striking about artists in their depicting of David is that the timelessness of his story is not lost to them, as they bring him and Goliath into their communities and cultures.

Perhaps the best known artists' depiction of David is the larger than life statue that was sculpted by Michelangelo during the early 16th century, his face shown above. It shows the hero in preparation of battle, ready to defend his community against outsiders who wish to dominate through violence and intimidation. I think that this depiction of David is where artists begin to showcase him more realistically in regards to human emotion; it could be said that Michelangelo's David is representative of a soldier, as this is a figure who is calm and gallant yet wears on his face his worries about the level of opponent he faces as well as how and when this fight will end. This display of internal conflict makes the work more humane to its audience/viewer, as we can relate to the figure's expressiveness by recalling scenarios where we bravely fought through our fears for a greater good. As with its muse, Michelangelo's David has become something of a symbol itself as it has come to represent new vanguards for art and culture.



A little over one hundred years after Michelangelo's depiction of David readying to face Goliath, fellow Italian artist Caravaggio decides to take the more traditional route, as his painting shows the victorious young boy with his brutally slayed enemy. As the background's shrouding darkness provides more intimacy to its subject and storyline, David's wardrobe is a bit analogous, as it could be representative of either biblical times or of early 17th century peasantry. As Caravaggio's David holds the head of Goliath (a self-portrait of the artist himself), his compassion for his victim is evident; the look on David's face is somber, almost as if he is regretful that this altercation had to end in the taking of a life. This display of emotion gives a new element to the story, as we never before thought to imagine that David could be- at least slightly- saddened by the realization that he has caused a casualty through his fighting in war.



Just over a decade after Caravaggio presented a brooding David, the sculptor Bernini gives us an "action hero" inspired interpretation through marble statue. In this depiction Bernini shows us the fierce warrior in the throes of battle, as he is in the mid-swing of throwing the fatal stone. This David is by far the most theatrical, as the figure transcends from the statuesque into being physically human, as if he is an actor in a grand one man performance. Because of this effect, the "actor"'s realistic tension in his hands, body and face could make his audience almost believe they are witnessing the event for themselves. Honestly, it is because of these reasons that I believe Bernini's presentation to be, quite possibly, David's most consistently relevant depiction.

One great aspect that I have noticed about both sculptures (Michelangelo and Bernini) is that by presenting David in a grand manner by himself, they make Goliath's presence known in a more grandiose, mythic way. Supporting evidence of an ominous foe is seen in the hero's defiant and armed stance, as he looks away from from the audience but still in a concentrated stare. I perceive it to quite allegorical in that Goliath's invisibility makes him a giant, as the unseen opponent represents the problems and trepidation that individuals must confront in order to achieve goals.



And now we arrive to a more modern, more culturally diverse David versus Goliath thanks to Kadir Nelson's painting as shown above. I'll be honest with you, folks; it took me a little while to fully appreciate the visual metaphors Nelson added to the story by making it sports related, as David and Goliath go "one on one" in a basketball game as the crowd looks on. These visual metaphors include the court blacktop being the "battleground", as David has the basketball- or rather "the rock"- under his arm. Through this athletic depiction Nelson playfully makes the story more about competition rather than dominance, as they "battle" for bragging rights. However, this David appears more dominantly, courtesy of Nelson using visual perspective to depict distance. I gather that Nelson's intent for David in that perspective was to have the viewer relate to his journey in accomplishing the goals of outlasting and beating Goliath while giving the crowd a dazzling performance in the process.

As we've seen through these four depictions, the story of David and Goliath is both timely and timeless, as its different interpretations bred different perceptions and possibilities. As the hero and story serve as muses for creativity and individualism, it could be argued that David may be the most visually depicted biblical character except for maybe Christ himself. It could be a sort of "rite of passage" for most artists to present a new interpretation of this story given that it gives so much room for opportunity to think, feel and connect to a specifically human brand of heroism. As I stated earlier, David's unexpected victory, making him the symbolic underdog, causes us to believe in our total strength as we strive to be the symbolic underdog claiming victory against our behemoth occurrences. And who doesn't love an underdog?

Well, I think that's about it for now folks. Thanks for taking the time to read this blog, and let me know what you think about this and other entries. Until then, peace out.