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 Importance of August 28th

Hello again world and welcome back to my blog. On what should have been the opening dedication of the Martin Luther King, Jr., National Memorial on August 28, 2011, today's entry will be about the significance of the day August 28th itself in American and thus worldwide history. On that particular calendar day, three key events would shape the American Civil Rights Movement, a struggle where the youth and visionaries of that generation would change the navigational course of traditional "decency", equality and freedom. In chasing that tide of directive change, the courage of that generation- and those before them who had to suffer worse indignities- is very profound, as I surely cannot accurately fathom the level of disrespect and inhumanity they faced on a normal basis. With this in mind it could be argued that August 28th be viewed as a Civil Rights Memorial Day of sorts, as events on that day through the years would galvanize then stregnthen participation in both the movement and its following legacy.

August 28, 1955- the Murder of Emmett Till


A little over three months before Rosa Parks' defiant standing up through sitting in the whites only section of the bus in December 1955, fourteen year old Chicago native Emmett Till was murdered in Mississippi for the "crime" of whistling at a white woman. Taken late at night from the home of the relatives with whom he was staying, Till- in the last moments of life and first moments after death- would endure ghastly mutilation to his body by egotistical murderers who not only took his life but sought to take his humanity and manhood through such disfigurement. The latter goal would not be achieved, as Till's mother displayed his body and story in an effort to show how badly America needed to change in its race relations. Though it would be a few months before more Americans would begin to heed and spread this message- as Till's murderers would later confess to their crime as unrepentant free men- Emmett Till would become a cataclysmic symbol for such truth, justice, and sadly enough, growth.

August 28, 1963- Martin Luther King, Jr., Shares his Dream


Eight years into the Civil Rights Movement, the March On Washington for Jobs and Freedom was held at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. Using the march's platform for civic and economic growth as well as for its push towards legislation for voting rights, one of its prime leaders would vividly announce the intended goals and aspirations the movement itself aimed to achieve for present and future societies. In his riveting "I Have A Dream" speech, Martin Luther King, Jr., uses allegorical references from literature, religion and politics to speak of a possible society that overcomes bitter prejudices to engage with diverse cultures in achieving equal harmony. What strikes me most about the speech is King's near clairvoyant delivery; in switching from the written text to literally freestyling, he confidently uses his preaching gifts to have the crowd further envision his idealistic agenda as he speaks it. As with its brilliant orator, the "I Have A Dream" speech has its invaluable place in history -in its case as a spoken blueprint for modern tolerance and togetherness.

August 28, 2008- Barack Obama Accepts the Democratic Nomination for U.S. President


Fifty-three years to the day after Emmett Till's murder, forty-five years to the day of Martin Luther King, Jr., delivering his "I Have A Dream" speech, U.S. Senator Barack Obama accepts the Democratic nomination for the Presidency of the United States. Obama, a humble yet charismatic politician from Illinois, had began to captivate Americans and their potential votes through speaking about a committal to progressive change towards a better quality of life. He would also captivate through his keen sense of history, as other memorable dates and scenes in this country coincided within his journey to the White House. This certain August 28th event marks an event of change in America itself, as it shows a culmination- not the total culmination as there is more work to do, but a culmination- of evidence of efforts towards relativity through diversity.

The heroic life, work, and legacy of civil rights leader Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., would cause fellow Americans to memorialize him in the nation's capital. Although the dedication of his memorial did not happen on the forty-eighth anniversary of one of his greatest moments as was originally planned, keep in mind that the three previously described events on August 28th would help to transform ideas, thoughts, and possibilities for future generations. As I stated above, the Civil Rights Movement caused great changes that greatly accelerated our cultural and even spiritual growth, and today it reminds us to always work towards the best ideals for ourselves, our people and our societies.

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.

Frederick Douglass Selling Afro Sheen!

Hello again world and welcome back to my blog. For today's entry I've decided to showcase a vintage advertisement from the 1970's that speaks volumes both then and today. A few months ago, I watched on television the "Soul Train" retrospective that talked about the show's cultural significance through establishing new tastes in music, fashion and commerce. In terms of commerce, "Soul Train" creator Don Cornelius knew to market both his own production company as well as promote other black owned companies such as Johnson Hair Care products; this partnership is possibly its most remembered and lucrative, as Johnson's "Afro Sheen" products received heavy boosts in popularity and sales thanks to the commercial spots "Soul Train" would provide for them. One such commercial (which caught my eye during the airing of the retrospective) combines historic pride with common fashion sense of the day.



This commercial, which depicts the spirit of former slave and abolitionist Frederick Douglass promoting pride through the "proper wearing" of the natural Afro, is quite genius if you think about it. I think they picked the perfect symbol for this depiction, as Douglass was the only black leader to wear the natural Afro (as it were) in the 19th century. In the time of the 1970's the modern Afro hairstyle was at best a decade old, so finding a historic figure who wore their hair in that way further connected him to the modern black American by affirming the political and cultural meaning that the hairstyle would come to embody. It can be assumed that the creative director of this commercial picked up on this, as both Douglass and the modern teenage blacks of the 1970s had journeyed for both individualistic and societal freedom while proudly wearing this new, expressive hairstyle.



When I first saw this clip, I thought it was a bit comical at first, as I am of a generation where we hold a bit of cynicism and skepticism towards some older displays of black pride. However, I have come to have a great respect for it not just as an commercial ad but also, in a sense, as a public service announcement, as in both terms it shows that pride in ourselves, our history and our community can prove to be enriching towards financial and cultural means. Ads like these, unexpectedly targeted at specific communities more so than demographics, can cause us to investigate what determines something to be a force or value within a particular culture's way of life.



Well, 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.

Martin Luther King, Jr and the Young, Non-Southern Black Man

Hello again world and welcome back to my blog. In keeping with February's great tradition of Black History Month, today's entry will be about a man who I think is the only prophet America has ever produced, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. The video I posted above I found about a month ago via YouTube around the King holiday while I was searching for interviews and speeches he did, as well as documentary clips. Though the specific date of this speech is unknown, I'm assuming that he made that speech somewhere between the last two years of his life (1966-1968). When I first saw this video, I played it like it was the new single for at least two hours straight. It actually surprised me, chiefly because it was the first time I had ever heard Dr. King refer to himself and his people as "Black" as opposed to the term known to his generation, "Negro". But what I also noticed about his speech in this video is that it is a bit more outwardly radical then I had known him to be, keeping in mind that King IS a radical (you cannot accomplish goals like desegregation, voting rights, and true working pacifism unless you are radical). What makes it so "outwardly radical" is that I believe this statement must have come from his observations and the influence that the younger, "Black" generation of civil rights leaders would have on him.

Continuing my search for King information, I watched on YouTube the PBS special "Citizen King". This special focused on the last five years of his life, starting from his delivering the iconic "I Have A Dream" speech at the March on Washington and ending at his assassination and massively attended funeral. The years that primarily interested me were from 1965 to 1967- a period where he observed and experienced the life of the young, non-Southern Negro. This is the period that I believe brought King to the speech on that video. It begins with his stay in Chicago in 1966, inspired by his realization that he needed to understand the non-Southern Negro's (and underclass minorities overall) struggle with race and class disparities. This leads to his march to desegregate the Chicago suburb of Cicero where, in watching the footage of it, is easily most frightened and courageous I had seen him. The march turns into a caustic and dangerous event courtesy of its opposition, who may have been partly inspired by the counter demonstrations led by American Nazi Party leader George Lincoln Rockwell. Though some marchers began to lose their cool, King maintained his, even while being hit with bricks and stones, ducking from the sounds of firecrackers meant to depict gunshots. The experience of the Cicero march indeed shook him- he would go on to unfavorably compare the experience to those he had in Mississippi and Alabama- but it also gave him a semblance to the specific level of frustration and opposition non-Southern black America faced.



I believe that the experience of Chicago began King towards that speech I found on YouTube, and the inspiration towards that speech was continued by his experience with Stokely Carmichael while continuing James Meredith's "March Against Fear" in Mississippi in 1966. Carmichael, the newly appointed chairman of the Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), was the definition of the young black radical; he was a Pan-Africanist who didn't fully believe in nonviolence, sharing the view of the pre-hajj, Nation of Islam era Malcolm X in that whites couldn't really help in the fight for black and minority civil rights. During their time together leading the "March Against Fear", King and Carmichael understood that they served as diverging symbols of black leadership; King is of the generation where Negroes use nonviolent decorum to achieve their collective goal, and Carmichael represents the younger generation's ideal of "Black Power" to inspire a racially unitarian mindset. King is in fact cautious of Carmichael's "Black Power" philosophy, believing it to be a type of segregation that will lead to loneliness and destruction. However, this relationship does prove to be one of collaboration and respect, as through Carmichael King sees the non-Southern Black man in his total individual form. As "Citizen King" reports, it is also through Carmichael that King begins to interchangeably use the terms "Negro" and "Black", a fact that Carmichael would boast about to others for the rest of his life.

It is my assumption that stemming from his experiences in Chicago and with Carmichael, King now had a source of relation with the rise of the new, non-Southern black man. This newfound perspective taught him to be aware of the changes of "Black" America, as well as give him more cause to look at America as a whole nation. I think that by the time he made the speech I found on YouTube, he found a way to keep his nonviolent tactics and sensibilities yet embrace at least part of the newer generation's mantra; still not accepting the connotation of "Black Power", but ready to acknowledge that "Black is Beautiful". It is a bit ironic that King's assassination in 1968 would trigger his prophetic fears of "Black Power" to come true, as Black America would riot in major American cities in retaliation. Nevertheless, ALL of America- black, white, other colors and creeds, and even the world in general- have grown to greatly appreciate King's legacy of work in making this great land a more equal and tolerant playing field.

King's speech that I found on YouTube initially surprised me, but I also found it refreshing. Why? Because it is proven document of his forward thinking being specifically directed at his love for his people, an indication of entrusting them to make significant leaps and bounds in America's great landscape. This video makes me realize that the terminology of a people is far from just labeling, as what they call themselves dictates their future prosperity; I think that without a speech like that, a "Negro" calling himself "Black", we would have never elevated to making those superior leaps and bounds as "African Americans". King's realization couldn't have come from anywhere else but his experiences with the newer generation, as they taught him to understand them, their country, and time overall more accurately.

Well, 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.