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 Top Five Spike Lee Movies

Hello again world and welcome back to my blog. Today's entry is a retrospective of classic American cinema, as we count down the top five movies of filmmaker Spike Lee. As the prime years of his career range from the late 1980's to the 1990's, Lee (seen in the above photo as his Air Jordan saavy alter-ego Mars Blackmon) told stories of the modern black community, accurately depicting its views and opinions concerning racism, sexuality and class. His unique brand of realism would both counter the imaginary, superheroic "blaxploitation" era of a decade before, as well as usher in a cadre of black filmmakers who would be inspired to tell stories from their own specific point of view (i.e. John Singleton, Lee Daniels, and even Tyler Perry). Here are my top five Spike Lee movies, films that I think display his genius at mixing cultural, diasporic values with biting political commentary.

5. He Got Game (1998)



As we all know Spike to stay front row center at any given Knicks game, in "He Got Game" he uses the love of basketball to propel dissonance in the relationship between an estranged father and son.

4. School Daze (1988)



The satirical title for this film is accurately appropriate; it simultaneously praises and criticizes HBCUs while exploring deeper levels of difference in the black community regarding class, education and skin color.

3. Get On the Bus (1996)



Set against the backdrop of the Million Man March, "Get on the Bus" is a movie that I venture to say is truly specific to the black male audience. To attend the march, a small group of black men ride a charter bus cross-country from Los Angeles to Washington, D.C., in hopes of finding solidarity within their race and communities. As we watch the group's pilgrimage unfold, we observe every possible interpretation and relationship of the black man, ranging from old to young, father to son, convict to lawman, even homosexual to homophobic. Though their individual personalities and lifestyles do provide division, it is at a cost that the group ultimately achieves the solidarity they journeyed for.

2. Do the Right Thing (1989)



Hailed by many to be Spike's greatest film if not his best known, "Do the Right Thing" parallels the hottest day of the year with rising, explosive anger towards gentrification in a black neighborhood. It could be said that most of the characters in fact do not do the right thing; they talk at each other rather than to each other, and each side wants the other to accommodate their culture while not being willing to do so themselves. The arguing and frustration catapult the film's most memorable scenes, such as when the comedically defiant Buggin' Out and friends have a dispute with a white neighbor over scuffed Air Jordans, or when the movie's breakout character Radio Raheem has a semi-hostile interaction with Korean store owners while trying to buy batteries for his boombox. The ending of "Do the Right Thing" is intentionally ambiguous, I think because Spike wanted the audience to draw their own conclusions about what was right or wrong, racist or defensive.

1. Malcolm X (1992)



Through this telling of Malcolm's epic story, the combination of Spike's direct narrative with Denzel Washington's commanding performance accomplishes the impossible; it makes an already iconic figure more grandiose in legacy but also more relatable to a new generation. "Malcolm X" was a total labor of love for Spike, as he had to fight to direct, produce and finance the film to be as accurate to his vision as possible. The film brilliantly evaluates Malcolm's constant and truthful spiritual evolution by breaking his life up into four parts that intermingle when necessary to show genuine feeling or thought behind certain events. His fiery yet elegant persona is perfectly embodied by Denzel in what is one of the greatest acting performances I've ever seen.

In recent years, Spike's range has expanded through directing both stirring, thought provoking documentaries (4 Little Girls, When the Levees Broke) and feature films that have his core audience relate to non-black, outlaw type characters (25th Hour, Inside Man). While some of this latter signature-styled films (She Hate Me, Miracle at St. Anna) have been more serious in subject matter but less playful in depiction, they nevertheless showcase his continued ability to tell stories accurate to black American society both historical and current. I hope that he will continue in this style in his upcoming remake of the Korean film "Oldboy", as some of the principles of that story can be amended towards his point of view. Though some of his releases have been initially recieved as controversial and insulting, Spike Lee used his movies to help the advance for "culture clash" in modern American society, as he pushes his audience into observing then relating to other races and cultures more in a common ground.

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

Why is Batman Better than Superman?

Hello again world, and welcome back to my blog. Today's entry is basically an opinion piece; it revolves around my love for comic books, but has some philosophical and realistic relevancy to it. Ever since I could remember, I've been a Batman fan thanks to the movies, tv shows and comic books; I truly think he is the ultimate superhero in comic book history. But, in terms of strength and cultural relevance, a lot of people cite Superman as the greatest of all time. I can't say I don't see their reasoning, as Superman is the main archetype for every superhero that has followed him since his appearance in 1938- maybe even Batman, who made his first appearance one year later. However, this great reason is not enough for me to give Superman the title of greatest superhero over Batman- I've thought about this for a very long time, and now I'm ready to give my reasons why.

I'll start with the most obvious reason; Batman is much more a media "mogul" than Superman. You see, Batman is the one superhero who is both timeless and timely, as he can be cultivated around the pop culture of different eras. Prime examples of this are Adam West's quasi-comedic Batman of the 1960's, Michael Keaton being the omnipresent yet mysterious Batman of 1989, and the brooding, sorrowful vigilante that Christian Bale's interpretation is of today. Compare these vast interpretations against the Superman interpreted by the late Christopher Reeve and Brandon Routh (I cannot include George Reeves's interpretation of the 1950s tv show as I have never seen it); although these are fine performances, they are the same exact interpretation,and save from the time they are made you cannot tell one from the other. Many audiences spend more of their money on Batman merchandising and media; in fact, the current Batman visionary Christopher Nolan was hired by Warner Bros to conceptualize and produce a new vision of Superman because of he and Christian Bale's success with Batman.
Also, be sure to include the animated series of both characters; the animated Batman series of the 1990's is so popular and classic that is rated as one of the best cartoons of all time. Who really can debate that argument? At one time during the height of its popularity,it aired during prime time on Sunday nights. I actually think that Kevin Conroy (the voice of Batman) was so convincing that maybe it influenced the type of Batman that is of today. Superman's animated series was good, but again the character (by himself) is one dimensional and kinda physically weak; I mean, I know he was fighting fellow aliens and metahumans, but it always took the most out of him, then finding the strength to win at the last minute.

This leads into my next reason, being that Batman is the mentally superior of the two; and honestly not just of Superman but of many other superheroes and quite a few supervillains. Albeit, this is truly the most "nature vs. nurture" of my reasons, Superman being simply "anointed" with brute strength as Batman has to work towards many physical and psychological endeavors to become the crimefighter that he is. But it plays into their depths in the most definitive ways, as Batman cannot go into an adventure unprepared, and must be knowledgeable of and ready for the various outcomes; Superman doesn't really have that ability. You may say,'Well, he doesnt NEED that ability', but I think he may need it more than Batman, again because of the physical level of villain he fights. Now I will be fair; there are times that Superman does plan out some details, and it's not necessary for him to be the tactical genius quite like Batman. But what I am saying is for the most part Superman's initial form of attack is basic brawling, leading his villains to know how to at least incapacitate him for a while (i.e. Kryptonite). With Batman, however, there is a lot of range in his fighting and tactical skills, therefore his villains need to find different ways to attack him.

From here we go into the "meat and potatoes" of these heroes' mythology and lore, as we see how each hero shapes their community. Let us start with the villains they face; there is no shadow of a doubt that Batman has the best rouge's gallery of any comic book hero EVER. I mean, unless you're a comic book head or a Superman head, can you really name more of his archenemies than Batman's off the top of your head? I myself can name five or seven of Superman's, then eight to eleven of Batman's. From my perspective, Batman's enemies are more fearsome than Superman's because of- again- of their mental capability, as well as their unequivocal hunger for power and dominance. Look at how their villains go at their opponents; most of Superman's villains go personally at him because they realize he is the top power to either restrain or conquer. Prime examples of this are Darkseid, Bizzaro, and his archvillain Lex Luthor. The villains of Gotham City, however, want power entirely and are interested in generating it not from their hero but from the terror they bring from themselves- they know they would have to defeat Batman in order to further pursue power, not attain it. Also, Batman's villains serve as a "quadratic equation" towards himself considering his own personality and crusade; the Penguin makes him question his elitist inclinations, Catwoman (at her best) makes him question his self-denial of true love, and the Riddler is a dark depiction of his intellectual prowess and superiority. Superman has villains that make him question his discipline and self-restraint (Lex Luthor, Darkseid, Brainiac), but none that challenge his approach towards them. That might serve a point for him, I'll give you that one.



Let us not forget that Batman has not just the greatest rouge's gallery ever, but also the greatest villain ever- The Joker. This is the prime example of what a supervillain should be; he is every step Batman's equal as his competitor. Like Batman, he is calculating, uncompromising, and knows he serves as a symbol of choice. The vendetta between the Joker and Batman is more personal than any other of his enemies, as the Joker not only challenges Batman's true existence but will also fatally and/or gravely injure Batman's allies (Jason Todd/ Robin, Barbara Gordon) in his quest for total dominance of Gotham City. Yes, it is undisputed that the Joker is by no means a physical threat to Superman- and really, not even Batman- but I'm also sure that The Joker would find a way to push Superman's discipline of self-restraint to the maximum as he has Batman's.

So in fighting these villains, you must create, teach, and call upon a great army for assistance, this being where Batman truly shines. The "Batman Family" is unlike anything before it, and its best rival could be Professor Xavier and the X-Men. Batman actually takes people in like himself and trains them to be great warriors, then has them become a part of a great network at which he is the nucleus of. It's a pretty impressive count consisting of various Robins (spawning a Nightwing, Red Robin, and another Batman)and Batgirls, Huntress and even Catwoman among others. Like their primary leader/nucleus, most of these proteges and allies have no superpowers to speak of, so instead they are worked with from the ground up to become just as physical, perceptive and tactical. Not that Superman isn't a great leader himself, but in these regards Batman has this way over on him. Yes, he has allies and somewhat proteges such as Supergirl and Superboy, but as was with his own case, he didn't have to teach them much about using their physical capabilities on Earth. As for Superman leading the Justice League, Superman is more of a main delegate than primary leader; I really don't think you can tell other primary heroes (in a group which includes Batman) how to fight injustice in a way specific and/or similar to your own.



Before I give my last and most important reason why Batman is the best superhero over Superman, let me pose this question; Which city would you rather live in, Superman's Metropolis or Batman's Gotham City? My answer, of course, is Metropolis. I know; right now you're thinking "You spent all this time saying the best superhero is Batman yet you would live in Metropolis?". Let me explain why. In Metropolis I would be protected, no question, but I would be protected from evils that I cannot either foresee or really fight against- the only "person" who could fight that evil is Superman, who, to an ironic degree, is the person (and power) that attracts it. Therefore, I theorize in this sense that Metropolis is the closest realization to a utopia in comic books, as to be a citizen of Gotham City you couldn't be uninvolved in the war between good and evil and must play a part. This main reason bases all the others I've previously cited that Batman is better than Superman- because whereas Superman is a savior, Batman is a symbol. To be a savior is a great attribute, don't get me wrong, but being a savior is an attribute only non-humans- aliens or gods i.e. Superman- can attain. However, humans can be symbols to one another, inspiring works and accomplishments never before imagined. This is Batman's greatness over Superman, I feel; he truly shows that one man can make a difference and inspire a movement towards the best and worst extremes.

Well, that's about it folks. By the way, all the artwork displayed on this entry was completed by the iconic comic book artist Jim Lee. 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.