Dear White People
Director: Justin Simien
Writer: Justin Simien
Cast: Tyler James Williams, Tessa Thompson, Kyle Gallner, Teyonah Parris, Brandon P Bell, Brittany Curran, Justin Dobies, Dennis Haysbert, Peter Syvertsen
Overview
A comedy about a group of black students at the prestigious (and fictional) Winchester College, Dear White People manages to make plenty of provocative observations about the state of race relations in the United States, in addition to being both entertaining and funny.
Synopsis
When the prestigious (and presumably Ivy League) Winchester College decides to engage in randomized housing assignments, it threatens to break up the Armstrong/Parker House -- the house which represents the heart of black student life at Winchester College. When the current the head of Armstrong/Parker, Troy (Brandon Bell) fails to protest the new policy, Samantha White (Tessa Thompson) runs against him and to her surprise ends up winning. Sam, who is famous on campus for her in-your-face radio show called Dear White People, sets out to overturn the new housing policy, while dealing with a serious of personal issues. These include the failing health of her white father and the complexities of navigating an inter-racial relationship when one is the face of black resistance on a mostly white campus. While all of this is going on, nerdy student journalist, Lionel (Tyler James Williams), tries to get the scoop on the situation while facing down both homophobia and racism. Further complications arise when Coco (Teyonah Parris) in an attempt to generate conflict so she can be featured in a reality TV series, agrees to DJ for a racist blackface party that will be thrown on campus.
The Queering
Recently, I had a conversation with a few other people that went approximately as follows:
Person 1: So, why did you move to Minnesota?
Me: Because my partner got a job teaching at [local college].
Person 2: Oh nice! What does she teach?
Me: Um well *he* teaches penology.
Person 1: She teaches penology? What's that?
Me: Er, it's the study of prisons. That's what *he* teaches.
Person 2: The study of prisons, eh? That sounds interesting. I might take a class with her.
My partner, as it were, has a similar story of living next door to someone for years, and talking about his (then) boyfriend using male pronouns all the time and the other person, in all of those years, never realizing that my partner was dating another man.
Moments like this, at the end of the day, are easy to brush off as trivial. A minor pin prick, nothing more. But shrugging off each trivial incident can take a little bit more energy each time, eventually becoming simply exhausting to deal with. Some off us develop means of deflecting minor incidents, such as the above. Our skin becomes calloused and tough. Others are not so lucky. If one finds oneself saying, "but it was only a pin prick, it shouldn't have hurt them!" remember this: the place you stabbed was quite likely an open, gaping wound.
Dear White People deals quite frankly with a topic that few films, even amongst those that explicitly care to address the issue of racism, direct their attention toward - that of micro-aggressions. There are no lynchings, no people of color falsely accused of a terrible crime, and no mention of the KKK. When the police show up, it's to break up a party and the only person arrested is a white male who's in the process of beating up Lionel.
Instead, the topics that do get addressed are the lack of representation of interesting and complex people of color in the media, white people constantly touching black people's hair (Lionel refers to his hairdo as a black hole for white people's fingers), and having to deal with a white people simply dating a black partner, for no greater reason than to piss off their parents.
One of the most visceral sequences (not to mention a fairly brilliant one from a writing and technical perspective) has Sam explaining three different patterns black people can fall into when interacting with white people. There's the offta, who dials their blackness up or down depending on the audience, the nosejob, who exchanges their blackness for whiteness, and the 100, or someone who is 100% okay with being black. What makes this sequence so compelling is the way Simien intercuts between different black characters who are all exhibiting the exact behaviors Sam is describing.
Sam, we are told, is a big fan of Bergman, and with two characters (the dean and the president of the college) being described in a perpetual chess match, it would appear that Simien is trying to draw a parallel between the infamous chess match played with death in The Seventh Seal and the constant strategizing black people go through when interacting with white folks.
With the films constant focus on issues of race, Simien naturally has been compared by just about everybody to Spike Lee. However, with Simien coming at the film's premier as gay, a more natural antecedent would be Cheryl Dunye who directed The Watermelon Woman. There is more than a bit of Cheryl (the character Dunye played in The Watermelon Woman) in Samantha White, mixed with Honey, the radio DJ from Born in Flames, (a film Dunye was not involved with).
Dear White People does admittedly make a few missteps along the way. The ending feels a little anti-climactic, some of the melodrama doesn't always work, and a couple of major plot points are a bit confusing. However, these elements don't detract from the overall impact of the film. Based on what he achieved here, I look forward to whatever project Justin Simien chooses to work on next.
Recommendation
Highly recommended. Dear White People would be worth going through all the admission processes at all of the most difficult Ivy League Colleges to get into in order to see.
The Rating
3 and 1/2 stars out of 4
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Racism. Show all posts
September 9, 2015
May 26, 2014
Setting the Record Queer: Stonewall - Those Who Forget History Are Doomed to Repeat the Same Myths About it
I can recall back when I was a young teenager having breakfast one morning when my mom, while flipping through the newspaper said, "I see that Independence Day is rated PG-13".
"Uh uh," I replied, not really paying attention. I had seen trailers galore up until that point and my snobbish teenage self (go figure) had decided that the movie had looked boring and derivative.
"Do you want to see it?" my mom asked.
"No," I answered, although at this point my curiosity was peaked a little. Why would my mom of all people want to see what was essentially a sci-fi shoot-em-up? Well, a shoot-em-up where aliens shoot up major cities with flaming walls of flame.
She shrugged, and said, "Well, I thought it might be educational".
The advertising at the time for Independence Day had been so ubiquitous with giant alien space craft blowing up human civilization that it took took me a moment to realize what was going on here.
"Um.... mom," I replied, "you should know that the movie Independence Day isn't actually about the American Revolution..."
Skip ahead 18 years and the openly gay director of Independence Day Roland Emmerich, is now promising to make a movie about an actual historical event. Specifically the Stonewall Riots that launched the LGBTQ rights movement.
When it comes to getting the history of the Stonewall Riots "correct" I am leary of Emmerich for reasons that have nothing to do with his reputation as a purveyor of derivative action flicks, but because of Emmerichs' involvement in the film Anonymous which relays the story of Shakespeare but is set in an alternative universe where the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship happens to be true. For those unfamiliar with the theory, it posits that William Shakespeare was not the "real" author of the plays, sonnets, and poems now attributed to him. Long story short, it's a conspiracy theory that has little basis in actual historical facts.
What might be the Osfordian Theory's worst sin though, is the way it erases (possibly unintentionally) some of the best evidence that William Shakespeare experienced same sex desire. By this I mean the conspiracy theory here ultimately sets out to explain why Shakespeare dedicated his romantic sonnets to a man by eliminating the possibility that the dedication was romantically inclined. As such the Oxford Theory posits that the dedications are evidence for the conspiracy, rather then the icky possibility that one the finest English writers ever (or so English scholars say, I could barely understand him personally) had same sex desires.
What I find troubling at this point in the production (which is set to begin filming this summer) is that thus far it appears to focus on white, gay characters. The IMDB page for the movie lists Jeremy Irvine, Calab Landry Jones, and Karl Glusman as those who have been cast thus far. In addition, the plot is described as:
Whatever issue Emmerich has with being derivative, historically speaking this is a problem because it means that the next Stonewall Riot flick is going to be regurgitating the erasure of transgender/transsexual and gender non-conforming people of color from queer history. In addition, there is the history of transgender rights activists, such as Sylvia Riveria and Martha P. Johnson, also being erased from the Stonewall Narrative.
Even the films' Facebook page gets in on the act by stating:
And in casting calls for extras for the movie, the only word that shows up is "gay". Not LGBT, not Queer, gays only. Bisexual, lesbian, and Transgender, Transsexual, and gender non-conforming folks need not apply.
Normally, I wouldn't make a big deal out of mere word choice, but the erasure of transgender, transsexual, and gender non-conforming folks in addition to people of color specifically from the Stonewall Narrative has gone on for too long and is simply too extensive to be allowed to pass without comment.
In any case, one can only hope that Emmerichs' Stonewall has more in common with the actual riots than his movie about Will Smith saving the world from aliens had with the American Revolution. Too bad the prospect of that actually happening looks about as good as the world ending in 2012.
"Uh uh," I replied, not really paying attention. I had seen trailers galore up until that point and my snobbish teenage self (go figure) had decided that the movie had looked boring and derivative.
"Do you want to see it?" my mom asked.
"No," I answered, although at this point my curiosity was peaked a little. Why would my mom of all people want to see what was essentially a sci-fi shoot-em-up? Well, a shoot-em-up where aliens shoot up major cities with flaming walls of flame.
She shrugged, and said, "Well, I thought it might be educational".
The advertising at the time for Independence Day had been so ubiquitous with giant alien space craft blowing up human civilization that it took took me a moment to realize what was going on here.
"Um.... mom," I replied, "you should know that the movie Independence Day isn't actually about the American Revolution..."
Skip ahead 18 years and the openly gay director of Independence Day Roland Emmerich, is now promising to make a movie about an actual historical event. Specifically the Stonewall Riots that launched the LGBTQ rights movement.
When it comes to getting the history of the Stonewall Riots "correct" I am leary of Emmerich for reasons that have nothing to do with his reputation as a purveyor of derivative action flicks, but because of Emmerichs' involvement in the film Anonymous which relays the story of Shakespeare but is set in an alternative universe where the Oxfordian theory of Shakespeare authorship happens to be true. For those unfamiliar with the theory, it posits that William Shakespeare was not the "real" author of the plays, sonnets, and poems now attributed to him. Long story short, it's a conspiracy theory that has little basis in actual historical facts.
What might be the Osfordian Theory's worst sin though, is the way it erases (possibly unintentionally) some of the best evidence that William Shakespeare experienced same sex desire. By this I mean the conspiracy theory here ultimately sets out to explain why Shakespeare dedicated his romantic sonnets to a man by eliminating the possibility that the dedication was romantically inclined. As such the Oxford Theory posits that the dedications are evidence for the conspiracy, rather then the icky possibility that one the finest English writers ever (or so English scholars say, I could barely understand him personally) had same sex desires.
What I find troubling at this point in the production (which is set to begin filming this summer) is that thus far it appears to focus on white, gay characters. The IMDB page for the movie lists Jeremy Irvine, Calab Landry Jones, and Karl Glusman as those who have been cast thus far. In addition, the plot is described as:
A young man's political awakening and coming of age during the days and weeks leading up to the Stonewall Riots.Note that it says "man". Not "trans man". Not a "drag queen". Just "man". Also is it just me or does it sound like this is the plot of the 1995 Stonewall film directed by Nigel Finch? I realize that being about the same event could easily lead to similar plots on their own, but Emmerich sounds like even his historical epic is going to be a rip-off.
Whatever issue Emmerich has with being derivative, historically speaking this is a problem because it means that the next Stonewall Riot flick is going to be regurgitating the erasure of transgender/transsexual and gender non-conforming people of color from queer history. In addition, there is the history of transgender rights activists, such as Sylvia Riveria and Martha P. Johnson, also being erased from the Stonewall Narrative.
Even the films' Facebook page gets in on the act by stating:
"Stonewall" will tell the story of the men and women of the modern Gay Rights movement and the establishment where it all took place: The Stonewall Inn.
And in casting calls for extras for the movie, the only word that shows up is "gay". Not LGBT, not Queer, gays only. Bisexual, lesbian, and Transgender, Transsexual, and gender non-conforming folks need not apply.
Normally, I wouldn't make a big deal out of mere word choice, but the erasure of transgender, transsexual, and gender non-conforming folks in addition to people of color specifically from the Stonewall Narrative has gone on for too long and is simply too extensive to be allowed to pass without comment.
In any case, one can only hope that Emmerichs' Stonewall has more in common with the actual riots than his movie about Will Smith saving the world from aliens had with the American Revolution. Too bad the prospect of that actually happening looks about as good as the world ending in 2012.
October 20, 2013
Queer Review: Keep the River on Your Right: A Modern Cannibal Tale (2000)
Keep the River on Your Right: A Modern Cannibal Tale
Directors: David Shapiro, Laurie Gwen Shapiro
Writers: David Shapiro, Laurie Gwen Shapiro
Cast: Tobias Schneebaum
Overview
An intellectually stimulating documentary about the controversial Tobias Schneebaum which analyzes the lined between civilization and the wilderness; between the other and the not-other.
Synopsis
Tobias Schneebaum created a brief stir when he emerged from the Amazon wilds with tales of having eaten human flesh and made love with the males of the Arakmbut tribe. The documentary follows the modern day Tobias Schneebaum as he returns to the Amazon to revisit the places that he had once lived.
The Queering
It is difficult to know exactly where to begin in a review of Keep the River on Your Right: A Modern Cannibal Tale. For starters the issue of cannibalism may be the films least interesting element. In many ways it's almost a McGuffin. We never actually see anybody eating anyone else, although the topic is broached at several points, while like any good McGuffin, the film ultimately is not about cannibalism at all, it's simply a device to drive the rest of the plot. What the filmmakers are more interested in exploring is the line that divides the civilized from the uncivilized, or if any such distinction can be made.
Of course, Tobias Schneebaum is an interesting individual in his own right. He comes across as charismatic, yet naive, open minded and without guile, but frequently takes a patronizing attitude towards the individuals and tribe that he once studied. He suggests openly the that the closeness that the Arakmbut live with nature make them superior to Western Civilization.
The thing is, his attitude is not uncommon. Our society has this weird, almost hypocritical dichotomy where the civilized world is set up as superior to the uncivilized, but the natural is thought of a superior to the unnatural. Just think about that for a little bit. But as David Wong once said in this Cracked article, "there are two ways to dehumanize someone: by dismissing them, and by idolizing them."
And perhaps this is the downfall of the nature is superior line of thinking for it implies that those who live in harmony with nature live outside the realm of human laws. Yet there are no known societies/group of humans that functions without laws or methods of resolving interpersonal disputes, even non-technologically advanced societies.
For an example of this kind of thinking, watch the following video about an uncontacted (by western civilization at least) tribe in the Amazon, is described as "the last free people on earth", because you know, primitive savages lacking advanced technology are *obviously* too feeble minded to develop rules and systems of laws.
Sorry non-westerners, we Superior Beings can just know this kind of thing simply taking long distance photos of you.
Perhaps the most pertinent statement Keep the River on Your Right is made when one academics points out how weird it is for someone to walk into another persons home and start asking that person questions about their sex lives. In Western Society after all, this would generally be considered stalking and trespassing. Apparently, all rules are bendable, particularly for the rule makers.
Like any good documentarians, David and Laurie Gwen Shapiro make little effort to provide concrete answers to the questions that they are raising. Instead they document as many perspectives as the format allows and then assemble the most relevant of those into a coherent motion picture. The final result is as compelling a tale as could be made from this material.
Recommendation
Worth fording many a river in order to see.
The Rating
*** out of ****
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Directors: David Shapiro, Laurie Gwen Shapiro
Writers: David Shapiro, Laurie Gwen Shapiro
Cast: Tobias Schneebaum
Overview
An intellectually stimulating documentary about the controversial Tobias Schneebaum which analyzes the lined between civilization and the wilderness; between the other and the not-other.
Synopsis
Tobias Schneebaum created a brief stir when he emerged from the Amazon wilds with tales of having eaten human flesh and made love with the males of the Arakmbut tribe. The documentary follows the modern day Tobias Schneebaum as he returns to the Amazon to revisit the places that he had once lived.
The Queering
It is difficult to know exactly where to begin in a review of Keep the River on Your Right: A Modern Cannibal Tale. For starters the issue of cannibalism may be the films least interesting element. In many ways it's almost a McGuffin. We never actually see anybody eating anyone else, although the topic is broached at several points, while like any good McGuffin, the film ultimately is not about cannibalism at all, it's simply a device to drive the rest of the plot. What the filmmakers are more interested in exploring is the line that divides the civilized from the uncivilized, or if any such distinction can be made.
Of course, Tobias Schneebaum is an interesting individual in his own right. He comes across as charismatic, yet naive, open minded and without guile, but frequently takes a patronizing attitude towards the individuals and tribe that he once studied. He suggests openly the that the closeness that the Arakmbut live with nature make them superior to Western Civilization.
The thing is, his attitude is not uncommon. Our society has this weird, almost hypocritical dichotomy where the civilized world is set up as superior to the uncivilized, but the natural is thought of a superior to the unnatural. Just think about that for a little bit. But as David Wong once said in this Cracked article, "there are two ways to dehumanize someone: by dismissing them, and by idolizing them."
And perhaps this is the downfall of the nature is superior line of thinking for it implies that those who live in harmony with nature live outside the realm of human laws. Yet there are no known societies/group of humans that functions without laws or methods of resolving interpersonal disputes, even non-technologically advanced societies.
For an example of this kind of thinking, watch the following video about an uncontacted (by western civilization at least) tribe in the Amazon, is described as "the last free people on earth", because you know, primitive savages lacking advanced technology are *obviously* too feeble minded to develop rules and systems of laws.
Sorry non-westerners, we Superior Beings can just know this kind of thing simply taking long distance photos of you.
Perhaps the most pertinent statement Keep the River on Your Right is made when one academics points out how weird it is for someone to walk into another persons home and start asking that person questions about their sex lives. In Western Society after all, this would generally be considered stalking and trespassing. Apparently, all rules are bendable, particularly for the rule makers.
Like any good documentarians, David and Laurie Gwen Shapiro make little effort to provide concrete answers to the questions that they are raising. Instead they document as many perspectives as the format allows and then assemble the most relevant of those into a coherent motion picture. The final result is as compelling a tale as could be made from this material.
Recommendation
Worth fording many a river in order to see.
The Rating
*** out of ****
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
August 27, 2013
Queer Issue: When Bigotry is Addressed in Fiction, It's All or Nothing
Last night, while watching the Buffy spinoff Angel episode "Are Now or Have You Ever Been"on Netflix streaming, during a flashback set in the 1950's I noticed a brief moment where a black family was being turned away from a hotel while the hotel manager went on and on about the "Vacancy" sign out front was "a mistake". For those with a smidgen of knowledge of history will recognize this as a nod to the horrible practice of hotels and other businesses would outright refuse crucial services to people of color. The point of course, was to make it next to impossible for people of color to travel or engage in certain kinds of business.
For a little while into the Angel episode I thought that this would be it, that this would be an isolated moment in the story. Well, it turned out I was wrong. While giving away the relevant plot details would be rather spoilerish of me, I will say that the episode ended up addressing racism in a rather significant fashion.
Of course, during the time where I found myself assuming that the episode was not going to substantially address racism, I got to thinking. It seems to me that whenever a story/novel/movie/tv show episode, wants to address racism/homophobia/transphobia/biphobia/ableism/sexism** it almost always does so in a Very Big Way. Maybe not a Very Special Episode Way, but usually it will come close. There is almost never a passing reference to a minor example of bigotry or an example of a micro-aggression regularly faced by a minority group, unless it is worked into a narrative that is specifically intended to focus on one of the aforementioned *isms.
This in of itself, is not a bad thing. Obviously given my hobby of reviewing queer films, I think that more films (and other works of fiction) need to do more towards presenting the experiences of the LGBTQ population and other minorities as well.
However, wouldn't it be nice if more writers and other producers of fiction, were willing and able to include references to micro-aggressions as well passing nods to the bigotry faced by minority groups regularly as part of narratives that are not intended to focus primarily on some form of bigotry?
It does become something of an issue, me thinks, for works of fiction to only address "big issues", as it means that there is little focus on the daily lived experiences of most minorities. Focusing on "minor issues in passing" could go a long way towards changing that. Not of course as a substitute for "Big Issue" narratives, but in addition to.
Just some food for thought.
**I list these as those are all of the *isms that I can recall off the top of my head as having been addressed in some significant fashion by a major work of fiction. Obviously there is a small fortune of isms' that aren't being addressed at all or in a significant fashion.
For a little while into the Angel episode I thought that this would be it, that this would be an isolated moment in the story. Well, it turned out I was wrong. While giving away the relevant plot details would be rather spoilerish of me, I will say that the episode ended up addressing racism in a rather significant fashion.
Of course, during the time where I found myself assuming that the episode was not going to substantially address racism, I got to thinking. It seems to me that whenever a story/novel/movie/tv show episode, wants to address racism/homophobia/transphobia/biphobia/ableism/sexism** it almost always does so in a Very Big Way. Maybe not a Very Special Episode Way, but usually it will come close. There is almost never a passing reference to a minor example of bigotry or an example of a micro-aggression regularly faced by a minority group, unless it is worked into a narrative that is specifically intended to focus on one of the aforementioned *isms.
This in of itself, is not a bad thing. Obviously given my hobby of reviewing queer films, I think that more films (and other works of fiction) need to do more towards presenting the experiences of the LGBTQ population and other minorities as well.
However, wouldn't it be nice if more writers and other producers of fiction, were willing and able to include references to micro-aggressions as well passing nods to the bigotry faced by minority groups regularly as part of narratives that are not intended to focus primarily on some form of bigotry?
It does become something of an issue, me thinks, for works of fiction to only address "big issues", as it means that there is little focus on the daily lived experiences of most minorities. Focusing on "minor issues in passing" could go a long way towards changing that. Not of course as a substitute for "Big Issue" narratives, but in addition to.
Just some food for thought.
**I list these as those are all of the *isms that I can recall off the top of my head as having been addressed in some significant fashion by a major work of fiction. Obviously there is a small fortune of isms' that aren't being addressed at all or in a significant fashion.
May 11, 2013
Queer Review: The Naked Gun: From the Files of the Police Squad! (1988)
The Naked Gun: From the Files of the Police Squad!
Director: David Zucker
Writers: Jerry Zucker, Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, and Pat Proft
Cast: Leslie Nielsen, Priscilla Presley, Ricardo Montalban, George Kennedy, O.J. Simpson, Nancy Marchand, Raye Birk, Jeannette Charles
Overview
The Naked Gun is an absurdest parody of film noir and detective stories, featuring the bumbling antics of Detective Frank Drebin (Leslie Nielsen). Beware of the naked homophobia and racism in this one.
Synopsis
When LAPD Detective Frank Drebins' partner, Detective Nordberg (OJ Simpson), is nearly killed by a gang of thugs, Drebin begins his investigation by interviewing the wealthy Vincent Ludwig (Ricardo Montalban). Drebin uncovers clues that lead him to believe that Ludwig is behind a plot to assassinate Queen Elizabeth II (Jeannette Charles) while she is visiting Los Angelos. Meanwhile, he starts an impromptu romance with Jane Spencer (Priscilla Presley). However, no one will believe Drebin and after a series of mishapes, he finds himself without a job. Can Frank Drebin unmask who is behind the plot to assassinate the Queen of England and save the day?
The Queering
The opening scene for The Naked Gun features a white cop beating up a bunch of ethnic (and stereotypical) terrorists. The next scene has a black cop getting his ass handed to him by a bunch of white thugs in a sequence straight out of a Looney Toons cartoon. Later, there's a sequence where a black man menaces the Queen of England.
...racist subtext? What racist subtext?! I don't see no stinking racist subtext!?! Where is D.W. Griffith when you need him?
And I haven't even gotten to Vincent Ludwig, who happens to collect Ming Vases, expensive artwork, and also likes "German boys". I cannot honestly recall a film that wore it's homophobia and racism so openly. Granted, the The Naked Gun is able to get away with a lot due to this being a comedy, but after so many years of watching and reviewing films, there are certain things that are hard to simply ignore.
Now admittedly, there are bits where Drebin commits egregious acts of gender transgression that are rather funny. For example, there is a shot where Drebin lifts his leg up while he kisses Jane. In the scene where she takes her top off, he takes his shirt off in a manor that is visually very similar. And when he goes to break up with her, he claims that he "faked every orgasm".
But there comes a point where I cannot find too much of a silver lining in any film. Yes, Drebin gets to commit gender transgressions and act gay at times, such as when he feels up two baseball teams trying to find a would be assassin. But I cannot help but feel that this is all okay, not just because this is a comedy, but because Drebin is presented as being completely incompetent and bumbling. That is the whole joke of the film. The inadvertent mayhem that Drebin frequently causes, is the result of the same forces that makes it appear that he is about to sodomize an unconscious baseball umpire. The subtext here is that if Drebin were competent, he would not be making these gender transgressive "mistakes". Nope, only competent men act like men, not women, even in comedies.
Overall, the humor is occasionally able to redeem the film... sometimes. I laughed here and there at bits like when Drebin looks up at Jane on a ladder in front of a bookshelf and he says, "Nice beaver." It turns out it was an actual beaver when Jane hands him one that's been mounted and stuffed. But funny or not, there is no getting around the rather horrible bigotry on display here.
Recommendation
I cannot recommend that anybody play either naked or clothed with this particular weapon.
The Rating
*1/2 out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
Director: David Zucker
Writers: Jerry Zucker, Jim Abrahams, David Zucker, and Pat Proft
Cast: Leslie Nielsen, Priscilla Presley, Ricardo Montalban, George Kennedy, O.J. Simpson, Nancy Marchand, Raye Birk, Jeannette Charles
Overview
The Naked Gun is an absurdest parody of film noir and detective stories, featuring the bumbling antics of Detective Frank Drebin (Leslie Nielsen). Beware of the naked homophobia and racism in this one.
Synopsis
When LAPD Detective Frank Drebins' partner, Detective Nordberg (OJ Simpson), is nearly killed by a gang of thugs, Drebin begins his investigation by interviewing the wealthy Vincent Ludwig (Ricardo Montalban). Drebin uncovers clues that lead him to believe that Ludwig is behind a plot to assassinate Queen Elizabeth II (Jeannette Charles) while she is visiting Los Angelos. Meanwhile, he starts an impromptu romance with Jane Spencer (Priscilla Presley). However, no one will believe Drebin and after a series of mishapes, he finds himself without a job. Can Frank Drebin unmask who is behind the plot to assassinate the Queen of England and save the day?
The Queering
The opening scene for The Naked Gun features a white cop beating up a bunch of ethnic (and stereotypical) terrorists. The next scene has a black cop getting his ass handed to him by a bunch of white thugs in a sequence straight out of a Looney Toons cartoon. Later, there's a sequence where a black man menaces the Queen of England.
...racist subtext? What racist subtext?! I don't see no stinking racist subtext!?! Where is D.W. Griffith when you need him?
And I haven't even gotten to Vincent Ludwig, who happens to collect Ming Vases, expensive artwork, and also likes "German boys". I cannot honestly recall a film that wore it's homophobia and racism so openly. Granted, the The Naked Gun is able to get away with a lot due to this being a comedy, but after so many years of watching and reviewing films, there are certain things that are hard to simply ignore.
Now admittedly, there are bits where Drebin commits egregious acts of gender transgression that are rather funny. For example, there is a shot where Drebin lifts his leg up while he kisses Jane. In the scene where she takes her top off, he takes his shirt off in a manor that is visually very similar. And when he goes to break up with her, he claims that he "faked every orgasm".
But there comes a point where I cannot find too much of a silver lining in any film. Yes, Drebin gets to commit gender transgressions and act gay at times, such as when he feels up two baseball teams trying to find a would be assassin. But I cannot help but feel that this is all okay, not just because this is a comedy, but because Drebin is presented as being completely incompetent and bumbling. That is the whole joke of the film. The inadvertent mayhem that Drebin frequently causes, is the result of the same forces that makes it appear that he is about to sodomize an unconscious baseball umpire. The subtext here is that if Drebin were competent, he would not be making these gender transgressive "mistakes". Nope, only competent men act like men, not women, even in comedies.
Overall, the humor is occasionally able to redeem the film... sometimes. I laughed here and there at bits like when Drebin looks up at Jane on a ladder in front of a bookshelf and he says, "Nice beaver." It turns out it was an actual beaver when Jane hands him one that's been mounted and stuffed. But funny or not, there is no getting around the rather horrible bigotry on display here.
Recommendation
I cannot recommend that anybody play either naked or clothed with this particular weapon.
The Rating
*1/2 out of ****
Trailer
Want to find a review of a particular work? Check out the Title Index, the archive of all reviews posted listed alphabetically.
March 2, 2013
If it's not one thing...
There is a part of me that is tempted to issue some sort of "sorry for not posting more often" apology thing, but given the fact that I'm not exactly under any obligation to put my writing out there on a regular basis, I do this for myself as much as anything else, I'm not sure there is much point in doing so.
In any case one reason for there not being too many posts recently was that two weeks ago, just after I was done getting all nice and settled into the new apartment and starting to get into a regular schedule with regards to my classes at Wilkes-Barre, I get the news that my grandmother passed away. I of course then went down to Maryland to be with my father on that Sunday. Thus, the last two weekends, which probably would have gone towards catching up on my reading for college, were spent driving around, spending some time with my father, and attending the memorial service.
While I was in Towson the first weekend, my Uncle Bruce and I went for a walk through a nearby federal park/historic site of a former slave plantation, called the Ridgely Plantation. While we were walking towards the site, my uncle gave me a brief lecture about the site. About how the planation had been used to manufacture arms during the Revolutionary war and such.
When we got to the site, there was one thing that stuck out and actually bothered me a little bit. Not something I want to devote a whole blog post to, but still worth pointing out. Around the plantation and various buildings, there were these signs that had information about the history of the site. Now I did not get a chance to look at all the signs, of the few that I did, all but one used the term "worker" rather than "slave". The one exception was the sign outside the slave quarters that actually identified the building as being the slave quarters. What made this really odd, was the fact that other terms like "master" "owner" and "overseers", were still used by whoever wrote the signs up.
Just a minor example of historical erasure I thought I'd bring to people's attention.
In any case one reason for there not being too many posts recently was that two weeks ago, just after I was done getting all nice and settled into the new apartment and starting to get into a regular schedule with regards to my classes at Wilkes-Barre, I get the news that my grandmother passed away. I of course then went down to Maryland to be with my father on that Sunday. Thus, the last two weekends, which probably would have gone towards catching up on my reading for college, were spent driving around, spending some time with my father, and attending the memorial service.
While I was in Towson the first weekend, my Uncle Bruce and I went for a walk through a nearby federal park/historic site of a former slave plantation, called the Ridgely Plantation. While we were walking towards the site, my uncle gave me a brief lecture about the site. About how the planation had been used to manufacture arms during the Revolutionary war and such.
When we got to the site, there was one thing that stuck out and actually bothered me a little bit. Not something I want to devote a whole blog post to, but still worth pointing out. Around the plantation and various buildings, there were these signs that had information about the history of the site. Now I did not get a chance to look at all the signs, of the few that I did, all but one used the term "worker" rather than "slave". The one exception was the sign outside the slave quarters that actually identified the building as being the slave quarters. What made this really odd, was the fact that other terms like "master" "owner" and "overseers", were still used by whoever wrote the signs up.
Just a minor example of historical erasure I thought I'd bring to people's attention.
July 3, 2011
Queer Issue: The Dangers of Single Issue Activism
On June 24th, history was made when the New York Senate made marriage equality into law. This was a huge and hard fought victory the impact of which will be felt for a long time to come. But as we celebrate this victory, I am concerned that we will quickly forget the political sacrifices that were made to achieve this bills passage. One of the biggest losses was the tabling yet again of GENDA (Gender Expression Non Discrimination Act), a bill that would ensure equality for Transgender/Transsexual individuals.
It is important to note here that the facts, according to the Empire State Pride Agenda are as follows:
So while Gays and Lesbians are free to enjoy marriage equality, this freedom only came by once again forcing Transgender/transexxual issues onto the back burner. This is simply wrong.
When we talk of LGBTQIA issues or Queer Issues or Gay Issues, we often speak as if though one can focus on those issues alone and no others. Nothing could be further from the truth.
When we address homophobia but and fail to address racism, we only address a portion of the burden born by LGBTQIA individuals from ethnic minorities.
When we fail to address the issues of poverty and homelessness, we ignore a population that is disproportionally made of LGBTQIA youth who ran away from violent settings caused or encouraged by homophobic parents.
When we fail to address the numerous issues of senior citizens, we fail to address the aging populations of GLBTQIA whose problems are exacerbated by laws and care systems that fail to acknowledge life-long partners who are not spouses.
One of the bigger issues of the past decades, the drawn out U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also bears mention. While we talk about the issue of national security, we must not forget that in the resulting chaos and political stability in Iraq and Afghanistan, resulted in increased dangers for gay men in those areas. I can still remember reading the stories of gay men who were hunted down by homophobic gangs that formed as a result of the invasions and subjected to horrors beyond anything that was done to Mathew Sheppard. Newsweek reported in Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Do Kill that more than 430 gay Iraqi men had been killed for being gay since the U.S. invasion started in 2003. That report was made back in 2008. In 2006, Jennifer Copestake in an article entitled Gays Flee Iraq as Shia death squads find a new target which was published in The Observer, that:
In short, what I am getting at is that we cannot assume that the problems of other people cannot be related to our own. Have we forgotten the saying that "an injustice for one, is an injustice for all"? Not to sound too new age, but many issues are more connected then we think and what affects one part of the population, will usually have an effect upon the whole.
It is important to note here that the facts, according to the Empire State Pride Agenda are as follows:
Transgender New Yorkers face severe discrimination. For example, a report released this year by the Empire State Pride Agenda showed that: 20.7% of transgender New Yorkers have incomes under $10,000 a year. Most recently, in 2011, Findings of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey completed by the National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force report that 74% of transgender New Yorkers experienced harassment or mistreatment on the job, 20% lost a job and 37% were not hired at all. An alarming 18% of transgender New Yorkers had become homeless because of their gender identity or expression. Health care discrimination for transgender New Yorkers is also very alarming with a 17% rate of individuals who were refused medical care due to their gender identity or expression.
So while Gays and Lesbians are free to enjoy marriage equality, this freedom only came by once again forcing Transgender/transexxual issues onto the back burner. This is simply wrong.
When we talk of LGBTQIA issues or Queer Issues or Gay Issues, we often speak as if though one can focus on those issues alone and no others. Nothing could be further from the truth.
When we address homophobia but and fail to address racism, we only address a portion of the burden born by LGBTQIA individuals from ethnic minorities.
When we fail to address the issues of poverty and homelessness, we ignore a population that is disproportionally made of LGBTQIA youth who ran away from violent settings caused or encouraged by homophobic parents.
When we fail to address the numerous issues of senior citizens, we fail to address the aging populations of GLBTQIA whose problems are exacerbated by laws and care systems that fail to acknowledge life-long partners who are not spouses.
One of the bigger issues of the past decades, the drawn out U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan also bears mention. While we talk about the issue of national security, we must not forget that in the resulting chaos and political stability in Iraq and Afghanistan, resulted in increased dangers for gay men in those areas. I can still remember reading the stories of gay men who were hunted down by homophobic gangs that formed as a result of the invasions and subjected to horrors beyond anything that was done to Mathew Sheppard. Newsweek reported in Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Do Kill that more than 430 gay Iraqi men had been killed for being gay since the U.S. invasion started in 2003. That report was made back in 2008. In 2006, Jennifer Copestake in an article entitled Gays Flee Iraq as Shia death squads find a new target which was published in The Observer, that:
The country is seeing a sudden escalation of brutal attacks on what are being called the 'immorals' - homosexual men and children as young as 11 who have been forced into same-sex prostitution. There is growing evidence that Shia militias have been killing men suspected of being gay and children who have been sold to criminal gangs to be sexually abused. The threat has led to a rapid increase in the numbers of Iraqi homosexuals now seeking asylum in the UK because it has become impossible for them to live safely in their own country.
In short, what I am getting at is that we cannot assume that the problems of other people cannot be related to our own. Have we forgotten the saying that "an injustice for one, is an injustice for all"? Not to sound too new age, but many issues are more connected then we think and what affects one part of the population, will usually have an effect upon the whole.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)