Welcome to Blogster!
592,944 Blogster Users  |  364,642 Posts
 
 
 

pharaoh

 

Blog Traffic: 35189

Posts: 89

My Comments: 21

User Comments: 56

Photos: 12

Friends: 6

Following: 0

Followers: 0

Points: 1492

Last Online: 129 days ago


 
 

Visitors

No Recent Visitors
 

Was Obama Created by Hollywood?

Added: Thursday, July 12th 2012 at 2:21pm by pharaoh
 
 
 

Order a Copy of American Messiah


     Barack Obama's electoral victory four years ago made history. Some would contribute the groundbreaking event to the Civil Right movement, to American liberalism, or to a voter backlash resulting from the war in Iraq and to the failure of the government to prevent 9/11.

    No doubt all of them played an enormous part, particulary the 400 years of struggle by African people against ignorance and racism. But, there is another factor (albeit less influential and less historic) and that is the increasingly prominent roles of black actors in blockbuster films.

     I never thought that I would live to see a black man holding the most important political office in the United States, or the world for that matter. Obama's impressive showing was not just a victory for black people, but a important step forward in race relations and a long awaited departure from the nation’s turbulent past.

     I can remember in the 1960's attending afternoon matinees with the crew. Each and every Saturday the local theater offered up a carte du jour of Tarzan of the Apes, Elvis Presley, or John Wayne. Unlike our fathers, we were spared having to digest portions of Steppin’ Fitchit's monkey shine or Amos and Andy's buffoonery.

      In their rare appearances, black actors donned the roles of slaves, maids, butlers and servants, oftentimes with more than a touch of minstrel antics and Stagolee-like bravado. Hollywood still preferred black caricatures over black characters.

      Importantly, during the fifties, Sidney Portier and Harry Belafonte won Hollywood acclaim in dramatic roles, planting seeds of progressive change in the motion picture film industry. Some argued that the roles were
assimilationist, Uncle Tom roles. To them I say: some critics, unsatisfied with the pace of progress, called both Martin Luther King and Booker T. Washington uncle toms.

     But, no one today can refute the fact that they knocked down barriers and reshaped the way American thought about color. During this same period, Hollywood turned out quality films like Carmen Jones (with the great Dorothy Dandridge) and A Raisin in the Sun (with its all-star cast). The American public (blacks and whites) helped to turn these films into box office gold.

    In the seventies, Hollywood churned out films designed to exploit black people's hunger for heroes of color: Super Fly, Across 110th Street and Shaft were created to meet the demand. Blacks got their heroes, but at a dear price. In contrast to roles of the fifties, these roles lacked depth and were robbed it there universality.

     The world stage was narrowed to ghetto backdrops, where pimps, drug dealers and gun-toting ruffians replaced Buckwheat, Black Sambo, and Picaninny. The black image continued to suffer from the legacy of racism. While these 'blaxploitation' films afforded many actors the opportunity to apply their trade, the stereotypical roles would typecast many of them in the long run.

     Did Hollywood purposefully set out to degrade black people? Let just say that Hollywood has always played it safe and rarely ventured beyond what they thought white America wanted to see. So, for the most part, Hollywood can be accused being cowards in the faces of racist tradition. But, time would suggest that Hollywood should have given white audiences more credit.

       By the nineties, Television depiction of the blacks made the giant leap from Goodtimes to The Cosby Show. Meanwhile, Hollywood was casting black as generals (Morgan Freeman in Virus), corporate moguls (Samuel L. Jackson in Deep Blue Sea), and presidents (Morgan Freeman in Deep Impact, even God (again, Morgan Freeman in Bruce Almighty).

     Ironically, just a few years ago, Chris Rock starred in the film, Head of State, which figured a black man running for president. Although, suggesting a slim and unlikely possibility (due to a broad cultural schism), the film gave a glimpse of things to come.

    Thousands of white voters lining up for hours to gain admission to the venues where Obama was speaking revealed a fundamental change in America. I can’t help but conclude that Hollywood was a powerful agent of change. Although, I'm not suggesting that Hollywood alone paved the way. But one can argue that seeing is believing. That is to say that men and women seen in powerful leadership roles may have compelled millions of Americans to rethink race, and consequently, politics.

   That is to say that Dennis Haysbert's portrayal of a black president on the award winning television show 24 may have paved the way for an Obama. When I wrote American Messiah (about a mystical black child resurrecting American from the bowels of hell) the plot seemed farfetched, even more fanciful than the apocalyptic theme itself.

    Was the literary marketplace ready for such a bold, black image I asked myself? At the time, I had my doubts. However, today it seems quite plausible. Seen in the context of American values and traditions (religious and secular), a black man or woman can represent an American Icon. Does it mean that race, with the aid of Hollywood casting, has been rendered a dead issue? Definitely not. But, a monumental step has been taken with the success of Barack Obama, and the future remains to be written.

 

User Comments

Just a suggestion--maybe it is my eyes--but your font is very small--size 8? Or less? Hard to read, especially a long blog which looks interesting.

Thank you for bringing the mistake to my attention.

Thank you for making it larger--now I can read it!!

Just something i would like to add--The American public (blacks and whites) helped to turn these films into box office gold. ' and Tony Curtis starring with Sidney Poitier in "The Defiant Ones" not only advanced progress and was a 'dangerous' step for Curtis but it was the first time a Black actor was nominated for a Best Actor Oscar.

By the way I am still asking why they had to dub Belafonte & Danridge--and why they cast Ava Gardner (who I was madly in love with) instead of Lena Horne in Showboat and used a 'Lena Horne makeup" for Ava and dubbed her voice!!

And why aren't Jennifer Hudson and Monique overloaded with scripts and why is Halle Berry---oh forgt it--I could go on for days!

By the way Morgan Freeman has stated that Obama is NOT our first Black President but our first mixed race President!!!

...you've also repeated some paragraphs twice, unless it is a brainwashing ritual??

Personally, I think Obama is trying to outdo Sammy Davis Jnr.......

 

No, just carelessness. But, I am interested to know  what you mean by your statement. Are you saying that he's more image that subtance?

...he wears many hats.

Obviously, your knowledge of the subject is quite extensive. I love the old movies, staying up many a night, after my parents had gone to sleep, watching The Late Show, The Late Late Show. Well, you get it.  I had no idea about some of the behind the scenes decision-making. I plan to comb you blogs for more gems. Thank for sharing!

I'm your 'parents' but I have been going TO the movies since 1941--still go every Friday--it's Spiderman tomorrow--don't believe in DVDs, TV, cable, Netflex, etc., unless I have seen it in a movie house or it has never been shown here! LOL

I love talking movies!

You write well but in this article your view appears to be rather narrow and one-sided. I don't think it really ever makes the point you intended it to (whatever that was).

Movie makers may have revised the black image but I'm not sure it improved on it or even made it closer to non-fiction. I will say, however, that if the old Hollywood stereotype were still being produced it would have killed any chance for Barack Obama to win the Presidency.

Which would have been the lesser of two evils? {#confused.gif}

You’re absolutely correct; my pov was narrow and one-sided. Growing up in Harlem, I was immersed in the civil rights struggle as a result of having parents who were rooted in the civil rights movement. I was routinely exposed to Malcolm X, Percy Sutton, Adam Clayton Powell, Rev. Wyatt T. Walker, Roy Innis and a broad host of writers, activist, and organizers and foot soldiers. Most times I prayed that my parents leave me behind so I could watch F-Troop or
The Munsters. In addition to my Harlem exposure, I had the opportunity to spend my high school years living with a white family in Vermont, who put their democratic liberalist idea into practice both financially and politically. I even lived on a hippy commune for a bit. I just thought it fun to chronicle Hollywood’s metamorphism, starting with my earliest recollection to where it stands today (while still short of social and cultural truthfulness). In retrospect, the title is fundamentally misleading. I could have spent a few more lines suggesting the preponderant change agents leading to the president’s historic victory. Thanks for your comments

Excellent. Now please reply to the following:

As far as Hollywood goes it appears to me that they are merely producing characters and, post-scripting, they decide who should play the role in black skin and who should play their roles in white skin. In other words there are no racial qualities to any of the characters. They are all generic. That doesn't portray reality and Hollywood is simply conforming to PC dictates.

I am not sure that I can really add to your already accurate assessment. I believe your point is spot-on, especially about post-scripting. The characters that you speak of are shallow and lack depth. I've thought about the burgeoning appearance of non-descript faces (devoid of culture or race) appearing with increasing regularity in ads and movies. You have obviously stripped away another layer of the onion, thus delving deeper into the issue that I may have initiated. As a writer, I usually rely on my gut when scripting a story line or crafting a characters. So, I kind of rely on my own enact experiences, drawing subconsciously from the wealth of human behavior that I’ve witnessed firsthand. But, I have my own prejudices and stereotypical perceptions, as much as I may try to expose and defuse them. In my own behalf, my inadequacies springs from personal limitation (although I like to think that I becoming wiser as a person) and not from cowardliness and profit incentives. So, by pandering to pc, everyone is subliminally offended, and regarded as fools. I find your remarks intriguing and food for thought. Thanks.  

Post A Comment

This user has disabled anonymous commenting.