In “The Wretched of the Earth,” Frantz Fanon
observed how a culture’s reflections of the past change throughout generations
when their oral traditions develop out of colonized territories:
“…the oral traditions—stories, epics, and songs of
the people—which formerly were filed away as set pieces are now beginning to
change. The storytellers who used to relate inert episodes now bring them alive
and introduce into them modifications which are increasingly fundamental. There
is a tendency to bring conflicts up to date and to modernize the kinds of
struggle which the stories evoke, together with the names of heroes and the
types of weapons.”(1442)
In his 2000 film, Bamboozled, Spike Lee
satirizes the black culture in new millennial America by modifying how black
face minstrel shows are used in entertainment; the blacks now don black
face. This narrative brings old references up to date, and forces every
American, regardless of ethnicity, to consider how we depict the “heroes” and
“weapons” within our own culture, and how that relates to our view of race.
The ethnicity commonly called “black” is known for
its “heroes” in entertainment, like music, dance, and athletics. Blacks are
depicted as containing a soulful spirit, rich and lively behavior and
expressive mannerisms. Thus we could deduce that the black culture has a strong
voice both literally and figuratively. Here lies the irony: the voice of blacks
throughout history, according to Lee’s film, has always come from the mouths of
white privileged individuals, who form the way we think and experience black
culture as a whole. Through black face, slapstick, and an eerie embrace of the
offensive term “nigger,” Spike Lee conveys how racism is a ubiquitous,
uncontrollable double-edged sword founded on power, perception, and personal
politics. I will hone in on the complex and arbitrary nature of racism by
highlighting the film’s depiction of the white man in power, the controversial
communitas brought about by black face, and the disturbing, yet compulsory
weapon of “racism” within comedy.
The definition of racism, according to Stam and Spence, is “the generalized and
final assigning of values to real or imaginary differences, to the accuser’s
benefit and at his victim’s expense, in order to justify the former’s own
privilege or aggression” (879). This is how I am referring to racism throughout
this post: an ideology that keen differences can establish one person as
‘better’ than another, and cause them to ‘justifiably’ act accordingly. Thomas
Dunwitty, the producer of CSN television network, is satirized as the
powerful white man. Yet the irony is that in his demeanor, he is “blacker” than
his writer, Pierre de la Croix. Dunwitty strongly desires to create a more
truthful black television show, unlike The Cosby Show, which is
essentially “white people with black faces.” To him, white shows are too clean,
antiseptic, and boring. So he wants Pierre to counter this and write the way
black people really are. He believes that will help his ratings because
“black people set the trends, the styles.” Here, he seems to be praising the
blacks by using their accent and jargon, mannerisms, and covering his office
with pictures of “black brothers”: famous musicians and athletes. He desires
truth in the televised representation of blacks, yet he himself is a false
representation of his own race; he is a white man, attempting to give
blacks an honest voice through his own voice (literally). The level of offense
(and/or racism) here is quite layered: he could offend both blacks AND whites
by how he represents black AND white culture through his discussion and
behavior. This exemplifies how racism is multilayered and comments on both the
offender and the offended, the colonizer and the colonized, and complicates a
clear division between a people’s “heroes” and “weapons.” Yet is racism really
a "weapon" that can control who and HOW it hurts?
While Dunwitty believes he is being heroic by praising and admiring blacks for
being “cool,” Pierre and Sloan (his assistant) translate Dunwitty’s words to
mean that he wants a show where blacks are funny, lazy, ignorant, and unwitting
buffoons. Therefore to get himself fired, Pierre creates a very offensive show
called Mantan: The New Millennium Minstrel Show to become the NEW “stories,
epics, and songs of the people” by satirizing the representation of blacks from
the early twentieth century. Then the audience’s inevitable disapproval of
the black actors in black face would show how brainshwashed Dunwitty was by his
own white supremacy. Furthermore, it would show how far America has come in
establishing ethics of equality and acceptance. However, to Pierre’s
surprise…the show is a hit.
So what does this success mean? Is it a good or bad
thing? In the show, blacks are seemingly accepting and embracing the criticism
of their own kind, so they could seemingly be gaining the “power” back by
owning the joke, rather than allowing themselves to be ridiculed. Yet is
the playing field even now? At the show’s peak in popularity, the entire
audience wears black face, red lips, white gloves, black t-shirts with the show
logo, and calls themselves a nigger. Everyone looks exactly the same. They seem
to be accepting and enjoying the ridicule and subconsciously stumbling upon a
sense of unity; all races are laughing at the same things, and dressing up to
represent the thing they are laughing at. So does that mean racist is gone,
since everyone is “equal”?
To help me better understand what Manray and Womack
went through each night, struggling to paint their faces, I pictured myself
being asked to paint my face ghost white, and to act “whiter.” By reflecting on
this parallel, I realized that the art of black face demonstrates how race,
ethnicity, and culture are inherently ALL structures of PERFORMANCE. Every day,
we perform our race and culture, and our race and culture perform
us. Black face makes someone invisible because they are no longer
themselves; then are a performance of a skin color, which can be bought and
sold, just like the masks and souvenirs.
“Niggas is a beautiful thang!” Honeycutt cries with
black face on, seemingly embracing the race, while black protestors proclaim:
“Painted face, disgrace to the race!” So which one is it? A disgrace or an
embrace? It is all based on how you perceive the performance of race, and how
much power you perceive to have over your own identity. Pierre’s line, “I don’t
want to have anything to do with black for at least a week” demonstrates how
identity is a performative quality. Black, to him, is something that you can
turn off and on. Something you can control.
The end of Fanon’s paragraph on oral traditions
reads, “The formula ‘This all happened long ago’ is substituted with that of
‘What we are going to speak of happened somewhere else, but it might well have
happened here today, and it might happen tomorrow.” (1442) This reflects the
radio interview, where Pierre, attempting to defend his show, points out that
issues such as racism are not about dates or time periods. Slave mentality
and prejudice can show up at any time. So to move a people to
change, they have to see and experience racism up front to know how ridiculous
and harmful it is. So Pierre could arguably be saying that comedy, which
is built upon people finding humor in the differences between them and the
characters (the characters act dumb, for example, and the audience is smarter)
is always inherently “racist,” even if it has nothing to do with race. After
all, he says, “The best defense is offense.” So if racism is the offense,
then humor, to Pierre, is the necessary and obligatory defense.
This complex nature and interesting relationship
between racism and comedic representation correlates with a quote by Stam and
Spence:
“A comprehensive methodology must pay attention to
the mediations which intervene between ‘reality’ and representation. Its
emphasis should be on narrative structure, genre conventions, and cinematic
style rather than on perfect correctness of representation or fidelity to an
original ‘real’ model or prototype.”
Bamboozled, likewise, is not a real
story; it is a pastiche and satire, representing blacks in millennial America.
Thus Spike Lee supports this complex methodology that the interventions between
the real and the representation should be emphasized in the discourse on
racism. We should examine the performativity and perception of power among
diverse races, cultures, and ethnicities, and how they translate into
fluctuating oral traditions with ever-changing "heroes" and
"weapons".
No comments:
Post a Comment