How is it racist?- Page 7

[Idiot]

Posted: 3/4/12 at 11:10am

G2 :"The "white savior" label is more about HOW stories are told than WHICH stories are told."

Though you make thoughtful points, I disagree with your reasoning above.

How the story is told (not from a directorial point of view but the point of view of the script) is the story, in my view.

The criticisms around THE HELP that I've read all insinuate that the story shouldn't be told. I say this because if the story's main character had been one of the domestic workers, it wouldn't have been THE HELP as we know it at all.

If you'd care to put a finer point on it I'd be very interested to hear it.

For the record, I found the film 'okay' at best. I'm not defending a work that I love here.

(And yes, I did have one film studio refer to one of my scripts as 'too great white hope for our demo', and though nobody else who read it agreed, that was my introduction to the sensitivity we're discussing here.)

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/4/12 at 12:13pm

^perhaps this relates to the issue of whether Davis is a lead or a featured character in The Help.

In my view, she and Stone are both principles. The script dealt square on with the power imbalance raised by the so called "white savior" template, rather than ignore its implications, and dealt with the imbalance maturely and in multiple interesting ways - not only Minnie's wariness of Skeeter and Minnie's being Celia's "black savior," the fact that Celia is very good to Minnie and becomes Minnie's help at the end when she most needs it isn't a bad thing - it simply means that we are watching a feel good movie that needs to be judged on those terms; on those terms it was well above average, a movie I expected to hate but enjoyed. Moreover, I give the movie credit for presenting Celie as another kind of outcast/misfit and placing class issues on the screen through her. Watching Spencer and Chastain together in these roles was pure joy, not only because of their great talent and teamwork, but because - to my eyes - these two women (whom could so easily be relegated to stereotypes) were portrayed with a refreshing absence of condescension by the screenplay and direction.

But especially it deals with this power imbalance by having Aibileen insist on writing her own story and in her becoming a writer. Would this have happened without Skeeter? Almost certainly not? And Skeeter couldn't achieve what she wants without the women she writes about. Moreover, Skeeter wouldn't be the woman she is without Constantine. I wouldn't go so far as to say that it would be impossible for the domestics of The Help to tell their own stories without Skeeter - black women accomplished a great many things much more impressive than that in that period of American history, and long before it. But I don't see anything wrong with the way the relationship between a young Southern white woman who wants to explore the lives of the black women who take care of white families and those women is explored in this movie, precisely because the movie has the intelligence and self-consciousness to examine the power imbalance and not sweep it under the rug.

The result may be simplistic, tame, shy on brutality, Hollywoody, not a great movie, etc., etc., etc.

But, on its own terms, as a feel good movie treating a very serious subject, an entertainment blending comedy, drama, camp and all-star extravaganza, a postmodern answer to Stanley Kramer , it's surprisingly well done, emotionally satisfying and intelligent.

[Idiot]

Posted: 3/4/12 at 12:56pm

^ "it's surprisingly well done, emotionally satisfying and intelligent"

As is your comment (except the surprising part).

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/4/12 at 4:04pm

So okay, Idiot, then one of your scripts WAS basically called a "white savior" narrative. I'm sure that was very reductive and I don't blame you for being offended.

Your original post read to me as if you were offended on behalf of white characters themselves and I was just trying to point out that it isn't the characters themselves who are being slandered by the label.

I'm not sure what to make of your argument that form IS content. I recognize the truth of the statement, in postmodern terms, but if we can't distinguish between the two for purposes of discussion, it's hard to address any work.

Yes, if THE HELP had been written from the p.o.v. of one of the maids and the white writer had been reduced to a secondary and largely bystanding character, it would have been a very different film. No question.

But the same plot and characters could have been dramatized in that very different manner.

(BTW, I'm with you: I didn't find THE HELP an outrage, but it didn't exactly rock my world either. I was glad to see black domestics treated as human beings, neither invisible nor traitors to their race.)

[Idiot]

Posted: 3/4/12 at 4:45pm

^ G2, yes -- when I started to try to flesh out the 'form is content' thought succinctly enough for a message board, my brain started to melt.

As to the original post and being offended on behalf of the characters, no -- and thanks for bringing the point to clarity. The concept of certain stories being verboten because of their perceived lack of political correctness offends me as a storyteller.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/4/12 at 5:07pm

I'm a playwright myself, Idiot, and the idea of "verboten" stories or characters offends me, too. What a slippery slope to argue that only blacks can write about blacks, gays about gays, etc. We'll be left with nothing but monodramas and memoirs, and those forms are overused (particularly in the theater!) as it is.

But I like to think we can still have a conversation about which archetypes have been over-used and how certain narratives might be approached in a fresher manner.

And of course the notion that form also conveys meaning is a linchpin of modern and post-modern literary and dramatic criticism, so no argument there.

(On a related note: I sat through Act I of the video of MEMPHIS last night. Talk about a "white savior" narrative! Sheesh! Maybe Act II will be better...)

[Idiot]

Posted: 3/4/12 at 7:12pm

G2, I started to watch MEMPHIS on Netflix and turned it off after about 5 minutes.... if it ends up being worth it, by all means let me know.

From a storytelling perspective, go see A SEPARATION if you haven't already. (I think of it as Kramir vs. Kramir, but more complex.)

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/4/12 at 7:14pm

I haven't seen it. Thanks for the recommendation.

But BTW, I just rewatched KRAMER V. KRAMER a few months ago. It is plenty complex, I think, particularly in its treatment of the wife.

(ETA oh, I see. I looked up the film and see what you mean. The legal, political and social contexts of SEPARATION are far more complex. Got it.)
Updated On: 3/4/12 at 07:14 PM

[Insider2]

Posted: 3/5/12 at 10:10am

.......and this seven page thread is on a theatre chat board because........????????

[themysteriousgrowl]

Posted: 3/5/12 at 10:54am

Viola Davis does theater.

[Insider2]

Posted: 3/5/12 at 11:02am

duh

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/5/12 at 4:55pm

Whether it's sufficiently related to live theater or not, at least there has been an honest and relatively open exchange of ideas in this thread. It isn't 20 pages of unsupportable yet irrefutable subjective opinions on Lupone v. Peters.

[uncageg]

Posted: 3/5/12 at 5:44pm

This has turned out to be a very good thread. I have found myself looking for it as soon as I sign in.

[Blactor]

Posted: 3/6/12 at 1:01am

I find that people like Jordan, who become indignant when someone uses the word racist, have real issues within themselves that they need to resolve. I've found that those who dismiss and devalue Black views concerning racism don't really have a high regard for black people in general. I hope I'm wrong, but that's what I've observed 90% of the time.

Dismissing me as a "cry-baby" and calling me a "blidiot" for stating truth is an asinine way to go about things. I generally enjoy your snark, Jordan, but at the same time I'm a working professional and see and experience firsthand what goes on in this industry. I've worked with some of the most respected and acclaimed Black actors working in the theatre today, and they will all agree on the fact that there are simply inequities when it comes to opportunities and quality roles. As another poster said, if you can't see that, then there's no arguing with you.

[Blactor]

Posted: 3/6/12 at 1:27am

I have to say that I'm happy that there are voices of reason on this board, or who are at least willing to engage in a frank discussion, rather than resort to name-calling and insults.

Uncageg, Henrik, Gaveston have all made awesome points.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 3/6/12 at 1:48am

Blactor, shut the hell up. You know nothing about me. Where have I EVER devalued black views or concerns? Where? Show me. I dare you.

You can't always blame whitey as being a racist when he doesn't agree with you on everything, which is what you do. You throw out that "R" word hoping it shuts people up but guess what - It doesn't shut ME up. So you can throw it around all you want. The only thing it does is make you look like more of a blidiot than you already are.

And as I've said many times before, my lunch lady in elementary school was black so how the hell can I be a racist??

[Idiot]

Posted: 3/6/12 at 2:36am

Blactor -- you said, "and they will all agree on the fact that there are simply inequities when it comes to opportunities and quality roles."

My question to you is this: If these inequities were corrected in your view, how would the business be different? What would these changes look like in practice?

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/6/12 at 10:24am

On a lighter note, I would compare Streep's win for Iron Lady with Lupone's win for Gypsy. A legend wins the biggie for the first time in three decades for playing a Mt. Everest of a role. For those reasons, and because this is just an award (for heaven's sake), among various other reasons (including the Academy's proven track record in recent years of honoring African American actors, long overdue as that is) I'd compare Davis's not winning a much deserved oscar to O'Hara's not winning a much deserved tony, rather than to an act of racism.

[Patash]

Posted: 3/6/12 at 1:57pm

blactor, I read your posts and while I see where you're coming from, the only real interpretation I can give your posts as they relate to the original question is that you seem to be saying, "since there are so few roles for black actors, when one comes along then it should be rewarded". The idea that there are few roles for black actors (which I DO agree with) really has NOTHING to do with whether or not a particular black actor wins an award over a white actor -- or how winning that award or not has anything to do with racism. Hard as it may be to admit it (or impossible in your case) it is just possible that the academy awarded the person they thought was the BEST in the category without any regard for race. Isn't that just possible?

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 3/6/12 at 2:01pm

Nope! That's blimpossible!

[newintown]

Posted: 3/6/12 at 2:06pm

I have to agree with the above, blactor. As Gramma always said, "no one likes a complainer at the table."

If there's a situation you don't like, your complaints about it are pointless if you can't assuage them with actual practical theories on how things could be made different.

Any whiner can moan about a bad situation; an interesting person does something about it.

[henrikegerman]

Posted: 3/6/12 at 2:53pm

"blactor, I read your posts and while I see where you're coming from, the only real interpretation I can give your posts as they relate to the original question is that you seem to be saying, "since there are so few roles for black actors, when one comes along then it should be rewarded"."

Patash, when did blactor imply that? Granted this thread is now seven pages long and I may have missed it.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 3/6/12 at 3:12pm

It's also in all the other posts blactor has had removed when it comes out what a complete and utter racist HE is.

[Huss417]

Posted: 3/6/12 at 3:40pm

Some posts just don't die. I say mark this as closed and continue on to something else.

[Gaveston2]

Posted: 3/6/12 at 3:40pm

So now we're not allowed to point out problems unless we can also offer solutions simple enough to suit an internet message board? I guess I'll keep my worries about the impending energy crisis to myself.

But IIRC blactor's original point had to do with why someone might think Streep's win over Davis reflected the racial make-up of Academy voters. That's not the same thing as claiming people refused to vote for Davis because she is black and the voters are racists.

And instead of considering his thoughtful post, some people immediately jumped to "there they go again, complaining about racism". Maybe such remarks were just jokes, since snark is our fallback position here, but it was hard to tell.

Frankly, as a fair-skinned person of Northern European ancestry, I see enough overt racism, unconscious racism and (most commonly) unintentional stereotyping that I'm not surprised if a person of color thinks every decision is somehow motivated by racial thinking. Yes, that person is sometimes wrong, but surely we can understand why the world appears as it does to him. (This is a general point and in no way a reference to blactor as an individual.)

And I'm sorry, but no, I don't have a simple solution to offer here. I think the best we can do is continue to discuss such issues openly. But to do that, we have to do two things: (1) stop ridiculing people of color every time they wonder whether race is a factor in somebody's thought or deed; and (2) refrain from accusing white people of racism every time they make a thoughtless remark. (I'm not saying anyone has done the latter here, but I think it's only fair to mention both sides of the equation.)