African American Stereotypes in Film

            It is hard to believe what a powerful effect Hollywood and movies in general can have on the way people view or perceive things. A simple movie can pretty much embed any kind of message they want into a persons’ perception of the way things are. If that person watching the movie has little or no knowledge of the subject at hand, they can be tricked into believing whatever is presented in the movie. Because of this simple way of causing the viewer to believe whatever is presented, comes the use of stereotyping in film. Stereotypes have probably been around since the beginning of time, but film has used it as a powerful tool to create ideas about a certain race based on the characteristics they display within the movie. We can date these stereotypes about a certain race all the way back to the earliest films. There are many different stereotypes about everything you can possibly think of. However, the stereotypes that I am going to focus on are the African American stereotypes presented in American films.

            Even before the earliest films, there were Blackface montages that over exaggerated certain traits and characteristics of some African Americans. When I say some, I don’t mean that all African Americans acted the way they were presented in the Blackface montages. On the contrary, the majority of African Americans during that time did not even act at all the way they were portrayed. In fact, these shows made an emphasis on making African Americans look ridiculous. They contained white people that painted their faces black and attempted to emulate the way African Americans acted during that time.  Many of the same stereotypes that were used in the Blackface montages carried on into film. Just like the Blackface montages, the early films still used white people dressed in Blackface makeup to play the parts of African Americans. One of the best examples from one of films biggest Pioneers, was displayed in the movie “Birth of a Nation” by no other then DW Griffith. There is one scene in particular where African Americans are in the courtroom and one of the leaders is obnoxiously eating a piece of chicken like a wild animal. Some of the stereotypes that came out of early cinema were the “coon”, a child-like, uneducated and harmless person, “Black Buck, a black man who loved to have sex with white women, “Uncle Tom,” who was primarily a doorman, butler or shoe shine boy and “Mammy,” a help-mate or helper to white women and children. Later on in the 70s during the “Blaxpoitation era,” many other stereotypes arose. These stereotypes included “drug dealers, gangsters, pimps, prostitutes, sexual studs” and “cop killers.” One of the other stereotypes that have made an appearance in film throughout the years is the “magical negro.” The “magical negro” is a re-packaged version of the “Mammy” and “Uncle Tom” of cinema past. This stereotypical character uses their “mystical powers” to help white people in distress.

            Now that I have listed all the different stereotypes of African Americans in film, it is easy to see how someone who doesn’t know much about African Americans or doesn’t come into contact with one very often, can believe what they see as reality. Not only do they believe what they see as reality, they tend to believe that every African American acts that way. I personally, found myself believing certain stereotypes in films like, every black person listens to hip hop, can dance, sing and is really athletic. I know these aren’t necessarily negative stereotypes, but are still stereotypes nonetheless.

There have been many people like the NAACP and directors like Spike Lee, who have fought hard against movies that portray negative stereotypes in film. There have even been films made by African Americans, who have made a satire of these stereotypes. Unfortunately, until there are more African American filmmakers making movies that don’t utilize these negative stereotypes, and people stop supporting the white filmmakers that do, these stereotypes will continue to thrive in film. 

Blaxpoitation: The Rise of the Pimps, Prostitutes and Drug Dealers

The Blaxpoitation film genre emerged in the 70s as a result of many militant movements in the 60s. During the late 60s African American culture re-emerged and slogans like “Black Pride, Black Power” and “Black is Beautiful” helped fuel the fire for the Black Nationalist movement and forceful change. During the 60s a prominent black actor by the name of Sidney Poiter, portrayed a peaceful and educated African American. For the young and angry generation, this was an outright embarrassment and the opposite of what the Black Nationalist movement had tried to achieve. There was a demand for a different type of African American portrayal on the big screen. The black audience got what they wanted in the form of a movie called “Sweet Sweetbacks Baaadasss Song” a film that was made by an African American filmmaker Melvin Van Peebles. This movie followed the life of a “streetwise hustler, sexual stud, and a white cop killer.” The film was a huge success amongst urban black theaters.

Of course, because of its huge success, Hollywood had to get its hands on a piece of the pie; hence the birth of the Blaxpoitation genre. Several Blaxpoitation movies followed, but were mainly written and directed by white men. Even though most of the films produced within the genre were written and directed by white men, the genre did create many new opportunities for black actors, writers, directors and musicians; but not without controversy. These films exploited blacks by taking the money out of the community and putting it into rich white Hollywood people’s bank accounts and by continuing to further ignorance of black people by using stereotypical characters such as the pimp, hustler, prostitute and drug dealer.  The NAACP and other civil rights groups attempted to form a committee against Blaxpoitation films, but it was short lived, because these films also supported many blacks within the film industry.

Which arises the difficult question and debate about whether or not African Americans should take roles that portray certain negative stereotypes of African American life. I think the movie “Hollywood Shuffle” does a great job at addressing this difficult issue through its use of satire and over exaggerated sarcasm.  This movie shows how ridiculous some of the blaxpoitation film stereotypes are and even shows that they still exist. In this movie, the main character has to struggle with the issue of whether or not he is willing to take a role that contains negative stereotypes, in order to pursue his dream of becoming a famous actor. Towards the end of the movie he realizes what a negative influence his movie character is on his little brother who looks up to him. That is a big part of the issue with Blaxpoitation films. They glorify these negative stereotypes, and as a result, little kids idolize them, and white people tend to think that every black person acts that way. The debate is that on one side when blacks take these roles they reinforce the negative stereotypes, while on the other side; sometimes, black actors have to accept these roles in order to make a living. Even though I agree with the side that believes accepting these roles can reinforce these negative stereotypes, I personally do not judge anyone who does accept a certain role in order to make a living. I think it is so easy to judge someone with out knowing what it is like to be in their shoes. However, if that person doesn’t financially need the money, but is accepting the role out of greed or love of money, that is a completely different thing. 

Watch Out Kids that Person is Ugly!

         I find it interesting that the same white male patriarchal structure of Classic Hollywood still applies to the genre of horror film. The same way minorities like Native Americans and African Americans were used in classical Hollywood as the typical antagonist, people with abnormalities and disfigurements are always used in the horror genre as the evil “other.” It makes since right, if somebody has something different or to put it bluntly, “wrong” with them, they must be evil and should be avoided at all costs. Well at least that is the way Hollywood portrays it. When I say “other,” that is the term for the bad guy, serial killer antagonist. Even the term “other” has negative connotations of inferiority and the unkown. This dates back to the earliest films like “Nosferatu,” the guy is clearly not going to make a living as a male model. He has very vivid disfigurements that cause him to appear scary and dangerous. He is tall, gangly, pale skin, overly large nose and ears, old and of course bald. If you have any of these characteristics, beware you very well just might be “evil,” in which case I am screwed because of my lack of hair follicles.

Because our basic instinct is to fear those that are different than us, these stereotypical “others” are so prevalent in horror films. That basic fear is the same motive that fuels prejudices like racism. To put it in plain words, to judge somebody and make assumptions about their character based on physical attributes is being prejudiced at its very core. So a filmmaker that creates an “other” with physical abnormalities, is just adding fuel for the flames. The same way people begin to stereotype and fear people of different race or ethnicity based on what they see in film is no different when it comes to physical appearance as well. Now don’t get me wrong, the “others” usually commit actions that qualify them as antagonists; I am more referring to how movies tend to create “other” characters that have physical abnormalities.  Another classic example is the witch in the Wizard of Oz. The witch is old, has a huge nose, warts and green skin. Once again, that is strike two against me because once, when I was a little kid, I had a wart on my foot.

The only example that I can think of where the “other” isn’t ugly is in recent vampire films and television shows. In fact they are made to be beautiful and sexually desirable. They seem to be the exception to the rule. So, if you want to be the evil “other” in a movie, be a vampire or else plan on the make up artist disfiguring you one way or another.

        Just like in other classical movies, the antagonist often times is any thing other than a white male. The antagonist usually has darker skin and is a foreigner. I guess that is where the term “other” possibly could come from. Other than being a handsome white male. Even in “innocent” movies like Disney, the trademark dark skin, out of proportion facial features and downright ugly “evil” protagonist is very common.
Will film ever escape the sterotypes of disfigurement and minorities equating to evil or inferior? Independent films are attempting to reconstruct the stereotypical ideas that Hollywood for decades has created. However, because money is the number one factor in Hollywood filmmaking, these stereotypes will continue to show their "ugly" face as long as us as viewers continue to support them by paying to see them.

            

The Hollywood Ten: Land of the Free and Home of the Brave

            Land of the free and home of the brave? Are we really the land of the free? Do we really have the freedoms that were promised us by our founding fathers? Can we freely exercise our right of religion, petition and speech? If so then why were 10 men sent to prison for refusing to answer whether or not they are or have ever been associated with the communist party? Were they free to believe what they want? What about home of the brave? Were they considered brave to stand up for what they believed in by the committee that threw them in prison? Does that make me a communist for arguing that these men had the right to not have to answer the question?

Justice Robert Jackson wrote in the 1943 case West Virginia v. Barnette that “no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." Well, that wasn’t the case when McCarthy created the House Un-American Activities Committee. This committee forced the 10 men known as the “Hollywood Ten,” to answer whether or not they are or have ever been associated with the communist party. When these men refused to answer the question before the committee, they were held in contempt and thrown in prison. Just because these men refused to answer the question about their political beliefs, does that make them Communist? What if they were attempting to prove that they have a right to have their own political beliefs and are protected under that right?

            After World War II, there was a huge fear that Communism was infiltrating Hollywood and that these infiltrators were using film as an avenue for political propaganda. Whether that was the case or not, film has and always will be an avenue for propaganda. In the early years of film, the United States used film as propaganda for supporting the war. There is always some sort of message or agenda that the writer or director is trying to get across. Not everyone is always going to agree with what a film is trying to address.

It is not the responsibility of the government or a committee to control what should or should not be shown in a film or dictate an individual’s political beliefs. The government should never force anyone to believe a certain political way because that is not freedom, that is hypocrisy. Likewise, films shouldn’t be censored according to something like the Hayes code or banned from being shown. We should always have the MPAA rating system to warn individuals about the content shown, but should never ban films because of content. It is the responsibility of the individual to see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe. As a parent, it is their responsibility to teach their children and filter what they see. Ultimately, as that child grows up they are responsible for what they believe. Do I believe in Communism? No. But that doesn’t mean that someone else should not be allowed to have their own political beliefs. As Americans, we should have the freedom and liberty to believe whatever we want. Whenever the government or any committee is trying to control what we believe, there is no longer that freedom that every American citizen is promised under the first amendment.