Image courtesy of Columbia PicturesCheck out this blog about Hancock:
The first time I read it, I giggled at all the spelling errors. The second time I read it, I was convinced the author was a moron who didn't think before he wrote. When I went back and read his blog a 3rd time, the arrogance of the author's ignorance finally pissed me off.
First of all, he is only reiterating what informed viewers already know – film critics are out of touch with audiences. This is nothing new, and there are several reasons for it:
1) The biggest factor contributing to the growing distance between critics and audiences is how audiences today have reached the point where they are too fragmented to benefit from one overall review. Black films target black audiences, chick flicks target female viewers, gamers are targeted by the new sub-genre of films based on video games, and family films are aimed at households with younger demographics. If these niche audiences even bother to read a review before watching a movie, most of them are frequenting internet fan sites. They've already figured out that reviews written by mainstream critics don't benefit them at all.
2) Take a look at American film critics in general. Because most of today's nationally published critics are over the age of 35 (many in their 50s), their opinions do not accurately reflect the opinions of the average 18-35 year old audience member. What happens when we start throwing race and gender into the mix? How many of these critics are female? How many are of an ethnicity other than white? If you do the research, the numbers will surprise you.
3) Another distancing factor between critics and fans is the difference in education levels. On one hand, you have college-educated critics and journalists who are trained to think analytically as they review the same formulaic movies over and over and over again on a weekly basis. On the other hand, you have the typical 18-35 year-old movie consumers, two-thirds of which don't have a college education and are incapable of seeing that Hollywood is selling them the same ideological message dressed up in a different movie package week after week after week.
Which brings me to my next point of contention with the author's blog – subjectivity:
A) All film is art - it may be high art, it may be low art, but it is art nonetheless.
B) All art is subjective.
What does this mean? From a subjective standpoint, there is NO such thing as a “good” film or a “bad” film. Why? The subjectivity of movie watching boils down to one factor and one factor only: The only reason anyone likes any film is because that film’s ideological message tells them what they ALREADY want to hear. That’s why the author's claim that “sometimes the mark of a good movie is how enjoyable it was,” is ignorant. He is only stating a subjective opinion.
Yet, the part of the blog that really got under my skin was his comment that "Critics need to get off their fucking high horses, come down to our level when reviewing a movie, don't over complicate the process, and have an open mind." Seriously!?! He wants me to come down to his level? No problem. Here's my dumbed-down review of Hancock (without any mention of plot, storyline, scope, or originality as per his request):
"OK, the Fresh Prince has like these really awesome superpowers. But, he doesn't like want to be like a superhero or anything gay like that. So, he just trashes a bunch of shit and calls people names. Dude, it's like fuckin' cool as hell. Hancock has to be like the sweetest movie fo shizzle because it made like a shitload of money over the 4th of July weekend. You know, that's like the only thing that makes a movie good – its box office numbers – and whether or not it was enjoyable to me."
Now, for those of you who want something a little more intelligent:
In keeping with the simpleton's request, I'm not going to talk about Hancock's plot which gets more than a little muddled in the 2nd half of the film when the ridiculous factor kicks into overdrive. Since "storyline" is synonymous with "plot," addressing Hancock's storyline would be redundant. So, I'm not going to mention that either. I'm not going to harp about originality because Hancock doesn't have any (it's the 4th superhero movie Hollywood has released in the last 5 months). That just leaves scope, which I'm hoping will get rid of the bad taste Hancock left in my mouth.
Bad puns aside, it's a good thing he never said anything about stereotypes. (WARNING – This is where I jump back on my 'fucking high horse' and 'over complicate' things a bit.)
In the movie Hancock, Will Smith drops his trademark 'coon' role (on which he's banked his entire career) to try his hand at the 'black buck' / 'magical negro' stereotype Hollywood has incorporated into the vigilante superhero of Hancock. What the hell? Coon? Black Buck? Magical Negro? If you raise yourself to my level for a minute, I'll let you in on a little secret about the darker side of Hollywood typecasting.
Since the early days of film, African-Americans have been negatively stereotyped in movies and television as one of the following stock characters [1]:
Black Buck – a highly sexualized, immoral or violent stereotype, usually portrayed as a hypermasculine black man who is a threat to the white establishment because of his strength and alleged sexual prowess, often shown to be brutal, animalistic, and less than human (EX: Terry Crews in White Chicks).
Coon – a carryover from the minstrel show; a ineffectual and lazy stereotype that suggests black men are singing, dancing, jive-talking simpletons who will do anything to avoid work (EX: Will Smith in "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air").
Magical Negro – (the "safe" black man) is "in some way outwardly or inwardly disabled, either by discrimination, disability or social constraint (usually a janitor or prisoner) who has no past and simply appears one day as a plot device to help the white male protagonist. To counterbalance the lazy criminal stereotype he portrays, he usually has some type of vaguely defined magical power or words of wisdom that he uses to help the white male protagonist either get out of trouble or to recognize the white character's faults and overcome them" [2] (EX: Will Smith in The Legend of Baggar Vance).
Uncle Tom – a black house slave who serves his white master faithfully (EX: Robert Guillaume in "Soap").
Mammy – the counterpart to the Uncle Tom stereotype, usually an overweight black woman who takes care of the white master's children without concern for her own (EX: Nell Carter in "Gimme a Break").
Tragic Mulatto – is the product of a mixed race marriage or sexual union who is both a promiscuous and tragic figure who invariably dies at the end of her story as punishment for her "sin" of being of mixed race and for being sexual (EX: Helen Morgan in Showboat...or Halle Berry in real life).
Why is it important to know this?
Because stereotypes are used to create subtext within films.
1) Did anyone else notice the message against interracial unions imbedded within Hancock? If the Black man (Will Smith) and white woman (Charlize Theron) unite, they lose their superpowers and become mortal. Separate them, and they get to keep their powers. Better yet, any offspring these two have will automatically fall under the stereotype of 'tragic mulattos.' How convenient is that?
2) Sometimes the mere absence of African-American characters can have a negative effect. In the Pirates of the Carribbean trilogy, why were the Voodoo priestess and the cannibals the only people of color? What exactly was Disney trying to tell us? Only Black people create maelstroms and eat other people? Gee, that's not offensive. You could even go as far as to classify the Voodoo priestess Tia Dahlia as a 'magical negro' who helps the white pirates reunite with the white male protagonist.
3) Even worse is when Hollywood casts African-American actors in non-racial roles and turns them into ideological villains. The role of Dr. Miles Bennett Dyson could've gone to anyone in Terminator 2; yet, Tri-Star Pictures chose to cast Joe Morton, an African-American actor, as the scientist responsible for Judgement Day. Trust me, it's no coincidence the only Black person in the film is the one blamed for wiping out the human race. What's the message here? If you give a brother a PhD, he'll blow everyone up? Yeah, right.
The writing is on the wall, people. Wake up and read the fucking subtext.
So what do we do as informed viewers? Like I said earlier, all art is subjective. The extent of what you're willing to overlook is entirely up to you. Movies provide us with an escape from everyday life by giving us the opportunity to become immersed in someone else's fantasy world for a couple of hours. That's not always a bad thing. All of us need to escape reality every now and again. So, that being said, I don't have a problem with anyone who liked Hancock. What I have a problem with are the people who don't know why they enjoyed the film or what they were really laughing at.
That's why the blog pissed me off as much as it did. Instead of dealing with the true scope of the film, the author wants critics like me to "get off my...high horse and come down to his level" when reviewing a movie. Fuck that. I could care less if people like him want to remain blissfully ignorant and blindly absorb every message Hollywood sells him. What I will NEVER do is lower myself or my standards to anyone else's lack of intelligence. Unlike the author, I'd rather think for myself and allow my mind to remain informed instead of empty.
© Left From Hollywood 7/14/08
[1] All stereotype definitions with the exception of "Magic Negro" are taken from Benshoff and Griffin's America on Film (Blackwell Press, forthcoming).
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_negro
Posts
