Somewhat risky entry concerning racism and stereotypes
I've been doing a lot of thinking lately. I guess that's what going to college is for, though, right?
Well, a debate between a fellow student and I took place in British Cinema class the other day, concerning what he interpreted as a racist portrayal of a Pakistani character. The case in which this came about was in the film Rita, Sue, and Bob Too. The character, Aslam, who pursues a relationship with Sue, is introduced as an outgoing, kind, and thoughtful man of Pakistani origin. For the majority of the film, the audience sympathizes with him. However, during the climax of the film, when he sees Sue dropped off at home by another man, he is overcome with jealousy and rage and quickly becomes aggressive and beats her.
During the seminar for this class, this student brought up the opinion that this was a racist portrayal of Pakistanis because of Aslam's rash acts. I had to disagree and bring up my opinion that for the purpose of the film, the character of Sue's lover had to have been cast as an eventually abusive man in order for the story to continue in the way it does. I don't think that Aslam's violent acts were any indication of his ethnicity, but just his personality. I think that had the character of Sue's lover had been written as a white man, he would still have been abusive. And would we discussion racism here if the character had been a middle-class white man? I doubt it.
A similar chord has been stuck with me while reading Felly Nikweto Simmonds' article on Spike Lee's film, She's Gotta Have It. She discusses how Lee's representation of the protagonist, Nola, as an independent and sexually promiscuous woman, is a misogynistic portrayal of all black women and sexuality. She discusses how Lee has tried to put black women down by releasing this film, explaining that Nola is supposed to be a representation of all black women. I really disagree with Simmonds in this as well. I don't think that Spike Lee created this film to to put down women, and I definitely don't think that this film has to be interpreted as anti-feminist as she thinks it is. I actually find the film be quite liberating and pro-feminism. I don't think any writer has the right to say that one character represents an entire community or ethnic group.
It's like that age-old annoyance that I've heard time again: when some dumbass news reporter asks one black woman "what is the opinion of black women on this issue?" One person is not a representative of population. One person is a person.
Now I'm reading an article Cheryl Butler on The Color Purple and how at a celebration for Alice Walker (the author of the novel) was interrupted by a group of men complaining that the film gave an inaccurate portrayal of black men. Well, once again, the film focused around two men, a father and son, who are both rather abusive and rotten, but those two men are not an entire community. Just because these two character are written as awful people does not mean that all black men are.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe that stereotyping certain characters in many films is wrong and can be interpreted as racist. However, I've learned to see that these things have to be taken with a grain of salt.
I've often wondered (as with Aslam in Rita, Sue, and Bob Too), "well this character is of color, and portrayed as a flawed character. Is this racist?" Then, I think they could have replaced that character with a white guy, and maybe it wouldn't be considered racist. But if we did that, we'd have one of two things. One: We'd have significantly less non-white roles for films, or Two: The only characters that non-white actors would play would be goody-two-shoes and therefore one-dimensional, which would perhaps be considered racist as well.
It's a thin line, guys. But I'm getting tired critics deciding that ever flawed character of color is a racist move. There are plenty, and I mean PLENTY, of flawed white characters, but we never hear that being criticized in the same way.
Well, a debate between a fellow student and I took place in British Cinema class the other day, concerning what he interpreted as a racist portrayal of a Pakistani character. The case in which this came about was in the film Rita, Sue, and Bob Too. The character, Aslam, who pursues a relationship with Sue, is introduced as an outgoing, kind, and thoughtful man of Pakistani origin. For the majority of the film, the audience sympathizes with him. However, during the climax of the film, when he sees Sue dropped off at home by another man, he is overcome with jealousy and rage and quickly becomes aggressive and beats her.
During the seminar for this class, this student brought up the opinion that this was a racist portrayal of Pakistanis because of Aslam's rash acts. I had to disagree and bring up my opinion that for the purpose of the film, the character of Sue's lover had to have been cast as an eventually abusive man in order for the story to continue in the way it does. I don't think that Aslam's violent acts were any indication of his ethnicity, but just his personality. I think that had the character of Sue's lover had been written as a white man, he would still have been abusive. And would we discussion racism here if the character had been a middle-class white man? I doubt it.
A similar chord has been stuck with me while reading Felly Nikweto Simmonds' article on Spike Lee's film, She's Gotta Have It. She discusses how Lee's representation of the protagonist, Nola, as an independent and sexually promiscuous woman, is a misogynistic portrayal of all black women and sexuality. She discusses how Lee has tried to put black women down by releasing this film, explaining that Nola is supposed to be a representation of all black women. I really disagree with Simmonds in this as well. I don't think that Spike Lee created this film to to put down women, and I definitely don't think that this film has to be interpreted as anti-feminist as she thinks it is. I actually find the film be quite liberating and pro-feminism. I don't think any writer has the right to say that one character represents an entire community or ethnic group.
It's like that age-old annoyance that I've heard time again: when some dumbass news reporter asks one black woman "what is the opinion of black women on this issue?" One person is not a representative of population. One person is a person.
Now I'm reading an article Cheryl Butler on The Color Purple and how at a celebration for Alice Walker (the author of the novel) was interrupted by a group of men complaining that the film gave an inaccurate portrayal of black men. Well, once again, the film focused around two men, a father and son, who are both rather abusive and rotten, but those two men are not an entire community. Just because these two character are written as awful people does not mean that all black men are.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe that stereotyping certain characters in many films is wrong and can be interpreted as racist. However, I've learned to see that these things have to be taken with a grain of salt.
I've often wondered (as with Aslam in Rita, Sue, and Bob Too), "well this character is of color, and portrayed as a flawed character. Is this racist?" Then, I think they could have replaced that character with a white guy, and maybe it wouldn't be considered racist. But if we did that, we'd have one of two things. One: We'd have significantly less non-white roles for films, or Two: The only characters that non-white actors would play would be goody-two-shoes and therefore one-dimensional, which would perhaps be considered racist as well.
It's a thin line, guys. But I'm getting tired critics deciding that ever flawed character of color is a racist move. There are plenty, and I mean PLENTY, of flawed white characters, but we never hear that being criticized in the same way.