Reply #221: I picked BOAN

[thucythucy]

precisely because it is a specific and particularly egregious example of racism in American movies. And from my reading in history it did indeed provoke racism as well as reflect it. Klan membership had been declining through the era 1890-19teens, after the release of "Birth of a Nation" it skyrocketed, giving rise to what I've seen described as "the great Klan renaissance" or words to that effect. It was in fact used as a recruiting tool by the Klan, probably still is, for all I know.

I also picked it in part because of its artistic merit. The fact that it was such a groundbreaking film made it more, not less, of a problem. It also highlighted the divide between white and black progressives. If memory serves me well, the film was picketed by the NAACP, while many white progressives hailed it in just the terms you used--a great breakthrough, "history written in lightning" or words to that effect. (Woodrow Wilson, supposedly a progressive president though I'd argue with that,even held a screening at the White House). That any critique of any form of media has to be nuanced is for me a given. Certainly, I think it is possible to hail the same work as genius, AND reactionary, at least in some aspects. To cite another example, I think "Moby Dick" is in fact THE great American novel, have read it repeatedly, believe Melville to be an absolute genius ("Bartleby the Scrivener" is one of my all-time favorite short stories). But as a person with a disability I cringe at its depiction of Ahab as one reflecting a general social bias that sees people with disabilities as embittered, angry, grotesque, mutilated in soul because of their physical disabilities, and sees attributing a character with a disability as a shorthand way of signalling "this person is weird." (re: "Dr. Strangelove" "Nightmare on Elm Street," "The Hills Have Eyes," etc. etc. etc.). (For a critique on Moby Dick in its film incarnations and of American films in general from a disability rights perpective, you might check out--if you haven't already read it--Martin Norden's "The Cinema of Isolation: A History of Physical Disability in the Movies." It's somewhat dated, but still very good, and I think since you're into films you might enjoy it).

Two takeaways I get from your posts in response to mine: 1) I think substituting 'misogynist" for "degrading" is a much better way to frame this discussion. I've been using the terms more or less interchangeably, when it comes to porn, but I think your use of the term is much more apt in this context. And 2) I also agree that deconstructing specific instances/images works far better than general condemnations. I think it's always better to build arguments from the specific to the general, rather than the other way around. One reason why I generally don't enter into these discussions (on-line) is because I rarely if ever see that type of detailed critique, either for or against. I think there are lots of reasons for this--but whatever the reasons these discussions always tend to devolve into general name-calling and straw-man arguments.

I didn't answer your "Bend Over Boyfriend" question because I'm not very familiar with the genre, and I try not to comment on stuff I know little about. But if you incorporate your use of "misogynist" as opposed to "degrading" it seems to render the question moot. It's difficult for me to see how male-only depictions could be misogynist in this context--but I'll leave that discussion for a time when I can cite specific examples, as opposed to some general, uninformed opinion.

Getting back to BOAN. You ask, what would be the point of objecting to the racism now? (You didn't seem to get my question: what if Mel Gibson made an update, every bit as racist? Wouldn't that be objectionable to you?) And you state that people now watch it recognizing it's a racist piece of crap (as well as a breakthrough film). It may be that a hundred years from now people will watch contemporary media--including porn--with a similar understanding of its misogynist element (assuming it's there--which of course is the basis of our disagreement--stipulating as well that I don't mean all media, all films, all porn). But that will only happen if people--progressives--engage in the necessary discussion and analysis to tease out what is or is not misogynist about specific images and depictions, together with the impact these images and depictions do or do not have on the society around us. One example of such a discussion (again somewhat dated) is the series of films made by Sut Jhally at the University of Massachusetts film dept. You can probably find them on U2B. See, for instance, "Dreamworlds" which is an exploration of how misogynist imagery was used in the early days of MTV to sell music, and how such imagery both reflects and reinforces social stereotypes about women and sexual violence. I find it a good jumping off point for discussions such as this.

Anyway, it's been an interesting back and forth. I'll check back to see your response, but it may be a few days before I can get back with my own (weekend and all that--).

Best wishes.