Racial Identity In Film

‘Unfortunately, 'post racism' is also a myth, like unicorns and black people who survive to the end of a horror movie’ (Justin Simien).

Being black in Hollywood has never been easy, and neither has filmmaking. And as the 2023 Oscars have just passed, it's only right to talk about being black in Hollywood after a few questionable awards were given out. I'll be hitting areas around Blaxploitation, being black in film, black trauma and how far black cinema has come in Hollywood today; or rather how much further it should be.

However lets go from the start for black people in America, which was the slave trade and the civil rights movement.

Black history timeline and black politics

The timeline starts off at the slave trade, in 1619, when Africans where ripped from their homes and brought on large ships in foul conditions to America. They endured nothing but torturous labour, picking cotton for the south, with no form of recognition or pay. And once Europe heard about this, they wanted in and bad. Appalled at the idea that black people could live such a life of luxury, they added their own damage to Africa stripping black people of their gold and development; which then unfortunately becomes a running pattern for African Americans through their lives.

For black people this was a form of, emotional, physical and mental trauma that they had never experienced before, and it got worse for them when they were forced to convert to Christianity by Americans. In ‘Christian Slavery’, (Katherine Gerbner), she talks about how

‘Christians enslaved Christians’,

but because white people saw the Africans of a lower class to them it did not matter. To the South of America, it was all a form of control. And from state to state, plantation to plantation, they would travel in big groups called 'Quakers', pushing the narrative that black people were desperate, impressionable, and you could force a new way to thinking onto them, especially if you owned them.

They

‘conceived the relationship between Master and slave like father and son’,

giving a false sense of security as they brainwashed Africans into thinking that this was ‘Gods plan’, and that they deserved to be there serving the white man. However the saddest part is a lot of slaves began to believe this, especially the house slaves and the butler of the house, better known as the ‘Coon’. Which in Boondocks terms is called an, Uncle Rukus.

The Coon was somebody who was happy to wait on the Master and would occasionally throw their kin folk under the bus, (creating the phrase not all skin folk is kin folk). The ‘Coon’ regularly forgot that they were apart of the enslavement and would most likely endure the same, if not harsher treatment as they were always of a darker skin tone.

This area of slavery also paved the way for colourism in modern society within the black community as lighter black folk (especially women) got better treatment. Embedding the idea that the lighter you are, the more desirable you'd be to not only the white man, but also within the black community.

However, shockingly not everyone was onboard with the South’s actions, especially the North of America, who relied on industrial factories as their form of income. During the 1850’s the North took the South up on their distain of their actions, which the South argued back that they could not allow to free the slaves due to the idea of ‘slave power’ (Abzug, pp. 53). This was the propaganda that the white man used to not feel the consequences of their actions, selfishly trying to convince people that black people would eventually want revenge (and rightfully so), knowing they'd be the main target. So to protect themselves they needed to keep Africans enslaved.

It all started to cause mayhem when they came to a vote, even though the majority of South America did own a slave only the white men of the South could vote as they had things in common like ‘owning slaves’ (pp. 54). This was a back-and-forth argument which led to the Civil War (1861), and after a long 4 years, on January 31st, 1865 the North won and the abolishment of slavery in the United States was passed; unless it was under the criminal justice system.

Which was Americas way for black people to remain imprisoned under their rules.

Slave patrols turned into the police, and the racial agenda was more alive than ever. Though free, black people were still being held in the shackles of white power, and were more oppressed than ever with jobs not hiring, and prices for everything rising, keeping black people poorer than poor.

This then birthed the Civil Right movement in 1954, with names such as Martin Luther King Jr, who as a child watched the mistreatment of his parents.

Malcom X, who took a stronger systematic approach with the way black lives were being treated.

And Rosa parks, who took courage to the next level, refusing to move out of her seat.

A new era of black liberation was heading in Americas direction.

A few years later, black people were given the right to vote, The Black Panthers had risen with protests and firearms; enforcing being black, proud, and no longer needing the white man’s approval. Black liberation was getting highlighted all around the world, and would be the new gateway into film.

Being Black in Film and Blaxploitation

Film, film, film; oh how we've come a long way.

In 1900, a film that featured black people, or even directed by black people always tried to show a new light on black culture. However, because they were distributed and exhibited by white people, they never did very well. What white person wanted to see black cinema?

Nobody, especially if it was creative.

Touching on the colourism I mentioned earlier, a lot of Hollywood producers did their very best to maintain control over their black actors. They enjoyed their desperation and the control of refusing their talents. Acting was simple, and a lot of black people were good at it, plus this would be a quick way of providing for their families.

Lighter skin or ‘passing’ actors would always be so close but so far, teased by white people who knew they wanted a taste of that lifestyle, but would never quite get it. And when they did get black people in cinema, they had a type cast

‘lighter skinned actors were preferred for more prominent roles’

adding to that embedded idea of it was better to be as white as possible.

‘Darker skinned individuals generally played on or amplified racist stereotypes’

or the villain. A good example of this is when, Twilight (2012) author Stephanie Meyer didn’t want any form of POC in her films saying, she wrote all her characters as

‘pale skin and glistening’, (gross).

And though Catherine Hardwicke pleaded, she agreed to only include POC if they were villains, introducing Laurent’s character played by Edi Gathegi; the stereotype of the ‘brute’.

Creating this subconscious feeling that the darker your skin is the uglier you were, or as Farrow and Smith call it,

‘internalised oppression in the black community’ (pp1).

This still happens in film today, for example Hallie Berry who got casted to play Storm in Xmen (2000), even though in the comics Storm is dark skin. For Hollywood it’s that internalised colourism in the industry tells them that lighter skin will transfer better on screen.

The stereotypes they would feature was the 'Mammy’, a big dark skinned house slave. She was female and would possess motherly traits, though most of the time was not a mother.

‘Brute’, the aggressive black male, whom would always try and make advances towards white women (consensual or not).

‘Coon’; I touched up on earlier, the older black man that favours white people.

‘Uncle Tom’; the male version of the Mammy.

‘Jezebel’: the over sexualised black women.

And, ‘Mulatto’; a derogatory term for children with black and white parents.

Sick of the same reoccurring themes in films for white audience’s entertainment, black people felt like there needed to be a change within cinema. In the early 40’s Hollywood pushed out an unwanted number of musicals, ‘Cabin in the Sky’, (1943), ‘Beware’, (1946), and ‘Stormy Weather’ (1943). All glorifying this fake happiness of black people, with plots that really had no motive. These films though filled with constant happiness were a massive distraction on how deep-down Hollywood did not really want to produce these films, and they knew the films would automatically flop because of the amount of colour in it.

In ‘Blaxploitation Films of the 1970s: Blackness and Genre’ (Lawrence, 2007), comments on how ‘Hollywood’s initial all black productions’ were ‘weak’,

and just gimmicks to keep the black community quiet as they were seeing some form of representation on the big screen.

American cinema felt like black people should've been grateful for even being included in the films; even though it was quite literally the bare minimum. And a lot of the films were on thin ice, the slightest of noise would've ruined any further opportunities to act in Hollywood again.

In Space is the Place: Black Cinema in Search of Speculative Fictions’, (Drygalska, 2019), talks about how

‘1972 was an exceptionally good era for black cinema’ (pp.1)

This led to the creation of Blaxploitation and though the name sounded kickass, it came out of distain from Junius Griffin the then head of the NAACP, who criticized the

‘less than positive images’.

It's now the 70's, music is booming, fashion is at new heights and there was a new genre in town, Blaxploitation.

Producing films such as, ‘The Mack’ (1973), ‘Black Caesar’ (1973), and ‘Foxy Brown’ (1974).

This was the ‘urban’ take on the black community that always featured an all-black cast, and most importantly a black lead (male or female). They were fierce, ‘badass’ and fighting crime to a 10/10 soundtrack. And while the budget for the films were incredibly low, the main aim of these films was to show black people looking superior and sticking it to ‘the man’. Becoming the newfound term for white men in power, which was ironic as the films were still directed and disturbed by ‘the man’ themselves.

Though the films were a freedom of speech with the new sights of hustling, and not being held down by the law. A lot of these films did not really stray too far away from keeping black people in their box, as much as I hate to say it. None of these films really got political as they were produced by 'the man’. So while less patronising, black people were still seen as gimmicks. Hence the name, Blaxploitation.

For some people in the black community that was just what they were waiting for; a fresh outlook of black people on screen. Something to laugh at, where black people could be unapologetically black.

Personally, I think blaxploitation was a new form of genre that allowed black people to explore their creativity as much as they could. Saying that, it still enforced low budget stereotypes, that encouraged white people to engage with. Stereotypes that even today we struggle to shake off. For example, stealing, selling ourselves for money, and heavy substance abuse, while contributing to the degradation of black women.

The black community has now become a form of comedy, which is distasteful.

Profit Off Black Trauma For Entertainment or Education?

Moving on from making a big (controversial) bang in black cinema, it starts to take a left turn the more we progress into Hollywood. Within Hollywood they produce films on what they think will sell, but what then also benefits them. Especially when it comes to telling black stories.

In The Independent, Shakeena Johnson writes an article on how, ‘Hollywood must end its trauma fetish – there’s so much more to black lives than police brutality’ (2020). She talks about how, ‘

black suffering has been a theme in Hollywood’.

For example, there was, and still is (personally) a massive trend of producing nothing but slavery films such as, ‘Django Unchained’ (2012), ‘12 Years a Slave’ (2013), ‘and ‘Harriet’ (2019). When watching these films there is always an uneasy feeling, not just because we are watching black people on screen under brutal circumstances in horrendous conditions, but also because this is not fictional.

Adding to her statement of turning these from being a serious ‘subject matter to an entire genre’, for audiences to enjoy.

However though seen as educational to some that did not know the extent of slavery, it also feels repetitive. Hollywood is only comfortable when they have control over black stories, especially when they are replaying the same black trauma just in different narratives.

Sometimes, it feels like white audiences are only satisfied when they are seeing black people at their lowest point, and eventually dead. It also then creates propaganda, in my opinion, for younger audiences, with films such as, ‘Detroit’ (2017), The Hate You Give (2019), and ‘Fruitvale Station’ (2013). Though phenomenal films, Hollywood is ingraining fear the brains of young black people. The ideology that the outside world is not a safe place for them; even when you're keeping to yourself.

Though it may seem like black audiences are never satisfied, as they have come such a long way in cinema, some parts of it just still feel exploitive.

‘Black people don’t need 50 police brutality films a year to remind us of the injustices we’ve faced and continue to face – we’ve been knowing. Imagine forcing Harriet Tubman or Solomon Northup to re-watch what they’ve lived through several times a year, supposedly for entertainment.’

We are never told happy stories and when we are, they are always faced with so much struggle, ‘Hidden Figures’ (2016), ‘The Green Book’ (2018), ‘The Help’ (2011). Two of those films which were written and directed by white people.

To me, this concludes that though we have come a long way within black cinema, and have had some positive changes; producing high quality films that highlight black excellence. Hollywood still have a long way to go to get films out there that don’t portray black people in this violent repetitive way. And when they are produced by black directors to get the same exposure, and to start limiting black stories produced by white people.