2013 will end up being about a lot of things when the dust settles. It will be yet another year where most of the films in the Best Picture race are driven by the male narrative — give or take a Gravity. It will be the year that directing vets like Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, Ron Howard, George Clooney, David O. Russell take on the new guard, like Steve McQueen, JC Chandor and Ryan Coogler. It is the first year under the Academy’s first black female president, the first year into Obama’s second term, and the year the Supreme Court voted to dismantle a key component to the Voting Rights Act.
While we can’t yet know the outcome, there are a few things we do know. One of those is that, for the first time ever, black filmmakers are on a level playing field. This is the week Lee Daniels’ The Butler hit $100 million. He’s the first African American ever to be nominated for director and picture. To date, only two African Americans have been nominated for Best Director at all.
At the same time, Steve McQueen’s 12 Years a Slave won praise from critics out of Telluride, then did the same out of Toronto, winning the Audience Award. Ryan Coogler’s Fruitvale Station emerged strong out of Sundance and Cannes.
Because of the individual success of these three films and these three filmmakers, both in terms of critics and with audiences, it continues to feel awkward to put them in the same category simply because they are black filmmakers, and not the traditionally dominating white, male status quo. While that fact is notable, what’s even more notable is that they’re also telling important stories of our collective past, with a focus on the history of African Americans.
We are in the second term of the Obama presidency, though the wall of liberal support is waning. No matter what the current popular consensus about the President is, his legacy, his place in history — by helping to drag America forward he has had an enormous cultural impact, one that can’t be ignored.
In an interview with Sharon Waxman, Harvey Weinstein credited the Obama Presidency with influencing Hollywood this year to make way for these three strong films that reach all the way back to slavery, then on through the civil rights era, and up to today. While I agree with Weinstein on the one hand — there’s no denying the power of having a black man in the White House who wasn’t a butler — there’s also a cumulative effect happening in Hollywood and in the blogosphere. The debate has been raging for a while now, including here at AwardsDaily, for over ten years: why aren’t there more successful, accepted “Oscar movies” directed by black filmmakers, or more to the point, African American filmmakers?
When Steven Spielberg was shamed in 1985 for making The Color Purple (white director, black characters), it would be 24 years before another film with a predominantly black ensemble would be nominated for Best Picture. Do the Right Thing was shut out for Best Picture (earning just two nods, one for screenplay and one for Supporting Actor). Stories of racism after The Color Purple were either segregated for black audiences only or else trying to break through to the Oscar race and the power dynamic but not being somehow “right” enough for critics (almost all white and male) nor industry voters nor white audiences. So when Lee Daniels made history with Precious it was one of the first times a black director had made a movie that was “approved” by the gauntlet — critics, audiences, voters. Still, that movie was criticized for being a negative portrayal of black characters. The accusations of racism at the Oscars emerged once it seemed like there was a distinct pattern for black actors winning Oscars: they had to turn “bad.” With the exception of Jamie Foxx and perhaps Halle Berry, the voters tended to acknowledge black characters who were comfortable stereotypes — for instance, Denzel Washington steals drug money, a corrupt cop tangled up with drugs dealers.
Whether that was a fair accusation or not, it was perpetuated on through 2011 with Tate Taylor’s wildly successful The Help. Because the characters in the film were maids living amid racial oppression, the film’s success was bittersweet. The black community complained about the film. The white community complained. And honestly, the only people who really took the brunt of those complaints were the talent involved, specifically, Viola Davis, who came very close to becoming only the second African American actress in 85 years of Oscar history to win lead.
But just as Obama’s presidency seemed to wash away hundreds of years of racial oppression, this year, the success of Ryan Coogler and Lee Daniels seem to have washed away decades of a racial divide in Hollywood, specifically in the Oscar race. We can throw Steve McQueen into the mix, although his position is unique. (More on that later).
Beyond the artistic achievement of these directors, each of their three films tell of pivotal points in black American history. But they also seem to confront Hollywood’s telling of that history. Interestingly, Fruitvale Station, The Butler and 12 Years a Slave directly address the absence of truth, and the persistent problem of looking at black history through the eyes of white storytellers. In fact, these films could be played as a trilogy — the ghosts of our American past and present.
Steve McQueen isn’t an African American filmmaker. He hasn’t been subject to the same limitations or roadblocks that many young black men in America face growing up. McQueen is a fluid, free storyteller who doesn’t factor race much into his work. He is anything but an “angry black man.” In fact, it probably confuses him a little bit that American journalists keep talking about race. America is so far behind in this and many other ways that it must boggle the mind of the international community at times.
And yet, McQueen is telling the story of a free man sold into slavery — and because he had a supportive team of producers financing his vision, he didn’t have to dumb it down or soften it. Spike Lee calls American slavery a “holocaust.” Yet, how many major motion pictures have ever been released that really tell the whole story? In Oscar history one of the most popular winners to ever take the top prize was Gone with the Wind, which told the story of the Civil War without even addressing slavery. The reason is that in early Hollywood, if you were black, you couldn’t get a part that wasn’t a yassir/nossir role of being a tap dancing entertainer, a singer or a servant. How many decades did this go on?
12 Years a Slave is finally an answer to 1939’s Gone withe Wind. Women used as sex slaves, human beings beaten so hard with a whip that their backs look like clay imprinted with wooden stick prints. It is appropriately repulsive, ugly and unequivocal. By contrast, we are meant to mourn the demise of the South in Gone with the Wind, a kind of defensive point of view that is still alive today.
As soon as America woke from the nightmare of sanctioned slavery the country entered a second stupefied trance of institutionalized racism. The Reconstruction Era birthed the KKK and the white power movement that would eventually put in place Jim Crow laws that prevented black people from being treated equally. They couldn’t even drink from the same drinking fountains, attend the same schools or ride the same buses. Worse, the Jim Crow era created a prejudicial system that sought to criminalize generations of black men — arrested for some nonsensical crime and then imprisoned to work as free labor.
Slavery was bad enough, but what followed is another set of sins for which must now atone. Lee Daniels’ The Butler tells the story of the legacy of those Jim Crow laws — and the birth of the Civil Rights movement, which didn’t really become a powerful force until the 1960s in America. Think about how long it was between the end of slavery to 1968? It took a century and another bloody fight before black Americans began to have equal rights. It took a President ordering military backup to allow black kids to attend white schools. Black citizens finally got the right to vote by putting themselves in harm’s way, many of them dying for the cause. Lee Daniels tells this history in a way White Hollywood never has.
Oh, sure. There have been many stories told of the civil rights era — there’s Mississippi Burning where the white FBI guys come in and kick shit-kicker ass. That film, which is very good by the way, is similar to Quentin Tarantino’s Django Unchained, which again, gets whites off the hook with a revenge fantasy. Is that what we’re looking for? To be let off the hook? Traditionally, that has been Hollywood’s way of informing audiences of what the Civil Rights movement was all about.
Tufts University civil rights professor Dr. Peniel E. Joseph, whose books include “Waiting ‘Til the Midnight Hour: A Narrative History of Black Power in America” and “Dark Days, Bright Nights: From Black Power to Obama,” wrote an essay about Lee Daniels’ The Butler.
When it comes to America’s tortured racial history, the cinematic approach has been to let white characters speak for, about, and in lieu of blacks. The 1989 film “Mississippi Burning” invented two white protagonists (one of whom was an FBI agent) to save the day during 1964’s bloody but triumphant Freedom Summer (an effort at interracial democracy in the south that featured hundreds of white volunteers), even though the law enforcement sided with white terrorists during the events the film depicts.
Rather than allowing black activists — such as Stokely Carmichael who led Greenwood, Mississippi’s local project that summer — to speak, the film obscenely invented a scenario that cast villains as saviors and portrayed genuine heroes as helpless victims. “Mississippi Burning” sparked rightful outrage from activists and historians for willful dissemblance in changing the heroes of Mississippi’s 1964 Freedom Summer from black students and white volunteers to white FBI agents.
In contrast, “The Butler” presents a depiction of civil rights era violence that’s powerful and moving. It’s also unusual, since Hollywood has studiously avoided a film that accurately explores racial violence during the 1960s.
The Butler is a story of the transformation out of the yassir/nossir method of coping and into the activist mindset. It is an explanation for why everybody is always talking about racism, why it is such a big deal that Obama got elected at all, let alone that he’s serving two terms. The Butler eclipses so many Hollywood movies that attempt to tell the same story from the white point of view.
Says Joseph,
“At its best, “The Butler” offers a textured look at the story of a working class black man and the steep personal cost paid in order to raise a family during the age of racial apartheid in America. Malcolm X’s famous distillation of Field Negroes vs. House Negroes undergoes a searing reexamination in Daniels’s film, as Lewis comes to view his father’s discipline and sacrifice through more compassionate eyes.”
Finally, we get to Ryan Coogler’s Fruitvale Station. Young Mr. Coogler is representative of the new wave of African American auteurs in Hollywood, alongside Ava DuVernay, following in the footsteps of the pioneers, like Spike Lee, Denzel Washington, Sidney Poitier and John Singleton. Fruitvale Station extends the stories of McQueen and Daniels to talk about America here and now.
What is happening now in America is the third wave of the same fight. The Obama presidency has picked the scab of festering racism in this country — bigots no longer burning crosses on lawns but still cowered in fear and tinged with resentment at the prospect of black empowerment. Just Obama’s mere presence as a leader has caused multitudes to act like lunatics. The Tea Party was born ostensibly to gripe about taxes but it masks new breed of seething racism.
In Fruitvale Station, Michael B. Jordan plays Oscar Grant, living free in America — in a country where segregation has been shot down. In a country where the Voting Rights Act had long since past. Sure, growing up in Oakland, CA for any young black man isn’t easy. Grant isn’t perfect. He makes many mistakes but basically he’s a good guy. And yet, the mere appearance of his skin color already marks him as a target for police — the same mantra I keep reading on right wing websites and on Twitter with reference to Trayvon Martin: he’s a thug.
The beauty of Fruitvale Station, The Butler and 12 Years a Slave is that all three are ultimately imbued with optimism, not hatred. They offer hope in the end, even forgiveness. All three are stories of redemption, of lessons learned, of atonement by the oppressors. Forgiveness is the thing that ultimately sets you free. Do these stories, then, help all of us to forgive ourselves for our past?
So if 2013’s Oscar race is to be dominated by stories of our past, of the ongoing fight for racial equality, it will always be considered a cultural reflection of the Obama presidency. There is no getting around that fact. But Hollywood, too, must atone for its own failure at telling the truth, and its failure to fortify the foundation that enables filmmakers like these to flourish. The American film industry will keep getting owned by the international film community where people like Steve McQueen are encouraged, not discouraged.
When I started my website in 1999, no black actress had ever won lead in all of Oscar history. No woman director had ever won Picture and Director. And no black director had won, and back then, only one had ever been nominated. In the 15 years hence, I’ve seen a lot of dramatic change but it’s nowhere near enough. Even still, if it all ended after this year I could walk away mostly satisfied that the Oscar race is fluid, power can be shifted and great works can emerge if enough people look out for them, stand up for them, fight for them.
With so many exceptional works competing in this year’s Oscar race it’s hard to make a case for complaining. It will also be hard to find a winner, the one film that unify the giant monolith of industry voters. It will only be partly about the movie itself; much of the success will depend on the “Oscar story,” the personalities of those headed for the win, and how voters feel when they bestow their gifts.
The story of 2013 might not even be told through the Oscar race, but in the way perceptions shift, even a little. Light let into dark rooms, hope where there has only been quiet resignation, a past and a present well told. Only the future remains untold. It waits like a winged bird on the edge of everything that came before, no other choice but to take flight into a limitless horizon.
julian the emperor,
Cox’s argument instantly looked shallow, sour and childish — but it took a few hours for me to see the inherent stupidity of his gripe.
So ok. I get it now. Cox would have more respect for McQueen if he had made Hunger in 1981. When McQueen was 12 years old.
Cox would only be happy with a movie about slavery if Hollywood had made a movie about slavery in 1855.
What an idiot.
(at least we can all see how Cox feels: Apocalypse Now wasn’t necessary. Nothing to see here! Nothing to learn. Old news! yeesh).
I think we’ve already established how we feel about people who write for The Guardian
😕
In all seriousness, I don’t think the guardian critic’s use of the word “necessary” should have been enough to ignite Cox’s hair in flames. But who knows? Cox is alarmingly combustible.
I could easily pick apart the syntax of McInnes reckless(?) provocative(?) use of the word too, but I doubt anybody here is interested in reading any more of this quarrel.
Looks to me as if Cox is a troll trying to stir up a little shitstorm on his guardian-sponsored blog. I don’t see why I need to help him out any more than I already have.
I like this UK commenter
Contrariness is its own reward to those that thrive on it, and Cox is just the type poke at the cage to see if he can get a response. It certainly got him some extra attention this time.
Because questioning the “necessity” of films like 12 Years a Slave seemed to me like such an odd stretch in taste and judgment, especially since Cox hasn’t seen the film, I went back to see if he has a history of this type of provocation.
Eureka! Some remarks about some of last year’s nominees:
(Beasts of the Southern Wild) “hazarded that though tribulation may beset us, we can still make friends with prehistoric monsters.” – simply dismissive
(Zero Dark Thirty) “According to Bergen (journalist Peter), women agents tend to be more focused on getting the job done. Yet when Maya learns where Osama is hiding, she doesn’t want to get in there to collect vital data. She just wants the place bombed.” – was that the Euro-version?
(Life of Pi) “promised salvation through bubblegum philosophy.” – not allowing my R Parker anywhere near this one.
And this: “America’s most illustrious president faced the prospect of pioneering the kind of behaviour that has since destroyed faith in the country’s body politic. Would it have been better to make abolition wait? Perhaps not – but wasn’t the question worth asking? Not for Spielberg’s Lincoln.”
So I guess he – and the minions who choose this sport – are just warming-up.
Wow, well collected steve50. “Some people just want to watch the world burn” or think they’ve used the internetz to burn the world
Do you think Cox would have had a problem with having a go at a Holocaust movie that mainstream critics deemed “necessary”? I don’t think so. Why should he? If anything Holocaust movies is like an industry onto itself, surely a man of Cox’ “combustible” temper would have a field day disseminating the entire canon of Holocaust movies.
I did my thesis at university about the concept of cultural memory in relation to Holocaust and the question of American-Jewish identity (post-WWII) and I have to say that nothing emphasizes the value of the zeitgeist quite like the public reception of books and films on the Holocaust. The term wasn’t even coined and recognized as something of singular importance before the 60s and already in the 70s there was a dramatic upsurge in material about the catastrophe, both fiction and non-fiction. The way the American public responded to the TV series about Anne Frank paved the way for Hollywood’s investment in the Holocaust.
If anything, the Holocaust in addition to being emblematic for the American-Jewish notion of a collective identity has served as a powerful emblem for the all-American conception of America as a safe haven for minorities and for pluralism in general.
Today many commenters aren’t afraid of using the term “Holocaust industry” and Hollywood plays a vital role in that regard. I don’t think anyone in their right mind would deny the impact of Holocaust on the public consciousness. That’s why we need to be critical about how it’s applied and represented in art. There should be no sacred cows when it comes to critical assessments of any issue represented in the guise of artistic expression.
There are several good movies on Holocaust, there are more bad ones. The only essential one I can think of is “Shoah” by Claude Lanzmann.
Do you think Cox would have had a problem with having a go at a Holocaust movie that mainstream critics deemed “necessary”?
I dunno. Go fetch whatever he was whining about when The Reader or Inglorious Basterds came out and we’ll see.
I’m sure Cox is not afraid of making a target of himself about anything at all if he thinks it will rack up 100 comments from people who are disgusted by him.
I doubt if he’s afraid to piss on anything. ’cause he’s so brave. Lots braver than Steve McQueen. Lots.
Btw, you have a principled bias against people who write for The Guardian???
That’s alarming news, since The Guardian is one of the most renowned media in the Western world with a long and glorious tradition for promoting the basic tenets of human rights, including free speech.
You sound like Bill O’Reilly now…
My remark about The Guardian was a joke. Playing off what Bryce said. I’ll not ask if you think it’s really “nece**ary” to insult me, Mads. I’m afraid to use that filthy word in your presence ever again for the rest of my life.
Sorry, if I failed to see the joke…
The way I know you I should have known that it was indeed a joke.
(But since you find that Cox is an idiot, a liar and disgusting in addition to calling Snowden (another Guardian affiliate, you might say…) a traitor I was beginning to wonder…)
I have nothing but respect for your views on most things, Ryan. You know that. So I’m truly sorry if you feel like I insulted you.
I hope this point didn’t get lost in the weeds: David Cox is a liar for claiming Steve McQueen is telling people his movie is necessary. When it’s crystal clear to anyone but an idiot that McQueen means the depiction of violence in his movie was the necessary thing in question. That Cox would resort to such sloppy sleazy word-twisting is one of the things I find disgusting about him.
I do see your point, yes. And I think it’s a valid one. Your fact-checking certainly is more efficient than mine, I will give you that.
Whether it makes Cox “an idiot” is debatable. What about “a person with questionable motives with a history of creating shitstorms”;)
What about “a person with questionable motives with a history of creating shitstorms”?
…erm, Most of my favorite people fit that description. Myself included.
HA!:)
Call me crazy, but so far, it’s quite clear to me that the combo…
12 Years a Slave
Steve McQueen
Sandra Bullock
Robert Redford
Oprah Winfrey
Michael Fassbender
have a good advantage over the rest… it would surprise me if this is not the final photo at Oscar night…
“Steve McQueen… hasn’t been subject to the same limitations or roadblocks that many young black men in America face growing up. … He is anything but an “angry black man.” In fact, it probably confuses him a little bit that American journalists keep talking about race. America is so far behind in this and many other ways that it must boggle the mind of the international community at times.”
I would definitely not describe him as “angry” but I feel it’s a bit simplistic to act as if the United States is alone with a race problem. Human nature has a race problem. McQueen’s own UK recently had an issue with their Home Office driving around vans that said “Go Home or Face Arrest” and have been accused of racial profiling that makes the NYPD’s stop and frisk seem minor.
Other countries also don’t have as divided demographics. I can count all the black people I saw in Poland and Russia last year on one hand.
The reason I mention this is that with films like these, plus films like Blue is the Warmest Color (at a time when France and Russia have had large anti-gay protests, and the latter codifying homophobia), it’s a great time to acknowledged that the darkest nature of mankind has been to restrict rights from others – and this is prevalent in all countries’ present and/or past.
I can count all the black people I saw in Poland and Russia last year on one hand.
Pretty sure that’s part of Edward Snowden’s new job.
Who cares what Snowden is doing. He stated the obvious, everyone already assumed and didn’t care, and it had zero impact on national security. I guess maybe a president will pull a more high-tech Watergate on their opponent, but who really knows if there’ll ever be an issue with it…
I recently rented “42” and wonder what Sasha and Ryan’s thoughts are on that film in relation to the three discussed in this article.
I found “42” uneven, but it did have isolated sequences of some power (the Phillies manager’s race baiting Robison comes foremost to mind). “42” is obviously not written or directed by an African-American, so I’d see a reference to “42” more as a sidebar to this post, since it is another film from 2013 also deals with an important historical story of racial disharmony in America. Unlike “Mississippi Burning”, which is told almost exclusively from white protagonists’ p.o.v., “42”, I guess, is more like “The Help”, where black and white protagonists share the p.o.v. about 50/50. And it shares with “The Help” a certain traditional “Hollywoody” movie making aesthetic, for better or worse. I’m not surprised that in a year of Fruitvale, Butler and 12 years, 42 would get kinda forgotten, esp. as it was a spring release that has come before all these likely superior movies, but I would be interested in reading (or hearing) some comments on the film itself and how it stacks up in a year such as this one.
When the film came out, there was some talk of Harrison Ford maybe getting a sup. nod. But that seems to have fallen by the wayside, with the movie, I guess.
I thoroughly enjoyed 42. I think it will end up on my final list for one of the best movies of 2013. But yeah, it seems weird that the story was written by a white man from Rhode Island. How did that happen???
I think part of the reason why 42 may have seems uneven might have to do with the fact that it’s rated PG-13 vs R. I don’t know if they could have even done an R-rated version, since it’s about a baseball player. It would be weird if it was more like Any Given Sunday or something.
Brian Helgeland grew up here. I think he went to my high school. We like everyone ’round these parts. You must have funny ideas about Rhode Island tho. Even Sasha’s favorite, Viola Davis, is from there.
America has a lot of different pockets of racism. But as I’ve always maintained they are pockets. Most of us get along just fine or used to. I do admit that the Obama presidency has stirred some sleepy racists. But that’s coming to an end. I think, or maybe hope, this Christmas season at the movies will help with that a lot. Because the movies about how we’re the same will bring us back together again. All the race talk pushes us apart, imo.
I’m proud of you Sasha for writing this insightful article.
I want to see Baggage Claim-12 Years of A Slave-Black Nativity and Tyler Perry’s Christmas Reunion
I really love this article. I think it is great to see stories that address race. This year is incredible in the types of narratives being tackled. I think the film communities next issue is casting African American actors in roles they are not REQUIRED to. All of these films and I believe all but four or five of the performances that have been nominated for oscars REQUIRED an African American to be cast in the roles. It would be nice to also see stories involving African Americans, Asians and Hispanics in narratives that don’t require them.
The performances I can think of nominated for oscars that didn’t require a black actor are:
Denzel Washington in Flight
Jamie Foxx in Collateral
Queen Latifah in Chicago
Morgan Freeman in Shawshank Redemption
Quvenzhané Wallis in Beast of the Southern Wild
Can anyone think of anymore?
Truly an amazing article, Sasha. Probably my favorite one I’ve ever read from you, and we go way back. 🙂 The points you make about the residual racism in the South are sadly very true. I live in Alabama and I still witness underlying racism far more often than I would like. The Trayvon Martin case has been a sad reminder that we still have a lot of work to do in how we view black citizens in America. Just this past month I overheard a lunchtime conversation between two coworkers who said they almost fell for “the sweet black kid shtick” before finally realizing “the truth, that he was just another black thug.” It’s almost easy to become numb to everything. We’ve still got a long way to go. The KKK, while pretty under the radar these days, is still around. My uncle is actually a grand wizard. Needless to say, we don’t speak.
All this to say, keep shining a light, Sasha and Ryan. We need it.
This post is the most articulate possible response to your contention that anything can now be an Oscar movie. Here, I agree with you.
I teach a diversity-in-film class (I’ll email you the name of the college privately). Do I have your permission to quote you in lecture? (If I don’t hear, I’ll assume the answer is yes.) I got a LOT of students agreeing with Gov. Bobby Jindal on “the end of race.” Uh and yes most of them are white guys. Still, makes for lively discussions. Last week, the class went crazy on whether or not Dave Chapelle promotes or exposes stereotypes
Curiosity: which year had the most black performers nominated? Is it 2006 with Hudson, Murphy, Hounsou, Whitaker and Smith?
Two years earlier there were also 5 performances by black actors nominated, but since two of those nominations were for Jamie Foxx, I guess 2006 (or 2007, if you google it) still sees the most black performers nominated. Unless there is another year that eludes me.
As great as the three black-directed American history films may be, I find it hard to believe they will come close to the greatness achieved by another subject, in the medium of television for that matter. (Yes! Television!!) The last Breaking Bad episode, “Ozymandias,” was extraordinary. Right now it has a perfect 10 rating on imdb, which is unheard of. If there was ever an expression in the American film and television industry that represents the continuation of the boldness and artistic freedom of the 1970s today, it’s probably Breaking Bad. I believe that Bryan Cranston may now be the greatest working American actor. What he has done on the show—see particularly this episode and season two’s “Phoenix”—is unparalleled. He has formed a very real character, an every man, and morphed his Walter White through the extraordinary circumstances of the show into someone completely different, on a level we have frankly never seen before. On film, recently, the Oscars have rewarded the most acting, the actors with the most visible chops and their thunderous scene stealing, rather than the performances that seem so genuinely real and human. I’m surprised you haven’t blogged about the show on the TV portion of this blog. I find it very unlikely that a film this year will surpass the sheer devastation and horror found in this last episode as Walt had to sever his ties with his family.
It was a good episode, but too often it seemed like the characters’ actions didn’t match their motivations and instead they acted to further the plot. I’m not so sure they would have let Walt have the money, for example, unless they thought it was a way to get him to cook again. I don’t know. I’m not sold. But yeah, it was a great episode in terms of suspense and emotional effect, I’m just not sure it will hold up after the shock and surprise wear off.
I think Walt getting the one barrel of money made sense, as it was a gesture of respect. A better question, perhaps, is why will the neo-Nazis continue to cook meth now that they have $70 million? The show will probably answer this in the final two episodes and continue to wrap up loose ends.
Look, Breaking Bad’s not perfect, and yes sometimes character is sacrificed for plot, but “Ozymandias” was a much different episode than say Game of Thrones’ “Rains of Castamere.” It wasn’t centered around a single, shock-inducing event, but instead focused on the long-coming devastating effects of Walt’s actions on his family. That’s what I was getting at and that’s where I disagree with the comment on it not holding up. The opening teaser, highlighting the cliffs of Tohajiilee, was brilliantly executed, showing the passage of time in one place, where Walt began to cook and told his first lie to Skyler. The episode then amped up the horror for viewers from the season’s previous high, “Crawl Space” in season four, and captured something we don’t see in film anymore, or haven’t seen in a long time. Maybe because this kind of storytelling is more suited for television? We see the gradual change in Walt’s character, how everything builds to the moment when he must leave the family, for whom he entered the drug business in the first place. For these reasons, the moment in the house was absolutely terrifying, and Walt’s phone call to Skyler a wonderful example of the complex emotions Cranston brings to his character.
I don’t look for lapse in character continuity, it’s just a natural response that happens. “Did that make sense?” happens spontaneously, and when it happens it takes me out of the moment. It happened several times this episode. I agree that this episode was topnotch in many ways, it’s just that my natural, internal beeper was set off too often for me to stay completely enraptured.
A friend of mine posted this was the most emotionally affecting episode of tv ever and I quickly disagreed going back to the episode of thirtysomething when Gary died. Now that episode left me bleak and alone, it truly felt like someone I loved died and the show continued it a couple of episodes later when Michael was coming to grips with Gary’s death. There was nothing in those episodes that set off that internal beeper. That was real and raw and unforgettable.
There are better moments of Breaking Bad than this episode. Maybe I will disagree when it all ends and I watch the series for a second time through. We’ll see.
a friend of mine posted this was the most emotionally affecting episode of tv ever
Sometimes I fall victim to dramatic gut-punches that stun me with their audacity. But often that sort of emotional jolt will push my buttons just once. Those shock and awe moments won’t always have the same impact for me on repeat viewings.
But this never fails to wreck me:
“You can’t take a picture of this. It’s already gone.”
From about 3:33 onward, I’m a goner. Is that uncool or trite by now? I don’t care. Can’t deny it still crushes me.
Rian Johnson is destined to become one of premier filmmakers of the world…if he isn’t already.
BREAKING BAD for Best Picture!
Steve,
Those countries basically consist of African nations and India. They are diverse, because tribes haven’t fully united linguistically and/or culturally. Notice how non-diverse Italy is. Sicilian is a separate language from Italian. Ditto Sardinian, and so on. 100 years ago under the same criteria, Italy would’ve been extremely diverse.
Do you really think Canada is more racially diverse? It gets “points” for having two official languages. Blacks and Latinos are a MUCH smaller percentage of the population there. Only with Asians do they have a slight edge.
P.S. I haven’t been to the moon, but I still know that it’s not made out of cheese. I haven’t been to the sun either, but I know that its light takes approx. 8 minutes to get here.
The “international community” consists of countries that are nearly monochromatic compared to us. How many white people live in Japan? How many black Russians are there (not counting cocktails)?
Obama didn’t strike Syria, because public opinion wasn’t on his side. He did strike Libya — after several European countries had already decided to do so.
I’m torn re the NSA. Courts (whether FISA or Supreme) don’t always get things right. Dred Scot, anyone? Plessy, anyone? The constitution puts restraints on GOVERNMENT. Verizon has a right to my phone records. Does the govt, without probable cause?
So, movies like “Cabin in the Sky,” “A Raisin in the Sun” and “The Long Walk Home” lose points, because their directors were white? Where are Maya Angelou’s props for “Down in the Delta?”
Oh, Tony…Where do you get your information and how often have you actually set foot in other countries?
The link is to a July 2013 study on international ethnic diversity (with a graphic) and there are plenty more out there online.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/07/18/the-most-and-least-culturally-diverse-countries-in-the-world/
One more jab at this silly twit, Cox, and then I’ll quit. David Cox claims that Steve McQueen says 12 Years a Slave is a “necessary” film.
David Cox is a greasy slimeball liar.
Here’s what Steve McQueen actually said:
The realistic depiction of violence is what’s necessary. McQueen means in order to portray the brutality, he felt obligated to do what was necessary to capture that brutality onscreen.
So if Cox really wants to confront McQueen about that statement, he might ask, “eww, is all the blood and hitting and stuff really necessary?”
Where are your “brave” balls now, David Cox?
You’re telling us the violence isn’t necessary? Suck it up, ya big blouse nancy.
But no, David Cox has the gall to implicate Steve McQueen in this disingenuous conceit he cooked up. He points at McQueen and says, “Look! the director thinks his movie is NECESSARY,” and then clucks his tongue, “tsk-tsk. Look at the pompous director! I caught him saying the word ‘necessary’ out loud!”
Never mind the obvious context. McQueen only said showing the violence is necessary.
I call bullshit. David Cox is trolling.
Well, is it “necessary” to call a Guardian journalist who is voicing an opinion “a greasy slimeball liar” or utter “suck it up, ya big blouse nancy”? (whatever that means)?
At least, Cox doesn’t use words like that. He is not trying to be demeaning, as far as I can tell.
I think it’s perfectly alright if you don’t agree with him and it’s fine that you point out where his claims are false or uninformed. I support you all the way (I didn’t take the time to fact-check his claims myself).
But let’s cut the abusive language. I don’t know who you’re trying to impress?
The “antidote” comment: I was trying to be a bit ironic because of all the commenters going “wow! such a beautiful essay” and the like. In that sense the Cox article functioned as an antidote of sorts. And it really worked you up, I can tell!;) But maybe it was the wrong choice of words. It sure wasn’t meant as a way of belittling Sasha’s stance which I fully respect.
But, hey, I appreciate your fact-checking when it comes to Cox’ claims and his line of reasoning. That is commendable and probably underlines the fact that maybe Cox should have kept quiet until he actually got to see the movie (maybe that goes for all of us?).
Am I under some obligation to do and say only what’s necessary? At what point was this restriction imposed on me?
What the hell is with this sudden requirement that we should all shut up unless what we say is absolutely necessary?
Cox is directing insinuating that Steve McQueen is going around saying 12 Years is “necessary.” That makes Cox a liar who’s trying to make McQueen look arrogant, self-important and pompous. I’m calling Cox out in terms designed to get people’s attention.
Cox searches google to see if McQueen has ever uttered the word “necessary” in public, and when he finds a time when he did, Cox goes “aha! gotcha! you said ‘necessary’! oh, so you think your movie is ‘necessary,’ huh? Watch me now stir up some shit by taking that word completely out of context and twisting it to fit into some completely unrelated thing that I’m mad about.”
That’s disgusting, it’s warped and gross, Mads. If you don’t see it, I’m sorry you’re so gullible.
Cox is directing insinuating that Steve McQueen is going around saying 12 Years is “necessary.” That makes Cox a liar who’s trying to make McQueen look arrogant, self-important and pompous. I’m calling Cox out in terms designed to get people’s attention.
Mcqueen does a great job doing that himself. Just look at TIFF press conference.
Good that you’re keeping an eye on McQueen’s demeanor. Thank god you see what’s important. The main thing to worry about: How cuddly is Steve McQueen? Can’t let the negro act too uppity, right?
Really incisive contribution to the discussion, PJ. Bravo.
Just so everybody knows exactly what you’re up to, PJ.
Adorable how you’re “firmly in the corner” of a movie you haven’t even seen yet. Cute how you snipe about McQueen’s attitude as a way to deflect from what a sweetie o’Russell can be. Charming how you’re salivating about dirty laundry.
What a noble film lover you are.
It’s not like Cox invented this stuff entirely. He reacted to – among others – The Guardian’s own review of the film (by Paul McInnes):
A quote: “Stark, visceral and unrelenting, 12 Years a Slave is not just a great film but a necessary one.”
As I said earlier, Cox’ perspective is interesting because he puts a spotlight on why people like McInnes chooses to describe a certain kind of movie as necessary (and in the process he reverts the typical notion of what we refer to as necessary).
Maybe his dig (if that’s really what it is, I’m not so sure) at McQueen is unwarranted, so what? Don’t you ever write something that puts a director or an actor you don’t like in a bad light? (you have been very crass with George Clooney over the years, to name one, was that also disgusting behavior and do you regret it?).
That’s why I don’t understand the urge to use abusive language about someone who merely writes something critical about a director you admire. Especially since you have the arguments to back up your position.
Is the only difference that Cox reaches a bigger audience and therefore has to reign in his remarks? Does he have to answer to some code of responsibility that you don’t?
Btw, I didn’t mention this earlier, but you made quite a compelling case for why 12 Years A Slave is NOT the typical Hollywood reaction to the zeitgeist.
Still, it’s not a controversial movie either, is it? Because even though there are plenty of bigots in this world a movie like this is expected to “hit home” with its audience because the producers and the filmmaker KNOW that the mainstream audience sympathizes with the hero of the film and what he stands for.
Again (and I keep reiterating this): I think the world of McQueen and I think he knows how to handle this material. Like Rufus said, this is probably more a story about a slave than the story about slavery. That’s the vital difference for me. Because I want it to be a work of art rather than a graphic education in the horrors of history.
Maybe Hollywood is more afraid of Steve McQueen than of America’s shameful past? Maybe both…?
Or call the Poison HOTLINE 1-800-222-1222
yeesh, julian the emperor, seriously? An antidote? Because this post might somehow be toxic to some people?
Perhaps there’s nothing especially brave about making any movie about anything?
If that’s so, then I wonder what studios are afraid of? Because they sure do seem nervous about ever making this kind of movie. If they’re afraid to do something that requires no bravery at all, then they’re pathetic trembly chickenshits indeed.
The brave thing is maybe putting up $22 million dollars and investing artistic effort in an important movie and then putting on a brave face when somebody shrugs and says, “nice, but it’s NOT VERY BRAVE, is it?”
The chickenshits are the studio execs who decline the offer to make a powerful work of art because they think $22 million is too much to spend on a movie that doesn’t have enough fart jokes or bouncing titties.
As long as we’re picking apart this “brave” thing. What’s so brave about making a movie about black warlords torturing white sailors? Isn’t that Cox’s silly standard for brave filmmaking? Why? Does he think the big black warlords might come get us while we’re sleeping? BOO!
And we know nobody has anything to fear from narrow-minded bigots. They’re pussycats. Pussycats with assault rifles, but still. And narrow-minded bigotry is so rare, right?
thank you for another first rate essay, once again.
one comment, the US is admired internationally for its struggles toward inclusiveness and diversity. ,Yes, racism is worse in the US than even these films depict – far worse, but racial and ethnic homogeneity are fiercely defended everywhere. Just yesterday, here in Berlin, a young UK couple was talking to us about the frightening rise of racist groups in their country.
13 YRS is not so much the ”Schindlers List of slavery ” , but the ”Uncle Tom’s Cabin of film”
I’m glad that there are now more predominantly “black” movies by black film makers. Movies should be made by everyone, and for everyone.
My only problem is that it seems like sometimes movies starring black actors are what I would consider stories that seem to perpetuate the old stereotypes that we should be moving away from. Films where the characters are living in the slums, selling drugs, smoking weed, etc..
I see the value in the more recent films where we are finally seeing a more well rounded view of what life was like for blacks in this country. We have a dark and sad history, but sometimes the only way to get past it is to go through….
BTW, I found this list, and thought I would pass it on to anyone interested: http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2013/06/the-25-best-black-movies-of-the-last-25-years/do-the-right-thing
As always I love what I read. I appreciate the different depictions in this article. It makes me think critcally about a lot things that may have not crossed my cranium on a regular day.
Do you know what the FISA court is, tr?
It’s the court that oversees the legality of US spy agencies, authorized by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
Do you know who else besides you still insists the NSA is violating the constitution?
You and Rand Paul.
You and Sean Hannity
You don’t have to like what the NSA is doing. But you should listen to constitutional lawyers and US courts instead of right-wing hacks.
You should probably also stop believing that President Obama micromanages the most secret operations of the NSA.
I liked THE BUTLER quite a bit and I saw it as an American story more than an African American story. But you know I’m like that by now. Haven’t seen the other two yet.
You know what I was thinking about though. Supposed Blaxploitation movies. There was a whole point in time where they let you into what was going on in the black community. And then there was another time when you weren’t supposed to watch them because they were evil or racist or something. Movies like DISCO GODFATHER and COTTON COMES TO HARLEM might seem weird and sorta crappy but looking back they actually served a purpose. They might even be more historically accurate than some of the stuff that came later. I mean when you really think about it a lot of the problems black people are still dealing with today come from the drugs that were placed in the community back then and that’s really what those movies were about. So maybe they should have been taken more seriously. In fact I wouldn’t be surprised if they had to make them seem foolish just to get that underlying message out there at the time.
Hollywood did make Django Unchained tho, so that’s their POV on the subject.
But Brad Pitt refused to do it on the cheap. He cobbled together the $22 million McQueen needed. (Hollywood would have spent $65 million to get the same look).
Identity politics are tiresome enough in politics; likewise in discussions of film.
O.T. — Has anyone else gotten hit with viruses at this site? It happened to me awhile back and multiple times this past week. I’m using my iPad right now, because the attacks on my PC were relentlessly tiresome.
Would you email me with details of the trouble or warnings you got, Tony. Thanks.
Two things:
First, the trouble we’ve had before is technically malware — not a virus or trojans.
Second, if you got a malware warning from your malware protection then of course that means your malware protection is protecting you — so the warnings mean you’re safe.
Twelve Years a Slave is not about slavery it’s about being a slave. I think the film resonates because it gives voice to the slaves, gives them personalities, it gives them lives. It’s a story of real human beings trapped in an institution they have virtually no hope of escaping. Outside of Northup there is no hope for any of them and for that reason it’s a highly different film than what we are seeing. There’s no hero coming along.
I think there is some progress being made this year in other ways. Antoine Fuqua directed Olympus has Fallen, which earned $99 million domestically. Justin Lin and James Wan have had huge hits this year as well(I know they aren’t black, but they are non-white directors in charge of a huge franchise). Hopefully, this opens it up for other minority directors to direct big budget films.
For anyone who needs an antidote to this post I would recommend David Cox’ comment in The Guardian.
Sasha argues that this year is a banner year for black movies which are (too easily) equalled with IMPORTANT movies. I would like to advocate for a clearer distinction between important issues and important movies…which leads me to Cox:
Cox argues that a movie like 12 Years A Slave is exactly the opposite of a NECESSARY movie (even though it’s admirers champion it as exactly that and that’s why we need to see it, they argue), because it’s so damn typical of Hollywood to make a sweeping movie about an issue that everyone NOW can agree on. What’s brave (or even particularly interesting) about that?
A movie about the opposite perspective, on the other hand, would have been braver, Cox argues. Black warlords torturing white sailors (which happened frequently 200 years ago, apparently)…
That last bit is probably meant as a provocation, but I see his point. Important movies are movies that take us to another place than what the current zeitgeist allow us to see.
So while I do agree 100% with Sasha in a political sense (and maybe in an emotional sense as well), I find myself slightly discouraged in an aesthetic sense…and being hypersensitive when it comes to overt political correctness I kind of wince a bit when reading pieces that make the commenters go “this is an important post” or “that was a beautiful essay”. But that’s MY problem, I know.
I would like to add that I’m looking very much forward to McQueen’s movie, not for it’s topic (or topicality), but for the fact that it allows a great filmmaker to expand his vision and to express himself on a broader canvas.
Also, I’m confident that McQueen will manage to challenge me (and other viewers) with his film rather than just making the truth more painfully obvious than it already is.
Just to be clear. 12 Years a Slave is not a Hollywood movie. No studio wanted to make it. Brad Pitt’s independent production company, Plan B, pulled together the financing. Brad Pitt essentially wrote a check for half the budget and the rest of the money came from other independent sources including the UK’s Film 4.
Where can I find those movies? They sound great. I’d like to see some of them.
Thank you, Ryan. Julian, your comment is ridiculous? What the hell is a necessary movie? When Harry Met Sally? Cat On A Hot Tin Roof? Broadway Melody of Whenthehellever? It’s important that stories are told and retold, because they will reach SOMEBODY. As much as I hate, er, let’s see, The Descent 2, there is someone who that movie spoke to. I’ll never call it unnecessary, but I will say how much I dislike it and what could have made it better.
What is SO LEGIT about Steve McQueen’s 12 Years A Slave is that it isn’t Roots, it isn’t Amistad, and it isn’t Django. It’s a story we haven’t been told, and the vision is so distinct, that makes it worthy of my time. And isn’t it time that we have so many amazing performances in ONE YEAR by so many black actors?
My only cloud in this immense silver lining is I remember the giant drop off the year after we had all those amazing Oscar nominees with Hotel Rwanda, Ray, and anything Morgan Freeman was in, we had such a whitewashed year, excused by Crash and Ang Lee (both of whom were deserving IMO) when it came to nominees. I’d hate for next year to fall off the wagon so hard.
Again I was referring to an article in order to introduce to another perspective.
Cox is surely referring to “necessary” in a larger societal sense, not in an individual sense. That’s how I read him anyway.
The concept of what’s “necessary” is exactly what he problematizes in his article, because all critics out of Telluride and Toronto used that word in relation to 12 Years A Slave. That’s what he finds slightly absurd since what the movie depicts in a larger sense is something no right-thinking person would disagree with. It doesn’t tell us something we didn’t already know, unless we lack imagination!
You’re gonna have to prove to me that all the reviews out of Telluride and Toronto use the word ‘necessary’ or even make that insinuation using other words. I don’t get that at all from the reactions I’ve skimmed.
But I confess I never read reviews before I see movies. Maybe Cox shouldn’t either.
Cox sounds mad that everybody is telling him he has to go see this movie. But nobody is telling him that. Let’s pitch in and get him a card that says “THEN STAY THE FUCK HOME” and we can all sign it.
You told us what make you cringe. Want to know what makes me cringe? Sentences like that.
No, the opposite of a NECESSARY movie is a movie that’s UNNECESSARY. Say that out loud, julian the emperor. Say it. “12 Years a Slave is unnecessary.” Say it again. Keep saying it to hear how awful it sounds.
Here’s a suggestion. if you don’t want to see it, then don’t go see it.
Jesus, you guys don’t seem to read what I said. I referred to an article by a guy called David Cox. I explicitly point out that I’m referring to him (several times even), rather than stating what I think. I think discussions about any issue are more engaging if you are allowed to introduce other perspectives. That’s all. Tough luck, if I’m wrong when it comes to this discussion (?)
Furthermore, I write that I’m looking forward to the film and that I’m sure McQueen will make a worthwhile, challenging movie, so why go all “don’t watch the movie, if you don’t find it necessary!” with me?? There is nothing I wrote that warrants that attitude.
I have to say it again, then: I agree with Sasha in a political sense, I just find it interesting and stimulating that there are other perspectives out there. And I don’t think that 12 Years A Slave is a brave undertaking since only the most narrow-minded bigot would care to think that what the movie portrays is a gross misrepresentation of actual history.
That doesn’t make it a lesser movie, though. Far from it. But I think Cox is onto something when he writes about why everybody seems to throw the word “necessary” around when dealing with this type of film. That is what I find stimulating. That he reverts the typical notion of what we refer to as necessary. But if you don’t like to be stimulated in your notions about what’s up and down, true or false, then my post (or Cox’ article) will surely be less appealing to you.
julian the emperor, I’m genuinely sorry if you feel bombarded from all sides (welcome to my world 🙂
I read and understood perfectly what you said — I shouldn’t have personalized the discussion by disputing what I saw Cox say and making you responsible for defending him.
But you know what though? Honestly, I swear to god, I never hear anybody ever “throw the word ‘necessary’ around when dealing with this type of film.”
Who talks like that? Nobody I know, and no readers at AwardsDaily that I can recall.
So it’s like this Cox dude wrote a big huffy article about how he wished everybody would stop saying ice cream is so necessary. And we’re all, like, um… who’s saying the word ‘necessary’ but him? We just love ice cream.
I haven’t seen the word “necessary” written anywhere in reference to 12 Years a Slave. Have you?
I’ve not even seen anybody casually say OMFG YOU GOTTA SEE THIS MOVIE. Most of us don’t need to be told which movies we need to see in order to be well-informed about movies. So I don’t really get the bug that’s crawled up Cox’s butt.
Furthermore, if he wants to argue about how it would be braver to make a movie about black warlords torturing white sailors, then he should find the brave balls to write that movie himself. He can argue about that till he turns blue, but there’s no guarantee that a movie about black warlords torturing white soldiers won’t be pointless, terrible or boring.
I don’t measure imaginary movies by how brave they might be. Who the hell does?
Just read Cox’s piece. I had to give traffic to The Guardian’s website, and I’m never happy to do that, but anyways, he strikes me as someone who doesn’t know much about film, he might not know much about anything? What’s supposed to be his expertise? I could go on to list all the landmark cinema that would be deemed unnecessary under the parameters of his weird rant, but that’d be just -well unnecessary, since there’re plenty cinephiles amongst Awards Daily readers, a site I’m happy to provide with traffic.
“I had to give traffic to The Guardian’s website, and I’m never happy to do that”
I get to see all the Glenn Greenwald I need whenever his hair-on-fire articles are dismantled by smarter people.
Well, hurray for you! So everything on The Guardian’s web page is somehow beneath you, huh?
It must be lovely to have such a firm grasp of the world that you can just discard with everything one of the world’s most renowned media has to say.
Congrats, Bryce.
I can’t say every single item in that website is, but at large, in its current configuration, The Guardian is beneath me. I mean it’s been two(2) dubious articles taking shots at 12 YEARS A SLAVE in less than a week from The Guardian.
I do think this (or any) discussion would benefit if we allow ourselves to discuss a multitude of perspectives rather than to settle for one all-encompassing truth or notion of correctness about any given issue.
By the way I’m all for that^^ and that’s exactly what we’re doing! Well not so much me. I’m not close to being that good a writer to properly convey sense of my ideas, but the discussion has been sparked so you should satisfied. I don’t think calling someone a tool borders abusive behavior, but you must way more polite than me. Anyways, I appreciate your posts…cheers.
Well, cheers in return. I enjoy your input on AD as well. Definitely.
I just think it’s foolish of you to hate The Guardian because a couple of writers choose to put a critical spot on a film you are looking forward to.
You don’t think the editors of The Guardian come up with some plot to undermine Steve McQueen, do you?
The Guardian is one of the best news sites around. Their coverage of culture at large (and sports) is among the best there is.
I like their literary pages, but I must admit I am very displeased by their far left bias and anti-monarchy positions.
“far left bias”? Guardian is what you would call “liberal” if you are an American and slightly left-wing if you are an European. But “far left”? No way. On human rights issues they are certainly left, but when it comes to economics they are probably more right than left.
Important movies are movies that take us to another place than what the current zeitgeist allow us to see.
What, and nothing else? Just that? That alone?
I kind of wince a bit when reading pieces that make the commenters go “this is an important post”
Tough shit, it is.
And ditto Ryan on the financing. Jumped right out at me reading julian’s comment. A false statement intended for the purpose of hyperbole. Hollywood did make Django Unchained tho, so that’s their POV on the subject.
My reply to Ryan was meant as a reply to all of you who took umbrage with my comment. So please, go read that as well.
But just one thing, Paddy: I disliked Django Unchained for exactly the reasons I guess I’m going to love McQueen’s work: Tarantino shied away from dealing with the truth in a meaningful way (although his method of subverting the concept of authentic meaning often is stimulating and, yes, meaningful). I think the unflinching look at slavery (or as Rufus points out: the life of a slave, the distinction between singular and plural carry some weight here) has the potential to turn this particular movie into something that transcends the “banality” of setting the record straight when it comes to the question of historical justice or notions of right and wrong (who in their right mind would argue that slavery was a good thing or a just cause??). If what the movie is concerned with is the latter, it is not an interesting movie to me, because who would disagree. If what it is concerned with is depicting the life and destiny of an individual (wherefrom you can draw your own conclusions) I think it is has the potential to be very interesting.
Maybe that’s where David Cox simplifies his message: he refuses to see 12 Years A Slave as a work of art rather than as a pure “message movie” (?)
I hope my reply to Ryan and to you settles this discussion somehow and makes my intentions more clear or at least brings in more nuance to what I intended.
I do think this (or any) discussion would benefit if we allow ourselves to discuss a multitude of perspectives rather than to settle for one all-encompassing truth or notion of correctness about any given issue.
I’ve read Cox’s article and found the logic a bit screwy, seemingly confusing “necessary” with “important”. His last paragraph completely lost me.
I don’t know that McQueen thinks of any of his films as either “necessary” or “important”, but simply as character driven stories of people in extreme circumstances. The circumstances may be political in origin, but his stories definitely are not (nor are they prurient, for that matter, rather, they are unflinching in that nothing is off-limits, audience sensibilities be damned).
Many of us do feel that McQueen’s work is necessary – as the work of an artist who uses his camera and actors in ways we are not used to. He confronts our comfort zone, makes us feel what we would normally avoid in the safety of our TV, novels or feelgood blockbuster.
That makes his work very necessary.
I must say that I probably understand USA a little better after reading this. Sasha should be a documentary filmmaker perhaps. This article might get some heat, too (from Obama haters).
I have not seen any of the three 2013 films that are talked about here, and yes, McQueen probably feels uncomfortable that his skin colour is suddenly an “issue” in an Oscar race.
An important post which I think may not only resonate for months to come through this year’s Oscar race, but which I think may also influence its trajectory. I’m glad you’ve decided to write it, Sasha, having heard you bring up such issues in a few podcasts and having read them on other posts. I hope this gets a lot of circulation around the web.
Sasha,
Do you sincerely believe Obama has been any different from the rest?
The Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden situations? The NSA scandal? His eagerness to go to war with Syria?
Do you sincerely believe Obama has been any different from the rest? …His eagerness to go to war with Syria?
Say what? If President Obama was “eager” to go war with Syria all he has to do is give the order to go to war with Syria. He chose not to.
Do you sincerely think how Obama is handling Syria the same way Bush handled Iraq?
Shaky grasp of reality you’ve got there.
===
Sorry, but what NSA scandal? The NSA is a spy agency. oh my god you mean the spies are spying? Scandal!
The NSA has done nothing illegal — and nothing surprising. I wish there were more restrictions on the scope of their data-mining, but try to relax. Obama is not being briefed about the details of private calls between you and your mom. I fail to see how Obama is responsible for the crimes of Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden. There’s a fugitive traitor who’s now working for Vladimir Putin. The guy you seem to think is a hero.
You need to cancel your subscription to Scandal of the Week. The media loves to play the SCANDAL! card. Please don’t be dumb enough to fall for that.
But back to your question, at no point does Sasha say that Obama is a perfect president. I have problems with some of the things he’s done. This piece is not an analysis of Obama’s accomplishments or a list of his disappointments. The significance of Obama’s presidency has nothing to do with the admittedly creepy behavior of NSA. Surely you can see that.
Astonished he forgot about Benghazi.
Snowden is a fugitive traitor, you say? Because he decided to let the American people know what their government was up to behind their backs? Until this leak we had no inkling of the magnitude of Prism, and you’re going to say what he did was traitorous? I guarantee if Bush were president you’d be singing a different tune about this issue which you seem to regard as insignificant.
Calling him a traitor sounds like the nightly drivel that people are privy to on Fox News.
And you’re right, Obama did go to Congress about Syria and I respect him for that, but he’s still going on TV pleading his case to go in. His approach to the situation is far different from Bush’s, yes, but the fact that he’s even courting conversation of war with Syria is enough for me.
What the NSA is doing is against the U.S. constitution, so yes, it is a scandal. Is it surprising? No, but to believe it’s not a real “scandal” is to sound like a partisan hack. Liberals are making excuses for Obama just like conservatives were making excuses for Bush.
I can imagine you just assumed I was a Republican, didn’t you, Ryan?
I understand the article was not about Obama’s failures or accomplishments, and sure, his presidency has significance, but I’m still gleaning a hopeful allure to Obama in every piece wherein Sasha speaks about him. It’s only annoying because it implies what you accused me of having (a little aggressive, are we? Relax)…a shaky grasp of reality.
That’s exactly what I said.
No it isn’t. That’s why nobody in the NSA has been arrested. That’s why the NSA is not even having its wrists slapped. If the NSA is violating the Constitution then why aren’t people going to jail?
If the NSA is violating the Constitution by keeping track of who calls who. then Verizon AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile are violating the constitution every time we get our phones bills. (hey, I wish Verizon would stop keeping track of my phone usage too. They keep wanting me to pay for all the times They Know I’m On the Phone. Sneaky bastards.)
I don’t know whether you’re a Democrat of Republican and it doesn’t matter. The NSA is not breaking the law and it’s not violating the constitution. Educate yourself and try to calm down.
Edward Snowden is now working for Vladimir Putin and telling a foreign government everything he knows about the inner workings of America’s intelligence agencies.
But go right ahead and put him on a pedestal like he did you a big favor. Meanwhile nothing Snowden did to give away state secrets will change anything about how he NSA keeps track of phone records. So Snowden accomplished nothing — except for the priceless information he’s now sharing with the Russians.
You’re priorities are so screwed up. Please tell me how the NSA has harmed you or any other American.
Ryan, just to get this straight: You think Snowden is a traitor because he chose to share his insight with the rest of the world or because he now “works for Putin”?
To me, his neither a hero or a traitor. I think the information he chose to share was vital for a discussion about the NSA and how much surveillance of private communication we should allow in liberal democracies. That’s an interesting debate that touches on some pretty essential principles.
Without knowing (or caring much about) his personal motivation for doing so, I think he did the right thing.
Furthermore, he’s paying for it, don’t you think? He will probably never see his family or friends again.
I guess it’s fair enough to call him a hypocrite (rather than a traitor) for taking refuge in Russia, but what was his options? He probably would have preferred Norway or Iceland (like Bobby Fischer), but he didn’t get that opportunity. Would you have called him a traitor if he lived in Iceland, a liberal democracy, now?
Is staying in Russia his crime? And how do you know he works for Putin, btw?
I’m just curious to know why an American liberal (that’s how I think of you) calls Snowden a traitor. I think most European liberals see it differently.
The second thing. If he wants to be whistleblower, to reveal wrongdoings, America has protections in place for people who do that properly.
But as an employee of an intelligence agency, he’s bound by certain obligations not to reveal some aspects of how that intelligence agency goes about its business. To reveal secret business of an agency that necessarily operates behind a veil of secrecy in order to function violates sworn agreements Snowden must surely have signed and he must surely have known that.
Besides, he’s not exposing any wrongdoings. He’s exposing things that bug him. That’s not good enough. That’s why he needed to proceed with his revelations under auspices of authority who know more about the legality of these things than he does. That’s why he ran to hide before he revealed anything. That’s why he had already contacted the Russians when he was in Hong Kong, long before he told Greenwald anything. That’s why Russia adopted him (after pretending for a few days that they didn’t know if they wanted him).
He’s a lower-level spy who defected to another country and brought a laptop of state secrets with him. He has expertise that will now enable the KGB to circumvent the legal efforts of the NSA. That makes him a traitor. If he wasn’t afraid of being prosecuted he wouldn’t have skedaddled out of the US before he started spilling his guts.
How do I know former KGB Putin is extracting everything he can from Snowden in exchange for giving Snowden asylum? First, because I’m not stupid. Second, because I read the news.
The NSA has secrets They depend on secrecy to do their job. Some people act as if the NSA is listening in on everybody’s phone calls but that is not the case.
I respect him for that, but he’s still going on TV pleading his case to go in.
Wrong. False.
Here’s what you said, tr.
“Do you sincerely believe Obama has been any different from the rest?”
Listen to yourself, dude. Do YOU sincerely believe Obama is no different than Dubya, Reagan, Nixon? Do you think Obama would have led us into Iraq on false premises? Do you think Obama would enable Iraq to be sold chemical weapons materials like Reagan did? Sell arms to Iran and and sell cocaine in Nicaragua?
Tell me which Republican president you think Obama most resembles. Your pouting about Syria is ridiculous.
Is Obama being a warmonger for advocating some kind of serious sanction on Syria?
This is not like the invasion in Iraq with fabricated claims in order to settle old scores. This is about some of the worst offenses against human rights in recent times.
It is also not a case of a deliberate act of aggression. I think Kerry (more than Obama, who seems curiously passive on this matter) feels truly outraged by the doings of a mad despot with no regards for the suffering of his own people.
What do YOU think his agenda is? To just bother the American people with yet another costly war campaign?
Sasha, that was such a beautiful essay-I got teary-eyed and reflective, because I drank from one of those “colored-only fountains, and rode in the back of the bus as kid growing up in Texas.
I was really excited when Michael Schultz got to direct Sgt. Peppers Lonely Heart’s Band back in 1978. I thought it would open the floodgate for African-American film makers to direct a variety of projects, not just black films. However, I had to wait till Carl Franklin came along to direct Meryl Streep.
I hope this year will be the start of a new beginning.
Denzel was a corrupt cop in Training Day. He was not a drug dealer. The Academy did not award comfortable stereotypes with that performance. How many black actors have had as meaty a role as this one? His character(Alonzo Harris) is as iconic to crime films as Gene Hackman’s Popeye Doyle was when he won best actor in 1971.
I don’t disagree with the majority of what you wrote and think this year is a good start in having more movies released from black filmmakers.
Denzel was a corrupt cop in Training Day. He was not a drug dealer.
He’s a corrupt cop whose corruption is motivated by drug money and he’s a drug dealer associate. But it’s a point worth clarifying, so that’s fixed. Thanks, Alec.
“When Steven Spielberg was shamed in 1985 for making The Color Purple (white director, black characters), it would be 24 years before another film with a predominantly black ensemble, to be nominated for Best Picture”
What about Ray in 2004?
What about Dreamgirls? As I recall and incredible Jennifer Hudson won a Supporting Oscar.
Fantastic column! And 2013 is going down as perhaps the greatest year ever for black cinema. So many great films about the black experience this year. Refreshing and about time.
Great post!
(geez, Rufus – “black” was only used as a noun once and I thought it was effective. Agree on “thrust back”, tho – he was born a free man)
If Oscar decides that unadulterated, non-revisionist history is important, it will be a benchmark year. All recent historically-based Oscar winners in the past have played fast and loose with the facts. Are we turning a corner?
Oh, I don’t know. I hate being referred to as a “homosexual” such as “he’s a homosexual.”
For utmost sensitivity, the syntax nuance is important. It sounds much worse to say. “He’s a gay” than to say, “He’s gay.”
— that’s the very same difference to our ears when we hear “He’s a black” — as opposed to “He’s black,” or “He’s a black man.”
“He’s a black,” sounds like something a white South African dude might say, and that construction should be avoided.
This was just an oversight on the level of typo, but we’re glad to add a word to make it sound perfectly right.
You’re gay.
I would change the “thrust back” into slavery because it’s inaccurate.
And then one point of style, I would not use the term “a black” since it just seems kind of offensive. The term “black” to describe skin color is fairly acceptable but to use it as a noun rather than an adjective seems to describe more than skin color. To use it as a noun implies it is the defining characteristic than merely a descriptive term. Now I understand that may be your point as seen through the eyes of the “tea party” and Obama’s detractors, but this is a subtle point to make (if it is the case) and it’s one that’s easily lost.
Other than these quibbles, it’s a great post and no matter what anyone says I hope you keep bringing these issues up over and over again. If you don’t, no one else will.