Gunblad3 made a very good point when he said "Did SLJ's character have a NAME in the film? No. Does he have a special part which is easily recognisable? No. There was dozens of 'criminals'. Therefore he can only go down as 'Black Guy'."
You have to realize and understand that this film was technically produced in the 1980's, a time in which Hollywood, the media, and America in general was attempting to understand and use political correctness. The 1990's to the present time has everyone constantly bending over backwards to be as politically correct as possible in order to not offend anyone. Now, had there been numerous black criminals in the movie script, then Jackson would have likely been referred to in the credits as Criminal #2, or Thug in black jacket, or .... whatever. Most people who saw the movie in 1989 saw Jackson's character, and, when viewing the credits, saw his name as black guy, which then they would recall the black guy in the movie and his role.
So yes, to judge this movie's portrayal of Samuel Jackson's character as just 'Black Guy' would be considered very un-PC by 21st Century standards. However, as the movie portrayed it, Jackson's character was very minor as compared to Pacino's. I don't believe the producers had any malcontent towards black people in any way by referring to him by that name.
reply
share