MovieChat Forums > Blair Witch (2016) Discussion > Angry black man and Confederate flag tro...

Angry black man and Confederate flag tropes really lame in this movie

posted 8 years ago by metaspheres
14 replies | jump to latest

As soon as the two black characters enter the house and see the Confederate flag hanging in the room, their attitude toward the white hick couple (who, of course, are portrayed as a couple superstitious, irrational weirdos) is pretty much cemented in the negative immediately before even any dialogue has taken place. In spite of the fact that the local couple do or say nothing to indicate they are racist, the two black characters basically treat them like idiots and losers.

Personally, I can see why they might want to throw this kind of garbage scenario in there due to current events and everything, but if the behavior of the "protagonists" toward the local couple is considered realistic, then can anyone genuinely claim to be surprised that Donald Trump has the overwhelming support of Middle America? Same situation during the Russian and Iranian revolutions, poor rural folk and commoners getting fed up with the arrogance and political correctness of cosmopolitan elites.

[–] IMDbGigalo 8 years ago

Yeah, it's true. Part of the reason the movie doesn't work for me is the 4 main characters are completely unlikable. Like, what is their problem with them sticking around? They know the woods. Why wouldn't you want someone who knew the lay of the land there? Then on the walk up, they're mocking them.

Part of it just bad reuse of tropes. Lane and Talia are the harbingers, the folks who tell the kids not to go there. The kids dismiss them and end up dying.

[–] pecinqa 8 years ago

I think you're looking a little too much into this.

It's much more Peter than anyone else. It's set up that Peter is a skeptic before we meet Lane who is a believer (yes, the film gives Peter more motivation than just skin colour). The confederate flag set up as a bad first impression, remember that Lane and Thalia never do, or say anything racist, and are never accused as such by any character. Also remember that the group didn't really want Lane and Thalia to join, but Lane forced their hand by withholding information otherwise.

At first Peter is being a dick because he's a non-believer, who is now stuck with a believer who no one really wanted around. Peter's attitude towards Lane only grows hostile after they learn that Lane was trying to fake an encounter after he forced himself into their trip.

It's done this way to make it a reasonable reaction to kick them out of the group in the film.

While these are cheap, weak, and easy character motivatiins, I think it was set up better than you're giving it credit for.

[–] IMDbGigalo 8 years ago

Peter's attitude towards Lane only grows hostile after they learn that Lane was trying to fake an encounter after he forced himself into their trip.

Not true. He not only mocks them on the way there, he pursues them to mock them, calling them darknet666 instead of their real names. When Ashley cuts her foot, he's downright belligerent towards them.

It's also not just that he's a non-believer vs them. After all, he thinks James believes she's still alive and he's not antagonistic toward him.

The group as a whole really doesn't have much justification for their treatment at the beginning. If you're looking for signs of something, the more people the better.

I agree it's all just *beep* inorganic writing, though.

[–] dcavalli 8 years ago

Way back when, civil rights activists in the south had buttons and posters showing a black hand shaking a white hand with a Confederate flag as a backdrop!

[–] kurt7825 8 years ago

i hate this angry black man/woman crap

[–] brianctyler-11531 8 years ago

The girl was pretty nice to them actually. She was even holding a casual conversation with one of them right before they found Lane's ropes.

[–] Movie_Buff_Brad 8 years ago

In spite of the fact that the local couple do or say nothing to indicate they are racist

Other than having a flag in support of the army that fought for slavery, sure. Nothing racist besides that.

[–] furlough1 8 years ago

The war wasn't about slavery so therefore the flag wasn't either. Here's some facts for ya!! The Civil War started in 1861.. slavery wasn't made illegal until 1863.. so either it was an "Illegal war" or it wasn't about slavery... also Lincoln only freed the SOUTHERN slaves.. the North kept theirs for a while longer.. why would that be if it was about slavery..why did the North even have slaves if they were willing to go to war against it? YOU'RE WELCOME!!

[–] IMDbGigalo 8 years ago

You need to read up more on your facts. It wasn't about immediate abolition of slavery. It was about the slow removal of it and the North wanting to stop newly acquired lands from entering the Union as slave states. Subsequently, it became about States and therein became about Southern v Northern Nationalism. When Lincoln won the election despite not being on the ballot in some Southern states, things reached a boiling point.

Furthermore, there were only 4 union states that allowed it at the time, all on the border with the south.

That said, the confederate flag isn't *just* about slavery, that much is true.

[–] Movie_Buff_Brad 8 years ago

"Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization."

- Mississippi's Declaration of Secession

[–] ScorpionTDC 8 years ago

The South seceded because Lincoln wanted to stop the spread of slavery and they wanted to keep their slaves and keep it spreading to take control of congress. So while the North's most immediate goal was to preserve the Union, the South's most immediate goal was to keep slavery and they're the ones who made the confederate flag. Meaning, that flag is, ya know, about slavery. Arguing it's not about slavery is akin to arguing a swastika isn't about genocide and anti-semitisim. If the South wasn't seceding on the basis of the Lincoln's anti-slavery stances (which, as MBB has pointed out, they outright said was the primary reason for secession), why WERE they seceding?

also Lincoln only freed the SOUTHERN slaves.. the North kept theirs for a while longer

Because he exploited a legal loophole to end slavery in the south earlier which he wasn't allowed to do in the North. Congress quite literally ramrodded an anti-slavery amendment through Congress once the Union won and forced the states in the confederacy to back said amendment or else, so it's safe to say ending slavery WAS one of the goals.

why did the North even have slaves if they were willing to go to war against it? YOU'RE WELCOME!!

Because the South blocked every Northern attempt to end slavery at every turn so the North was trying to settle for ending the spread of slavery (which would lead to anti-slave states outnumbering slave states meaning they'd have a majority and could then push an amendment through Congress ending it for good). Most northern states did ban owning slaves in any form, and the few that didn't were border states. In addition, wartime is usually not the period in which you're pushing an amendment through, which is why they did so immediately after as one of the concessions the Southern States had to make for losing the war. Especially when you're reliant on border states who want slavery to actually win said war and keep your national Capitol.

[–] hardcorenoob-28668 8 years ago

Um, the swastika is over 5,000 years old and it does not stand for genocide and antisemitism. It was around long before it ever appeared on the nazi flag. God, the amount of people that flap their gums about this without knowing ANYTHING is really annoying.

[–] nikozwan 8 years ago

Whether the swastika stands for anti-semitism or not is entirely dependant on the context of where the symbol is being used. That being said, these days it's practically impossible to use without drawing negative attention. But symbols have several meanings and those meanings tend to change over time.

[–] ryoko_the_spacepirate1 8 years ago

The black girl was nice to them i thought.But she was anxious or apprehensive when she was at the house with the.

Peter was the dick.

"I think I liked it better when I thought Sylar ate brains." -Warriorrenegade