Is this a Blaxploitation movie?
thanks.
share[deleted]
-sploitation refers to the content in the film, not the audience.
I'm seriously wondering if some may call this Blaxploitation in that the movies typically called that involve:
1) Majority black cast
2) Black people in empowered or heroic roles or telling "their" stories
3) While blacks are a majority of the cast, it doesn't just happen to be that way but rather its also a sort of gimmick almost—at least, it's a very conscious thing, and a selling point.
4) The film overall is not very serious. (In this case, being a comic book movie.) It has ridiculous or over the top elements—which don't have to do with the Blax- part, but with the "genre" aspect.
The main criteria of Blaxploitation include:
1. Set in poor urban neighborhoods.
2. Pejorative terms used against white characters, such as crackers and honky, are common plot and or character elements.
3. Blaxploitation films set in the South often deal with slavery and miscegenation.
4. Often bold in their statements, and relied on violence, sex, drug trade and other shock-value characteristics to be provoking to the audience.
5. The films usually allow black protagonists to overcome "The Man," or the emblems of the white majority that had been so oppressive to the black community in the preceding decades.
6. Typically filmed on a shoestring budget.
7. Geared specifically towards a black audience.
I think it's safe to say that Black Panther meets absolutely none of the above criteria. It's a superhero film that takes place in Africa, and as such features a predominantly black cast.
1 - there are scenes of urban neigborhoods [begining and ending]
2 - "White boy" and "Colonizer" by Shuri
3 - the movie harps on slavery from the past and a call to arms via Killmonger
4 - bold statements - check; Violence - check; sex - there's sexual tension between 2 characters]; drug - there's tthe Herb, so check; White Man is bad - Check
7 - Geared towards American blacks - check
I think it's absolutely a blaxploitation movie only on a higher budget.
You either don't understand what Blaxploitation means, or you simply want Black Panther to fall into that category and are willfully ignoring the truth to convince yourself that something you want to be true is true, despite all evidence to the contrary.
Where does one even start with the list you made other than to say ROFL and leave it at that?
In other words, I just gave you the exact objective proof that counters everything you said and now you are angry.
ROFL
Angry? What in my response suggests anger? You in no way countered anything I wrote with anything remotely close to "objective proof." You gave a patently absurd response that you and I both know is nonsense, so I didn't bother wasting time "refuting" it. If you honestly can't understand that literally every single thing you listed is wrong to a point of being ridiculous, i.e. if you aren't a troll, then it's equally futile to discuss this with you for obvious reasons.
shareCalm down Shaniqua. You were proven wrong by things that are on the movie itself. Therefore, according to your logic, the movie IS blaxploitation.
Move along.
If you believe what you just wrote, I don't think you understand what a blaxploitation film is. Merely have a scene or two, or an entire film, take place in an urban setting doesn't make it one. Nothing you listed does. The Black Panther getting his power from a magical flower doesn't mean the film is about drug use. Would you say Captain America gaining his powers from the Super Soldier Serum qualifies the Captain America films as films about drugs?
A blaxploitation film is one in which a black protagonist battles pimps, drug pushers, slave owners, or organized crime in a gritty environment, in a larger battle against systemic white oppression. Think Shaft, Super Fly, Trouble Man, Cleopatra Jones. Black Panther has absolutely nothing in common with any of those, or the genre itself.
Black Panther is about the struggle of a young man assuming the role of king. It's about challenges to an old world nationalistic model of isolation. Nowhere in the film is there any battle against the White Man or His System. There are no pushers and pimps, hookers and hoes, slave owners and plantations, or any of the classic blaxploitation tropes. None of the violence is gratuitous or shown as revenge against The Man. There's no sex at all other than awkward flirting, and certainly not the gratuitous nudity and sex that is part and parcel of the blaxploitation genre. Literally nothing in the film is even remotely resemblant of anything that fulfills the requirements for a film to be labeled blaxploitation.
Meanwhile, EVERYTHING about the film fits the superhero genre, which is what the film OBVIOUSLY is. You're either blind to that or, as I suspect, being willfully obtuse.
dude, I couldn't be bothered to read your over-long exposé on your own failings. Try again
shareBlack Panther has absolutely nothing in common with any of those, or the genre itself.
Why does the answer have to be either/or? I think Twisted has illustrated from the movie itself that it indeed contains elements of Blaxploitation flicks. So for you to say it has "absolutely" no such component calls into question your arguments.
The middle-of-the-road answer is that BP is not a Blaxploitation movie in any strict sense, but rather a superhero flick with some Blaxploitation elements. share
The answer doesn't HAVE to be either/or, but in this case the answer is unquestionably that Black Panther has no more in common with a Blaxploitation film than it does with, say, a western. Yes, sometimes a middle-of-the-road answer is appropriate, but not here.
Would you say Captain America:The First Avenger is a Nazi propaganda film? After all, the hero is a blonde, Aryan male who is superior to all those around him. The villain is a rogue Nazi who went against Hitler's wishes, and suffers for it in the end. Or maybe, we should go middle-of-the-road and say it's a superhero flick with some Nazi propaganda elements?
Captain America is obviously of the superhero genre, but with WWII elements since that's when and where it takes place. As such, there are naturally some Nazi components.
It's hilarious that you can't even admit that Black Panther contains Blaxploitation elements, despite the evidence. Since the film's mostly set in an African country and has a mostly black cast -- including African-Americans -- it's pretty natural that it would have elements in common with Blaxploitation. But that doesn't make it a Blaxploitation flick anymore than the WWII aspects of CA make it a strict WWII war flick.
Black Panther is a superhero movie with palpable hints of Blaxploitation. Disagree all you want; it doesn't change what's obvious.
Can you offer even one aspect of Black Panther that fits the definition of a Blaxploitation film? Are you clear on what the Blaxploitation genre even is?
shareYou must've missed it, but I earlier referenced Twisted's list, which cites examples from the movie applied to your 7-item list of what officially marks a Blaxploitation movie. Here it is cut & pasted:
1. There are scenes of urban neighborhoods (beginning and ending)
2. "White boy" and "Colonizer" by Shuri
3. The movie harps on slavery from the past and a call to arms via Killmonger
4. Bold statements - check; Violence - check; sex - there's sexual tension between 2 characters; drugs - there's the Herb, so check; White Man is bad - Check
7. Geared towards American blacks - check
I think it's absolutely a Blaxploitation movie only on a higher budget.
share
His list is as nonsensical now as when he typed it. You can't see how absurd that list is?
Scenes of urban neighborhoods? Really? In what world does that in any way, shape, or form qualify a film as Blaxploitation?
The entire list is the same. Some are outright false-- the movie never harps on slavery from the past. It barely mentions it. Nor is there ever any message that "the white man is bad." Those are utter fabrications that Twisted made up, probably because he didn't see the film.
If we take that list at face value, we are saying that a film that is geared towards American blacks, that includes some scenes in an urban area, contains violence, and features sexual tension between two characters, is a Blaxploitation film.
Now look at that list. Other than being geared towards American blacks, that is a COMPLETELY GENERIC LIST OF TRAITS NEARLY EVERY FILM HAS. In other words, to Twisted, and to you, simply "being geared towards American blacks" is enough to lump a film into the Blaxploitation category.
Do some reading and learn what a Blaxploitation film actually is, then revisit this thread. Unless you're incapable of admitting that you were wrong about something, I think you'll realize how inane Twisted's posts are.
Twisted's list was in reference to your own list of items that mark an official Blaxploitation movie, as shown here:
The main criteria of Blaxploitation include:
1. Set in poor urban neighborhoods.
2. Pejorative terms used against white characters, such as crackers and honky, are common plot and or character elements.
3. Blaxploitation films set in the South often deal with slavery and miscegenation.
4. Often bold in their statements, and relied on violence, sex, drug trade and other shock-value characteristics to be provoking to the audience.
5. The films usually allow black protagonists to overcome "The Man," or the emblems of the white majority that had been so oppressive to the black community in the preceding decades.
6. Typically filmed on a shoestring budget.
7. Geared specifically towards a black audience.
You scoff at Twisted's list for citing "urban neighborhoods," but that's the FIRST ITEM on your list of requisites.
You say the movie doesn't harp on slavery of the past and "barely mentions it." The key word here is "barely." In other words, you admit that the film has this ELEMENT, minor though it may be.
Keep in mind that I never once argued that BP is a Blaxploitation flick, but rather that it's a decidedly superhero movie that naturally contains ELEMENTS of one. Twisted cited several examples of these elements -- minor though they may be -- straight from the movie based on YOUR LIST of requisites.
Where's the beef?
RE: "In other words, to Twisted, AND TO YOU, simply "being geared towards American blacks" is enough to lump a film into the Blaxploitation category."
Don't throw me in with Twisted. I was merely pointing out that you were in error to say that there's "absolutely nothing" in BP in common with Blaxploitation. Twisted's citations show otherwise. share
For starters, it isn't "my" list. It's a generic definition of the genre I shared. But more to the point: the concept of the list, or of any definition of a film genre, isn't that it's some sort of a check list, or that having a little bit of this or that makes it a certain kind of film.
The list offers elements that are part and parcel of the genre. It doesn't mean that having lots and lots of scenes in an urban environment makes a film really, really Blaxploitation-y, and having just a little makes it a little bit Blaxploitation-y.
A Blaxploitation film meets a number of criteria. It's a low-budget film, geared nearly exclusively towards blacks, in which a black hero overcomes a racist enemy or system. It's done in a hardboiled, gritty way. It's Shaft, Superfly, Foxy Brown. It's gratuitous in its sex, nudity, obscenity and violence. You can find "barely" or even "a lot" of those things in many movies, maybe nearly all movies. But those movies aren't Blaxploitation movies just like The Godfather isn't a Western, even though I'm sure we could find some moments where it barely exhibits the characteristics of one.
It's like the absurd example I gave of the Nazi propaganda film. Captain America is in no way, shape, or form a Nazi propaganda film. There is literally no reasonable argument to be made that it is one. But-- blonde, blue-eyed, Aryan man is the masterful example of his race. The villain disobeys Hitler and pays the price. Those are ELEMENTS of a Goebbels film. But it's clearly not one.
YOU cited the list on this thread so why wouldn't I assume that it's "your" list, at least in the sense that you agree with it?
You know as well as I do that within every film genre (or subgenre) there's a lot of play and not every movie within a certain category checks all the boxes. For instance, I can name several Westerns off the top of my head that have nothing to do with saloons, town sheriffs & deputies, saloon babes, cavalry, timber stockades, stampedes, quick-draw shootouts or cattle drives, but they ARE still Westerns.
Just the same, not EVERY Blaxploitation flick meets the requirements of the list you cited. A movie could theoretically feature 2-4 of the staples you cite as Blaxploitation and arguably be of that genre or, at least, give a nod to that classification.
You can find "barely" or even "a lot" of those things in many movies, maybe nearly all movies. But those movies aren't Blaxploitation movies
But the more a movie shares items from that list you supplied -- especially #7: Consisting of mostly a black cast geared toward black audiences -- the more you could say it's Blaxploitation or, at least, tips its hat to Blaxploitation. As such, Black Panther is a superhero film with several Blaxploitation elements, however slight.
RE: "It's like the absurd example I gave of the Nazi propaganda film. Captain America is in no way, shape, or form a Nazi propaganda film."
Yes, that's absurd, but The First Avenger COULD be sub-categorized as a WWII flick because it takes place during WWII with Allies fighting Nazis. It's not a WWII film, obviously, but it has some commonalities with that genre. I think the same argument could be made for BP and Blaxploitation, based on the evidence cited in this thread. It's not so ludicrous of a idea as you make it out to be.
But believe as you will. :) share
Black Panther was certainly not geared at all towards black audiences. It was written for all audiences, specifically comic book fans, but I doubt that matters to you, either. What it comes down to is that it has a predominantly black cast, and nothing else matters. It stars blacks? Blaxploitation! So let's welcome Black Panther to the canon of Blaxploitation movies such as The Color Purple, Roots, all the Madea movies, Do the Right Thing, and so many more.
shareHe simply fell for your original BS about what blaxploitation movies were. Your list looks like you pulled it from wikipedia which I'm sorry to tell you is BS. Blaxploitation movie don't have to be set in urban areas, have to have racial slurs against white or any of that crap, they simply have to be movies that are aimed at a black audience and made by non-blacks. Spike Lee makes movies that would be considered Blaxploitation but only IF Spike Lee were not black. The question about this movie is simply who was pushing to have Black Panther made - and it was Disney which is pretty much as white as you can be so yes it is Blaxploitation. The only thing it doesn't really have in common with the original Blaxploitation movies of the early 70's is a low budget.
shareI disagree 100% with what you wrote. A Blaxploitation movie is not simply a movie made by whites for blacks. That's an absurd statement. Blaxploitation is a genre in the same way that western, war movie, chop socky, screwball comedy, rom-com, etc. are genres.
Would you consider The Color Purple a Blaxploitation film? If so, you simply don't understand the definition of the word.
As to your point about having to be made by non-blacks. Nonsense. Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song is inarguably a cornerstone of the Blaxploitation genre, and it is written, produced, and directed by blacks, not whites, so...
Lastly-- Black Panther is not even a film "aimed at a black audience." It was aimed at the same audience as Thor or Avengers. That it prominently featured black actors made it of significant interest to black audiences, but nothing about the film itself was specifically, or gratuitously, scripted so as to especially appeal to blacks.
Perhaps "Afro-Futurism" then?
shareThis is a fantasy world with superheroes and a made-up mongrel culture. This is at best an alternative Africa.
share[–] papamihel (132) a month agoWhy use "Mongrel" to describe the culture? I realize it is an opinion of yours and subjective but why "Mongrel"? share
This is a fantasy world with superheroes and a made-up mongrel culture. This is at best an alternative Africa.
Well, for starters the creators took everything they heard about exotic cultures and religions and threw it all together: part Egyptian, part Indian.
shareI reflected on your picking "Mongrel" as derogatory more than just "not believable" or "not acceptable" by some perceived standard that you hold is why I asked.
shareEnglish is not my first language but I've always thought that "mongrel" means a mix of different breeds.
shareEnglish is not my first language but I've always thought that "mongrel" means a mix of different breeds.Regardless of one's native language I neither personally nor professionally would use the word "Mongrel" in the same context with people or culture.
Historically some "Eugenicists" in categorizing racial constructs have used "Mongrel" to denote "Mixed Race" or something less than a pure race, whatever that even means. Borrowing or appropriating across cultures is a difficult concept for me to align with as "Mongrelization" because cultures in and of themselves don't breed. I wasn't sure exactly what you were ascribing to "Mongrel".
In your native language what word did you want to use to describe the non-organic or non-plausible mixing of cultures?
share
I don't believe there is such a word in any language but thank you for the tip.
In any case my problem with the whole thing doesn't have anything to do with race. It's just lazy writing and lack of research and imagination.
I don't believe there is such a word in any language but thank you for the tip.Oh the irony.
……………………………………………………….. It's just lazy writing and lack of research and imagination.
You use "Mongrel" which doesn't mean what you want it to mean, doesn't express what you want it to express yet bemoan the so called laziness in the writing based on a lack of research in a movie because it doesn't agree with your principled and learned understanding of Wakandan mythology?
I understand. English is not your native language. When you watched BP was it translated or subtitled into your native language? How do you know the translation was accurate?
I suggest Wikipedia. It has a rich and full detailing in the make-believe and quite fictional Wakanda.
*****
Wakanda contains a number of religious cults devoted to Heliopolitan deities, who left ancient Egypt at the time of the pharaohs.[15]
Panther cult
Bast the Panther Goddess, based on Bastet the ancient Egyptian deity, is the primary deity of Wakanda.[15] After the vibranium meteor fell, a number of Wakandans were painfully mutated into "demon spirits" and began attacking their fellow Wakandans. T'Challa's ancestor, Bashenga became the first Black Panther and closed the vibranium mound to outsiders, forming a religious order that guarded the mound and fought to keep the "demon spirits" from spreading across the kingdom. The Black Panther is a ceremonial and religious title given to the chief of the Panther Tribe. As part of the cult's ceremonies, a chosen Black Panther is entitled to the use of a heart-shaped herb. The herb enhances the physical attributes of the person who consumes it to near-superhuman levels, similar to the super soldier serum.
****
I know, I know.....that bothers you for some reason. Not the vibranium but Heliopolitan deities being worshipped by 5 fictional African tribes.
share
Yes it does. There's a number of very interesting African beliefs and yet they chose something as improbable as "importing" a Egyptian religion and worshiping Hanuman. This is about as likely as sons of Mil battling hordes of Rakshas at the shores of Ireland.
That's what I meant by "lazy writing and lack of research".
Given the geography of Africa; Egypt and Eastern Africa could share some cross cultural impact, no? Why would that be fictionally implausible?
How does evoking the name Hanuman by M'Baku from the Jabari tribe invalidate the Wakandan Mythology origin's authenticity? Please elaborate.
1. Egyptians didn't have Osiris's Witnesses knocking on your door and they didn't force their slaves to convert. And their conquests never reached the area where Wakanda's supposed to be anyhow.
Also, to my knowledge, African tribes hadn't used to "borrow" religions of their neighbors anyhow - not before Islam and Christianity. For example, when Cartage fell local tribesmen didn't carry on building temples to Baal in honor of their Phoenician overlords.
2. There can be no cult of Hanuman in Africa for the same reason lord Rama couldn't have battled a tokoloshi.
1. You're basing your spread of a religion by conquest and subjugation rather than by divinity and acceptance.
***
Before the emergence of the Wakanda nation, mystic beings known as Originators were expelled from the region by the Orishas, the pantheon of Wakanda composed by Thoth, Ptah, Mujaji, Kokou and Bast, the Panther Goddess.
Wakanda contains a number of religious cults devoted to Heliopolitan deities, who left ancient Egypt at the time of the pharaohs.[
***
So a West African deity or spirit replaces one form of deity for another as far as Wakanda is concerned and the people of Wakanda accept the change. In this fictional world these deities ARE real, they are proactive and they force events. You do know that the Egyptian deities were not real? In the MCU Asgard is a REAL place. Back on Earth the Norse Gods were NOT real. Christianity did affect Norse mythology. Back in the MCU that didn't happen. Jesus isn't a concept that Thor is aware of or even knows. Steve Rogers concurs with that sentiment and doesn't think Asgardians are gods. Loki thinks otherwise.
***
2. There can be no cult of Hanuman in Africa for the same reason lord Rama couldn't have battled a tokoloshi.
Why are you using an Ad Hominem attack on Hanuman because you are aware of a South African evil spirit? Stay in the same region at least. What point are you presenting comparing the existence of man made religious deities in and out of context with a fictional MCU mythology? What does disproving the connection between Lord Rama and a Tokoloshi have to do with Wakanda and the Jabari tribe's affinity to deities representing strength?
How is anything that you are asking dissecting the quality of the writing? Did you even read the Wakanda wiki page?
Confirmation Bias reflection question: Because a cult of Hanuman isn't in Africa today amongst Africans it can not be the foundation of a Wakanda that doesn't exist? True or False?
OK, I get it, you are a comic book fan. And I agree that fantasy writers have right to use their imagination the way they see fit.
However, Marvel's Asgard is in another dimension and is populated by humanoid aliens.
Wakanda, however, is on Earth and even though its inhabitants were affected by vibranian radiation they are quite human and have human mentality. They exist within the history of humanity. So it's quite all right to want their culture to make sense.
Definition of mongrel
1 : an individual resulting from the interbreeding of diverse breeds (see 2breed 1) or strains (see 1strain 1); especially : one of unknown ancestry She owns several dogs, one of which is a mongrel.
2 : a cross between types of persons or things
the cinema is … a mongrel of virtually all the other arts —Gerald Mast
So “Gay N-words from Outter Space” wouldn’t be a blaxploitation movie, because it’s not set in poor urban neighborhoods?
You’ve got a list of superficial traits that probably most of those movies embody, but it’s not what makes them blacksploitation or not. This type of list is exactly what people do with fascism to obscure the meaning. They say “Fascism is a form of government characterized by racism, militarism, nationalism, etc...”. No it isn’t. It’s none of those things and has nothing to do with them. That’s just a guilt by association tactic used by competing factions of socialism. Fascism is an economic system, a command economy like socialism, where profits are kept private for the supposed purpose of efficiency. Sweden isn’t fascist because it’s all white people and they have manditory military service. It’s fascist because costs are socialized and profits are privatized.
Similarly Black Panther is blacksplotation if it panders to something about black sensibility. I don’t know much about the movie but I’ve heard it plays on that “we wuz kangs” trope where black people in an alternate universe live in a paradise because whites never interfered with them. That sounds exactly like the type of fantasy that Machete is for immigrants, or Inglorious Bastards is for Jews. But I don’t know how prominent a part of the movie that is. I suspect it goes more for crowd pleasing mass audience CGI action, with some politically correct white guilt messaging thrown in.
Similarly Black Panther is blacksplotation if it panders to something about black sensibility. I don’t know much about the movie but I’ve heard it plays on that “we wuz kangs” trope where black people in an alternate universe live in a paradise because whites never interfered with them. That sounds exactly like the type of fantasy that Machete is for immigrants, or Inglorious Bastards is for Jews. But I don’t know how prominent a part of the movie that is. I suspect it goes more for crowd pleasing mass audience CGI action, with some politically correct white guilt messaging thrown in.None of what you heard was true. The phrase that you used was intentionally provocative "we wuz kangs" and wasn't remotely even close to being used in any Marvel marketing plan. In essence your entire reply is nothing more (in my estimation) than an attempt to debate something that doesn't exist about Black Panther. There is no such "we wuz kangs" trope that I am aware of in any Black-exploitation movies that I am aware of.
Maybe you are speaking to some of the romanticized offerings of some people that "Queens, Kings, Princes and Princesses" were kidnapped from the shores and interior of Africa and sold into slavery in the Americas?
But even that isn't what Blaxsplotation was any movie and especially not Black Panther. So let's just dismiss your "What if for Black Panther. Another thing: Your suspicion is quite wrong. The movie does not go for "Crowd Pleasing Mass market CGI action" and there is no politically correct white guilt messaging thrown in. I can say that because I have seen the movie and you haven't, by your own words.
Finally, two questions for you: Is there such a thing as White-S-ploitation movies? And if not why not? share
Having never seen "Gayniggers from Outer Space" I can't offer my own opinion of its genre, but the consensus online seems to be that it's a comedic science fiction film.
The list I provided is an accepted list of traits shared by most films of the Blaxploitataion genre, though it isn't as if a film needs to meet all, or even any of them to be definitively considered of the genre. Often a genre is akin perhaps to jazz, or pornography, as something that you can't precisely define, but you know it when you see it. There is literally nothing in Black Panther that is remotely associated with the films that we label Blaxploitation.
More to the point: simply pandering to something about black sensibility, as you put it, is not what makes a film Blaxploitation. "Roots" certainly did that, so did "The Color Purple," so do the Madea films, and do on, but none of those are Blaxploitation films. The genre exists as what it is, and you can't just lump any film into it willy nilly.
Meanwhile, Black Panther has *everything* in common with the superhero genre. It's about, wait for it... a superhero. What you are singling out as "we wuz kangs" is a staple in every superhero film. Nerdy teenagers don't have the power to beat up the local bully after a spider bite. Wimpy patriots don't turn into super soldiers when given a special shot. One of the main tropes of the superhero film is the unlikely underdog gaining the ability to overcome those who persecute him. Black Panther is as much a fantasy for blacks as Spider-Man is a fantasy for nerds. Which is to say, both are exactly that on one level, but universal on a larger scale. The *only* difference seems to be that you are offended by the notion that a lowly African could achieve superiority over a mighty white, and need to label that film as a special kind of fantasy made only for blacks, while someone like Spider-Man is "just another superhero."
[deleted]
You realize it's a comic book / fantasy film, right? It's depiction of Wakanda and its heroes is no different than any other film's depiction of its characters. You're focused only on race.
Iron Man-- Tony Stark is brilliant, rich, famous, handsome, able to get any woman into bed in an instant, yet Pepper doesn't mind. He can build an arc reactor from scraps in a remote cave, along with a flying suit of armor using spare missile parts... and that's just the first 20 minutes of his first movie.
Comic book movies give you the ideal hero, the one who fulfills every dream of who and what you wish you could be. Is it any wonder that a comic book hero from Africa-- a continent that has been looted basically non-stop since the Roman era, whose people were enslaved, resources stolen, borders arbitrarily drawn up, and nations created and named, and people divided or grouped, by random bureaucrats a continent away-- would center around a nation that managed to avoid the destruction?
The film has nothing to do with an "SJW vision" of anything. It's a comic book fantasy that happens to feature black people, but is geared towards all audiences. Except maybe towards racists like you?
[deleted]
You made some blatantly racist statements, so I called you a racist. You just followed up with a few more such statements, including some made up statistics and some highly inaccurate and uninformed statements about Africa and her history.
Live in your Fantasyland of denial, and, yes, racism, if you wish, but it seems there's no real point to our discussing the film.
[deleted]
The only stats he cited are absolutely true. If you google "fbi black crime" you get:
According to the FBI Uniform Crime Reports, in the year 2008 black youths, who make up 16% of the youth population, accounted for 52% of juvenile violent crime arrests, including 58.5% of youth arrests for homicide and 67% for robbery.
So black crime rates are 10X higher than whitey's. That must be a right-wing site, right???
Seems you may have already disproved his statement that blacks commit "well over 60% of all crime" in "every western country." My point was that he pulled that number out of his ass without any facts to back it up, simply as a way to say "blacks commit a lot of crime!" Not to mention his claim that African culture is stuck in the 7th century, black people would rather download and bootleg movies, etc.
The upshot is that Black Panther is no different than Iron Man, Ant Man, Superman, or any comic book movie other than being about a black hero. All those movies offer a fantasy world, idealized, wish-it-could-be-true scenario, to offer escape and wish fulfillment for non-super real-life humans.
[deleted]
You don't need to continue. You accomplished what you set out to accomplish. You made an escalating series of unenlightened, openly racist comments in post after post until someone came along and called you a racist. It's wonderful to know that "nearly every minority" you know is a thief, etc. etc., and of course how would I have any idea who Dolemite is? No need to discuss further.
share[deleted]
[deleted]
I didn't even see what you wrote. I am seeing this for the first time now, and the message is marked deleted. Maybe you wrote something attacking me and a moderator deleted it? Whatever it was, give it up. I enjoy discussing movies, and other topics. I don't enjoy pointless arguing, which is where this seemed to be going, which is why I politely excused myself from the thread.
shareI don't like the way this argument/conversation is going, but I was struck by your comment (which I read as sincere rather than sarcastic) about not knowing Dolemite. Dolemite is Blaxploitation!!! When I offered a description of "Blaxploitation", based on the movies, I watch, like Dolemite, I wasn't thinking of the rather romantic (I think) characterization of the genre that you offered and exemplified by "Shaft" and "Superfly." It seems to me that those are movies one would find in some book on "Guide to Modern Cinema" which would want to have an entry on Blaxploitation and would offer only the most well known by the (white) mainstream titles, and/or the titles most considered "good films" by arthouse standards--missing the point of the genre completely--along with a very generous characterization of what the films are (i.e. suffering people trying to fight the Man!). They're just movies, in my view, where people do things of juicy interest (i.e. a fun, entertainment focus) while foregrounding race as something to draw the audience.
I am not at all convinced that Black Panther is a Blaxploitation film, but I notice that it's a movie using race/blackness as a draw/selling point while at the same time not being a "serious" movie. In other words, it's a fun movie that foregrounds race, which to me seems to be the gesture made by Blaxploitation films. Star Trek is a naval exploration film even if they are not on water and drinking out of a barrel of rum. Black Panther doesn't need to include prostitutes and liquor stores to be Blaxploitation!
I was being sarcastic when I wrote that. Dolemite72 was listing all sorts of assumptions about me, all of which were way off base, and I was sarcastically agreeing with them in the same way I sarcastically agreed with his statement that every minority is a thief. The Dolemite movies are quintessential blaxploitation comedies, and I'm very familiar with them, as well as Rudy Ray Moore's stand-up routines featuring the character.
I mentioned the movies I did because they're the famous examples of the genre, but there are many, many more. Some fit the mold better than others, but there are definite tropes and and themes that show up in them all. I think saying that any movie where black people "do things of juicy interest" meets the criteria for blaxploitation is inaccurate. What movie doesn't include people doing things of juicy interest (Not 100% sure on what qualifies as juicy)? By your definition, any movie with black protagonists is automatically blaxploitation.
Luke Cage is the MCU property that most closely fits the blaxploitation mold, and it does so openly and proudly. Conversely, I see nothing whatsoever in Black Panther that even skirts the genre. It's as much blaxploitation as Spider-Man:Homecoming is a western.
I apologize for missing your sarcasm.
any movie where black people "do things of juicy interest" meets the criteria for blaxploitation
That's something I did not say, whatsoever. You're reducing it to this "colorblind" scenario, where the people just happen to be black.
I said a movie where race is foregrounded.
I said this in combination with fun / light / easily digested / not-highbrow entertainment. I serious movie about a trial of the lynching of a black person does not qualify. I'm talking about karate kicks, vampires, motorcyclists, and yes, pimps, all doing their "fun" things.
But as opposed to the movie only being those things with "whoever" doing them, it's black people doing them and in such a way that race is obviously foregrounded.
Blacula doesn't just happen to be black, lol. Black Belt Jones isn't just any guy doing kung fu. These are not movies made by societies in which the majority of people are black and so of course they will be the actors for any role. In these movies, the characters' blackness is foregrounded.
I fell like we can disagree about the definition of Blaxploitation and we can disagree on whether Black Panther can be thought of as a form of Blaxploitation (again, I am not convinced, but rather just thinking through it), but for you to ay BP is not about race or blackness is bizarre pretense.
I apologize if I misconstrued your post. I *thought* that was what you meant, but apparently not.
I definitely don't think that Black Panther is not about race or blackness. A core element of the story is what it means to be black in the modern world, and what responsibility, if any, a black man has to other of his race vs. responsibility to mankind as a whole.
While I agree that race and blackness are central to the film, I don't think that in any way qualifies it as blaxploitation. I haven't seen either, so I may be wrong, but I believe race and blackness are central to Roots and The Color Purple, but would not expect to see either listed among blaxploitation films.
??? But those are serious movies.
shareIs Black Panther not serious? It has a fantasy element to it, but then so does, say, The Seventh Seal, which is certainly a "serious movie." This is not to put BP on par with SS, but rather to make the case that a sci-fi or fantasy film can be serious. Lord of the Rings, The Winter Soldier, Black Panther, etc. etc. are all serious films, with layers of meaning, messages, and so forth.
shareWhat is a movie, really? And does God exist?
If by this point you don't understand my take on Blaxploitation, and you're not willing to consider Black Panther in relationship to it, then I doubt you're going to.
I'll just offer this as some sort of evidence that some people are considering this topic—not by way of arguing that BP is Blaxploitation, and certainly not to agree with these people, but rather to illustrate that it is not a preposterous topic.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=black+panther+blaxploitation
I wish followers of the neo-left would just be honest. I don't care if a film has some sort of political agenda. Most artists feel like they want to change the world and they try to do it through their art. Just admit it. Just admit this movie has an agenda. It's not a big deal, really.
shareDid you see the film? I saw it, and didn't feel like I was getting hit with any big Message. I saw a Marvel film no different than any other in terms of politics, messages, etc. That it was based on a superhero who lives in Africa meant that a lot of the actors were black, but that in and of itself is not an agenda. It might be bothersome to some, but it's not a political statement.
I agree that all art, and really, nearly everything, bears some evidence of the bias of the creator, speaker, translator, whatever, and in that regard this film is no different, but it simply isn't the left-wing social justice anti-white diatribe that a few are making it out to be.
I should probably add-- my politics tend to fall pretty far right in many ways, so if I have any bias, that's where it lies.
But why does setting it in Africa have all people be Black? Why not have some White people with plates in their lips? I mean Wonder Woman was supposed to be set in Greece and yet half the Amazon's where black and running around in Greek armour. Thor is supposed to be Norse mythology and yet there are random Black people in Asgard dressed in Medieval garb, looking ridiculous.
shareYou don't think it would be absurd to populate an African nation that has famously isolated itself from the outside world since its inception with white citizens?
shareHow is it more absurd than a remote isolated Greek island having Subs-Saharan Africans for no reason?
shareI have no idea what the mythology of Wonder Woman entails, so it may or may not be absurd, but assuming it is, how does an error in Wonder Woman justify making one in Black Panther? Isn't there a scene in Ben Hur where a Roman is seen wearing a wristwatch? Would that have been a reason to strap one onto Russell Crowe in Gladiator?
shareYou're really grasping at straws here, huh? A wristwatch is what in cinema is called a goof, a thing that happened accidentally. So you're telling me that casting loads of blacks as Greek amazons was accidental?
And what I was trying to say is that there is a ridiculous double standard in film today. When casting for a fictional African nation it is of course logical that the inhabitants are Black Africans. But when casting for a fictional isolated ancient Greek island why is it A OK to cast black people for it? Now imagine if they indeed had cast a White person as a member of Wakanda with lip plate and spear and all? The internet would EXPLODE with outrage. But for Greeks it is ok, no it is lauded as Diversity, even though it is completely ridiculous.
Also, let's say, in the next Black Panther they want to show a Wakanda deity in Human form. Again, this is an invented fantasy world, but lets say, they would cast a Nordic blonde man as this deity. Again, Internet would EXPLODE with accusations of racism. But when Nordic mythology is depicted in Thor, which despite being a comic book is based in Norse mythology, which is today an official religion in various Scandinavian countries, it is completely OK to cast a Black man as a Germanic deity and populate Asgard with random Africans.
Yes, it would be completely ridiculous to cast Whites as African tribes man, just as it is to cast Blacks as Greek amazons or Nordic deities. The problem is that one is completely acknowledged and the other one is lauded as progressive.
Be careful, 'Film-buff' likes to report posts, if you don't agree with him
shareI have never reported any post here.
I politely told you that I see no point in discussing this with you. You see the world in an "I'm always right, I know it all" manner, and get upset and angry anytime someone disagrees with you. The fact that you respond to my decision not to continue the discussion with a false accusation says it all.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.....Obviously someone obviously was offended by a post I made to you (and you only) That must be the reason, eh?
shareI didn't see what you wrote, so I can only guess, but there are moderators who police these boards. I'm pretty sure it was a moderator who deleted it. Also, I assume it takes more than one report to get a post deleted, so...
If a moderator is reading this-- I give you full permission to check my account and verify I've never reported any post, and that I had nothing to do with his post being deleted.
It was not reported by anyone.
shareNeither black Asgardians, nor Africans on an island near Greece, which is also near Africa, seem outlandish the way a white member of an isolated African tribe would. And really, would the internet EXPLODE with accusations of racism if such an actor were cast in such a role? I don't know, but I doubt it. You've certainly EXPLODED with accusations of racism based on some members of a mythological land having black skin, so maybe the opposite would happen.
Honestly, who cares? These are fantasy, comic book movies. If the writer of the story decides that the women who populated Wonder Island (or whatever it's called) came from Greece, Turkey, Ethiopia, and China, so be it. He's creating a fictional world of fictional deities or whatever Wonder Woman is. At least in the case of Wakanda the idea was to ground it in real-world Africa, so it makes sense to portray the citizens of the country in a believable manner.
The real question-- why do you care? Why does it bother you so much?
Why are Black Asgardians, the deities of Northern Europeans less outlandish than White people in an African nation? Please explain? And Greece is near Africa? Really? And the Black Amazons where clearly Sub Saharan, not North African, which is 1000s of Kilometers away from Greece.
And please, the Internet explodes at everything with SJW witchhunts at even the most ridiculous smal things. Casting a White Wakandan would cause a Social Media meltdown.
Why do I care? Because of a hypocritical double standard that is on display here. You yourself said "it takes place in Africa, so naturally all the people there are Black. But a story that takes place in Greece has half the cast being African for no reason, instead of casting people that look, you know, Greek.
Greece is a short hop from Africa. It wouldn't be ridiculous to imagine there being some Sudanese, or whatever, Africans kicking it in Egypt and hopping a boat to Wonder Island.
Asgard is totally made up. Is it ridiculous to think they might have different races there, too?
I don't see a hypocritical double standard. I see someone who is offended anytime a black actor is cast to play something a black actor has not historically played.
Again, grasping at straws. So this ridiculous contrived story of yours is the excuse that half of the island is black?
Let's see, Wakanda is right next to land that was colonised by Whites. Wouldn't be ridiculous for a White child, that was orphaned, because his parents where killed in a Battle with natives to accidentally be picked up by Wakandans patrolling the border. The child would wander around starving and they would bring it to their leader and it is decided that because he's just a small child of 3 years of age and his parents where killed he is to be raised as a Wakandan. There you have your excuse for a White man in Wakanda, equally contrived as your silly story.
And again, Asgard is part of the native religion of the Germanic people! It is totally silly to think that their deities would look like people they at the time hadn't even made any contact with! It feels ridiculous having these deities with ancient Nordic names like Heimdall being played by a Nigerian. It's like someone named M'butu being played by a Norwegian.
And please, tell me honestly that you wouldn't have any problems with a Wakandan deity being played by a White man. Honestly! Y'all would lose your shit, you know it to be true!
I have no problem with Black people playing roles in setting where it makes sense! I have a problem when they are cast as a contrived virtue signalling stunt in roles that feel ridiculous. I have a problem with Black people being cast as Greeks and I have a problem with White people being cast as Africans. And I have a problem with people thinking one is ok and progressive and the other is offensive and racist.
We can take turns playing scriptwriter all day. Your white guy in Wakanda story sounds fine to me. Like I keep saying, who cares? You, apparently, but not me. If Black Panther 2 features a white actor playing a Wakandan deity it won't phase me in the least.
shareYou're basically criticizing Wonder Woman, not BP. WW wasn't even made by the same studio, so how are the creators of BP responsible for the inclusion of black Amazons in that fictional island, which they had nothing to do with?
You can say that Gods of Egypt cancels out WW. In fact, none of the Gods looked Egyptian, neither the white nor the black actors. Obviously, that movie was made by completely different people, just like Wonder Woman and Black Panther was made by completely different people.
What I pointed out was how both pictures where received, even though they depicted isolated societies of a certain ethnic background in a totally different way.
shareWell, you did also write about the movies like this:
"And what I was trying to say is that there is a ridiculous double standard in film today. When casting for a fictional African nation it is of course logical that the inhabitants are Black Africans. But when casting for a fictional isolated ancient Greek island why is it A OK to cast black people for it? Now imagine if they indeed had cast a White person as a member of Wakanda with lip plate and spear and all? The internet would EXPLODE with outrage. But for Greeks it is ok, no it is lauded as Diversity, even though it is completely ridiculous."
In the first part you compare the production of BP with WW, as you also did in your previous post. You may say there's a double standard in the way some people receive the movies, but what has that got to do with the movies themselves or specifically the movie BP?
BP is not a diverse movie, it has a mostly Black cast (including obviously many people of different African and African American backgrounds, so it is in that way ethnically diverse) but it is not a racially diverse movie, since it has basically one single so called race. However, I just cannot see how a completely different movies inclusion of people of African descent, have anything to do with BP's lack of inclusion.
It seems to me that you create a imaginary narrative where there's some kind of greater purpose and conspiracy. A narrative where works made by different people are part of the same agenda in a sort of greater plan of some sorts.
Is that what you mean?
The social climate that seams to drive Hollywood to these ridiculous casting decisions is what I meant with film today.
There is a purpose behind all these ridiculous casting decisions, like casting half of an Medieval English Village Black in Dr.Who, which is absolutely ridiculous, making Achilles black, casting a Black African as a Knight in King Arthur. All these ridiculous casting stunts would be laughed out of the theatre if lets say they would cast Black people as Chinese monks or Vietnamese Villagers. And this is deliberately done, even though the people doing it know that it is patently false and ridiculous:
http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-36442982
""We've kind of got to tell a lie. We'll go back into history and there will be black people where, historically, there wouldn't have been, and we won't dwell on that."
It's a politically correct stunt that got way out of hand and compromises casting and film making decisions.
But it is still all the other movies fault, not a problem with Black Panther. It does not have misplaced peoples in strange places, which you seems to claim that the other movies have, due to the social climate you say is the reason. BP does not have those issues, and it just cannot be a critique of BP that it doesn't ALSO have the same faults.
The overwrought SJW critique can be problematic at times, as it sometimes seems ridiculous and irrational, such as the SJW attack on the game Kingdom Come, Deliverance, for no real reason other than the person who started this critique just doesn't like the guy who lead the creation of the game. Now THAT's ridiculous.
"Is it any wonder that a comic book hero from Africa-- a continent that has been looted basically non-stop since the Roman era, whose people were enslaved, resources stolen, borders arbitrarily drawn up, and nations created and named, and people divided or grouped, by random bureaucrats a continent away-- would center around a nation that managed to avoid the destruction?"
First of all, it didn't start with Romans. Both Egyptians and Phoenicians conquered lands in North Africa centuries before Rome rose to prominence.
And the technology gap was minimal then. None of that guns vs sticks excuse...
Also many tribal lands were conquered by outsiders relatively recently by historic standards and these people had all the time in the world. Yet none of these cultures became Wakanda.
I think it's very dishonest to suggest that all the failed cultures in history of humanity (and not just in Africa) failed because of others.
Does it seem that's what I've been saying, or even suggesting? I've seen no one here make the case that any "failed" cultures did so because of others.
I am curious as to what constitutes a failed culture to you. Does not inventing the gun qualify?
My stance all along has been that some people seem to be minimizing the effects of colonization on Africa, as well as discounting the effects that climate, geography, and access to food and water have likely had on the way societies developed there.
I think there were cultures overtaking the development of others long before the invention of the gun.
"My stance all along has been that some people seem to be minimizing the effects of colonization on Africa, as well as discounting the effects that climate, geography, and access to food and water have likely had on the way societies developed there".
I don't think anyone would dispute that mixing with other cultures - due to trade, exploration, conquering someone or being conquered - changes a society.
Listen, I'm not an Anthropologist and I don't know why some cultures progress and some get stuck. But it's quite evident that the absolute majority of African cultures stopped developing long before "colonization".
I'm also not an anthropologist, but what I find most noteworthy is that the African societies that were in areas with access to the oceans, fairly stable food and water supplies, and rich natural resources were the ones that were subjected to conquest, pillage, colonialism, etc. from the Roman era and before. It's impossible to know how they would have developed on their own, because they never really had the chance to do so. The cultures that were in more remote, dangerous areas with geography, climate, and scarce resources preventing much in the way of development that remained in a state of using 100% of their energy to survive day to day.
In other words, the African cultures that stopped developing without outside influence are those that had no path to developing, while those that did have the path were prevented from doing so by outside forces.
You seem to attribute the lack of development by some of the African tribes to other factors, but never allude to what those factors may be. Why do YOU think some African tribes developed along the paths they did?
"I find most noteworthy is that the African societies that were in areas with access to the oceans, fairly stable food and water supplies, and rich natural resources were the ones that were subjected to conquest, pillage, colonialism, etc. from the Roman era and before."
That's not entirely accurate since the earlier expanding civilizations mostly only affected the Northern parts of Africa. There were plenty of areas whose people were free to develop and progress.
"You seem to attribute the lack of development by some of the African tribes to other factors, but never allude to what those factors may be. Why do YOU think some African tribes developed along the paths they did?"
As I said, I'm not an anthropologist. Some such factors would be: climate, access to resources, competition for resources and territories, religion\ideology. But I don't know for sure and I also think that anthropological research into this area is probably somewhat discouraged for PC reasons.
And that's a shame because we should be working on helping less developed cultures to close the gap rather than pretending that we care about their traditions and authenticity.
You more or less said the same thing as me-- climate, resources, and so forth are the only real difference between, say, Chad or Zambia and England or Italy, so it stands to reason that the two regions advanced differently for those reasons. Until, that is, the latter overran the former and prevented further advancement.
What sort of scientific research do you think is being hushed up or left undone because of fear of political correctness? Do you think anthropologists, scientists, researchers, and so forth are actively avoiding making discoveries? If one scientist ignores something, another will come along and prove, or disprove, it. That's the very nature of science.
Maybe you can elaborate on these areas of research that are being shunned so as to remain PC?
"You more or less said the same thing as me-- climate, resources, and so forth are the only real difference between, say, Chad or Zambia and England or Italy, so it stands to reason that the two regions advanced differently for those reasons. "
There must be more than that. There are areas in the Middle-East where it's hotter than in most of Africa. And yet, this is where the first great civilizations were born. It's just as cold in the North America as it is in Europe and yet the native tribes built no great cities.
And our progenitors had wars, horrible wars. What was Mesopotamia was conquered many times, oppressed, plundered. The whole civilizations were destroyed. Take the so-called Greek Dark Ages which lasted for 400 years and affected most cultures in the region. Yet they bounced back and were even more energetic and inventive.
There must be more to all this.
"What sort of scientific research do you think is being hushed up or left undone because of fear of political correctness? Do you think anthropologists, scientists, researchers, and so forth are actively avoiding making discoveries? If one scientist ignores something, another will come along and prove, or disprove, it. That's the very nature of science."
Can you imagine someone (apart from the most rabid white supremacists) approving of a study researching why African or Aboriginal cultures remained primitive while the West progressed?
Keep in mind that the climate of the Middle East was very different when those civilizations thrived, and it's no coincidence that great civilizations sprang up there when it was a lush, fertile zone, then died out as the climate changed to what it is today.
Once you've read the history of the Fertile Crescent, and the dawn of human civilizations, I'd suggest reading some of the history of pre-Columbian North America. The Mexican cities at the time the Spanish arrived were every bit as large and advanced as any in Europe, as acknowledged by Cortez and others. The native societies were more advanced than the Europeans in many ways, and behind them in others, as one would expect from two groups living in isolation from one another for so long. That the Europeans were more advanced in conquest and warfare was the mitigating factor, and the reason you aren't today posting to ask why the primitive Europeans hadn't advanced like the mighty Aztecs.
Lastly, studies have been, and constantly are being done, regarding just the topic you seem to think is so taboo. It seems you don't accept the results of those studies, and are perhaps waiting for a study to confirm your bias?
You’ve called people “racist” over a dozen times in this thread. I know you think you’re being righetous, but that’s the problem. You’re just exposing how much more concerned you are with what is right morally than what is right truthfully.
Anthropologists aren’t any different than you just because they’re anthropologists. They just more sophisticated. Here’s an example. In order to make our our “sexist” society seem like an aberration, anthropologists will assert that primitive (“non-literate”) societies were egalitarian, and they will downplay widespread rape in order to do this just like you downplay black crime.
India and China were colonized. In that context, colonization is usually reguarded as fast track to development, being that the guest is availed to advancements of the host. Progressives are essential interventionists. Why Africa didn’t develop is the same as why Europe did develop. Necessity is the mother of all invention. Europe was a harsh climate. Africa, later looted of its rich natural resources, never had a need to develop. But it’s so much more useful to reverse cause and effect, elaborate theories against common sense and say “racism”.
I've called exactly one person racist, for making openly, blatantly racist remarks. It has nothing to do with righteousness or morality. I'm simply pointing out that one person's racist beliefs are blinding him to the facts. It seems "Dolemite72" has deleted all his comments so I can't quote them, but if you had read them, perhaps you too would have found them to be racist. In fact, at one point he even wrote in one post "I am a racist," so there's that...
shareThe movie Superfly 2018 is a remake of Superfly 1972 and the forum for Superfly 2018 might be a board where you could resurrect your question again as the original Superfly 1972, probably way before you were born, is clearly a Blax-sploitation movie.
So is the 2018 Superfly a Blax-splotation movie, a homage or a parody? Or is the "Black Community" being just pandered to or gamed? Hmmmm, inquiring minds want to know.