from Quillette:
At the New Yorker, Harvard professor Namwali Serpell describes Soul as part of a “long tradition of American race-transformation tales” that are “unable to resist making white people the hero of blackness. The white desire to get inside black flesh is absolved as an empathy exercise. Blackface gets a moral makeover. It’s telling that, in most race-transformation tales, the ideal is presented as a white soul in a black body.” This kind of film theory is preoccupied with the particulars of race, gender, identity, and representation at the expense of universally resonant themes of, say, love and loss or success and failure. Of course, it is important to be mindful of cultural particulars—and Pixar seems to have made that effort. The studio assembled a “cultural brain trust” to develop the picture once it was agreed that the protagonist would be black. The basic premise, after all, had been the idea of (white) writer/director Pete Docter, whose Inside Out had seen wild critical and commercial success but left him feeling somehow hollow. So (black) co-writer/director Kemp Powers was brought aboard along with a diverse cast: musical luminaries Herbie Hancock, Jon Batiste, and Terri Lyne Carrington; anthropologist Johnnetta Cole; cinematographer Bradford Young; and Dr. Peter Archer, the Queens middle school band teacher and real-life model for Joe.
However, to identitarians, Docter’s developmental role renders the project fundamentally fraudulent—a “white story” masquerading as a black one. If Docter taints the project, Fey poisons it. A number of reviewers (Serpell included) appear to discount the scene in which Unborn Soul 22 explains that denizens of the Great Before have no sex or race, and quickly assumes a variety of voices and forms, including Joe’s own, by way of illustration. Mischievously, 22 settles on a middle-aged white woman’s voice because “it annoys people.” But Serpell believes she has identified a more sinister agenda on the part of the filmmakers:
[E]rotic frisson is all over race-transformation films. (Penis size comes up a lot.) In Soul, prurience sneaks in around the shower curtain, the lotion, Twenty-two’s knowing comments about “someone named Lisa” whom she learns about while rummaging in Joe’s mind. The film dutifully desexualizes Joe by putting the figure of a grouchy white woman inside him. Twenty-two’s not there to try out the D; she’s there, as the film says, to walk a mile in his shoes.
Makes you homesick for W.E.B. DuBois' "The Souls of Black Folk" don't it?
“After the Egyptian and Indian, the Greek and Roman, the Teuton and Mongolian, the Negro is a sort of seventh son, born with a veil, and gifted with second-sight in this American world,—a world which yields him no true self-consciousness, but only lets him see himself through the revelation of the other world. It is a peculiar sensation, this double-consciousness, this sense of always looking at one’s self through the eyes of others, of measuring one by the tape of a world that looks on in amused contempt and pity. One ever feels his two-ness,—an American, a Negro... two thoughts, two unreconciled strivings; two warring ideals in one dark body, whose dogged strength alone keeps it from being torn asunder.
The history of the American Negro is the history of this strife, — this longing to attain self-conscious manhood, to merge his double self into a better and truer self.”
― W.E.B. DuBois, "The Souls of Black Folk"
Meanwhile, in realm on non-animated films...
That Progressive Liberal grand narrative just lives EVERYWHERE, don't it? ;)
Jamie Fox isn't Black? Who knew?
ReplyDeleteJamie Fox isn't an actor reading a script written by a white guy? Who knew?
ReplyDeleteThat's what actors do. They perform scripts written by other people. Is it "whiteface" for a Black author to write a White protagonist?
ReplyDeleteNo, THAT is called authentic Black Art (aka - A Spike Lee Joint).
ReplyDeleteWas Othello an "authentically" portrayed Moor?
ReplyDeleteHe was the "magical negro" of the Shakespearean Age.
ReplyDeleteI sit with Shakespeare and he winces not. Across the color line I move arm in arm with Balzac and Dumas, where smiling men and welcoming women glide in gilded halls. From out the caves of evening that swing between the strong-limbed earth and the tracery of the stars, I summon Aristotle and Aurelius and what soul I will, and they come all graciously with no scorn nor condescension. So, wed with Truth, I dwell above the Veil. Is this the life you grudge us, O knightly America? Is this the life you long to change into the dull red hideousness of Georgia? Are you so afraid lest peering from this high Pisgah, between Philistine and Amalekite, we sight the Promised Land?
ReplyDelete-W.E.B. DuBois, "The Souls of Black Folk"
...only sprinkled lightly with the magic of "truth".
ReplyDelete...that blacks are men, entitled to pursue their OWN desires, not merely the desires of progressive liberal white men like you.
ReplyDeleteI have no inclination or want to impose my desires upon anyone who isn't me.
ReplyDeletelol! You don't want other people to abide by YOUR moral standards? Who knew?
ReplyDeleteYou would be fine allowing white me to don black face and through said impersonation bring discredit upon members of other races? Wouldn't that violate the anti-racism requirements of your ideology that requires you to call out and subsequently PUNISH all who do?
ReplyDeleteGo ahead and do it. I have no ability to punish anyone. There might be some repercussions rained down upon you from others, however.
ReplyDelete...and you're fine with that?
ReplyDelete...extra-judicial punishments.
ReplyDelete...from people who ARE in a position to rain down repercussions and may or may not have any legal authority.
ReplyDeleteSure, I'd be fine with you being "canceled". If you went out of your way to make it happen.
ReplyDeleteA "wood shampoo" for a suspect convicted of no crime isn't an extra-judicial punishment?
ReplyDeleteGood to know were no different then. :)
ReplyDeleteHope your protest buddies enjoy their wood shampoos.
ReplyDelete...and arrest resistors their fatal lead poisonings.
ReplyDeleteWe aren't the same. I don't wish death upon anyone.
ReplyDeleteI don't "wish" it. I accept that it tragically happens.
ReplyDelete...through the simple fact that police officers won't always win in a struggle with a physically superior criminal and that they need to be able to defend themselves or they wouldn't do the job. It's a problem borne of "weakness".
ReplyDeleteIt isn't "tragic". Either to you or to me. To you it's "righteous". To me it's a problem borne of White Supremacy and racism. It's why cops shoot fleeing suspects in the back, put subdued suspects in choke holds and place their knees on their necks. They (and you) fear the brute caricature.
ReplyDeleteNope. They and I fear having to subdue anyone bigger and stronger than me/us. And I don't do it because you couldn't pay me enough to do it, and I have other higher paying employment options.
ReplyDeleteYes. A knee on the neck is unnecessary when the suspect is already subdued (in handcuffs). Shooting a suspect in the back as they flee when you have their car is unnecessary. Yet them go and pick them up later. If these officers fear subduing someone larger then them, why do they continually imagine their suspects have guns when they don't?
ReplyDeleteBecause in 9 out of ten cases where suspects DO resist, the suspects are either armed or carrying illegal contraband.
ReplyDeleteAnd a knee on the kneck was SOP in that PD.
ps - Why would you ever allow a fleeing felon to escape and arm himself to prevent a future arrest?
ReplyDeleteA few statistics for you to ponder:
ReplyDeleteThree-quarters of the law enforcement homicides reported to DCRP involved arrests for a violent crime
Among all persons killed by law enforcement officers in the process of arrest, 9% would have been charged with the murder or attempted murder of a law enforcement officer, 17% would have been arrested for assaulting an officer, and 2% would have been charged with obstruction of police activity or resisting arrest.
80% of law enforcement homicides involved the use of a weapon by the arrest subject
A traffic ticket isn't a felony. Someone running away isn't going to shoot you. They are running AWAY. A suspect in handcuffs has been subdued. A knee on the neck shouldn't be SOP. Why the police need reform.
ReplyDeletePolice are paid to ARREST people, not watch them run away. Its called Law ENFORCEMENT. It even has the word FORCE in it.
ReplyDeletePolice are paid to PROTECT and SERVE. Killing is the opposite of protecting.
ReplyDeleteKilling criminals isn't. There'd be no jobs for Executioners in Law Enforcement then.
ReplyDeleteJoseph d'Maistre St Petersburg Letters: All grandeur, all power, and all subordination to authority rests on the executioner: he is the horror and the bond of human association. Remove this incomprehensible agent from the world and at that very moment order gives way to chaos, thrones topple and society disappears.
ReplyDeletePolice offers are paid to arrest, not execute. People suffering mental health episodes get killed when concerned relatives call for help. It isn't criminal to be suffering from mental illness. Someone who commits a traffic offense isn't a criminal. Also, criminals have rights. Nobody is sentenced to die by execution unless they're a murderer. And then only after a lengthy adjudication process.
ReplyDeletePolice officers are paid to enFORCE the law. If you want to require them to be mental health case workers to, that's on you to make the case for it. Personally, I'd just give all convicted felons lobotomies. It would certainly reduce the recidivism rate.
ReplyDeleteDespite your desire that it be one, the US is not an authoritarian state. The law includes rights for people suspected of a crime. Even when convicted people still have rights. But suspicion certainly does not give any law enforcement officer permission to run roughshod over anyone's rights.
ReplyDeleteSince when did you start to believe in negative liberty and limited government? LOL!
ReplyDelete