Bantu Thoughts- 'Birth of a Nation' actress Gabrielle Union: "I cannot take Nate Parker rape allegations lightly"

Bantucinema
Bantu Thoughts- 'Birth of a Nation' actress Gabrielle Union: "I cannot take Nate Parker rape allegations lightly"
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-union-nate-parker-birth-nation-rape-allegation-20160902-snap-story.html
By William Rivers

This morning I read a wonderfully written Op-Ed, written by one of my favorite actresses, Gabrielle Union. Her piece revolved around the rape allegations toward Nate Parker that were recently brought back into the public eye due to the coming release of their film, Birth of a Nation. For those of you who don't already know, the film centers around the story of Nat Turner. Turner was a Virginian slave who lead a rebellion against his captures in 1831. This film is highly anticipated for its rare message of rebellion and aggressive protest that is often not spoken of, especially by those who would like to see Blacks in America simply remain quiet. There are many who believe that these allegations are reason enough to boycott the film, while others take the stance that because these allegations happened so long ago, and Parker was found guiltless in a court of law that we can't punish him in good conscience. I tow the line on whether or not Parker deserves scrutiny, simply because I wasn't there and I don't know what really happened. In her article, Gabrielle Union states this fact, but also brings a very important point to the table that seems to be often overlooked, especially by those discussing this over social media.

(Article linked above for context)

I agree with Union completely on this one. I like that she stresses the necessity of using her role in the film to teach her sons in the ways of the world and in their role as boys soon to become men. I feel that it is incredibly important that we raise our sons correctly rather than blaming the victims every time some innocent woman is raped. The "Boys will be boys" thing is bull shit and should be addressed by competent parents like Gabrielle Union.

Union mentions that even after having read the entire transcript of the court case, she doesn't know what really happened, but never-the-less will take action in productive ways to fight the issue. Too many people are ignoring this ISSUE and are just talking about not watching a movie. I've noticed over the past month since the original article was released, that people are overwhelmingly focused on the film and not on the possible victim here. If these allegations are true, then this woman suffered a traumatic experience, and subsequently left her son to be raised without her four years ago. THAT is the story. What good does not watching this movie do if people don't actually go and try to solve the problem which is the fact that rape can and often is claimed and many people will not trust in the testimony of the woman involved. Let's fix that! Passing on a movie about slaves revolting does nothing to prevent further rape, and does little to punish Nate Parker even. It simply sinks a film that is obviously causing a heap of fear in our media.

The conversation about these allegations starts with the possible victim and goes straight to the fact that many people believe not watching a film is actually taking steps to solving the broader issue. It isn't. It simply appeases your desire to say you care about something, when for 17 years, this was public information and we never brought it up. We all went to see Red Tails and nobody mentioned this. I was even thinking while reading the article, that Gabrielle Union signed on to this film and worked with Nate Parker for however many years, and had no idea that these allegations were even made. This information is on his Wikipedia page! Even people who worked for him didn't know about it. Was this information that important to us or them for all 17 years that Parker has been making films, or are we simply joining the lynch mob because some reporters told us to do so?

That is a genuine question that we should all ask ourselves. Once again, I have no answers and frankly have no authority to be speaking on rape at all as a cis male who has experienced no such circumstances and stands to benefit from the privileges of this sick rape culture. I am simply asking why so many people feel that boycotting the film is the end of the story. Are you really standing up for the victim by not seeing it, and more importantly was this information relevant to you for the past 17 years or are you conjuring up imitation dedication at the last minute? We SHOULD have known about this and judged Parker throughout his entire career and the fact that we didn't is appalling! I'm just as guilty of not looking into this sooner.

Gabrielle Union names Nate Parker only a few times in her article. She doesn't curse him or threaten him or the production. She explains what SHE can do about the issue which is rape culture and asks us all to do something as well. If Nate Parker did this, I pray he gets what is coming to him tenfold. Since we don't have a single fact on the matter,but are getting Facebook angry over a 17 year old story that some random news network brought up to tell us not to go see a movie, maybe we should actually go educate somebody or at the very, least stop ignoring the real problem and do something about THAT. Being mad on Facebook and staying home during the theatrical release just to catch it in Netflix or at a friend's house next year, while only taking a moment to grumble about how you stood up for what was right before pressing play, does nothing but serve your ability to look in the mirror and say, "I'm a good person."

I agree with and respect Gabrielle Union's words on the matter and urge you all to read it if you haven't already. I don't know if I'm going to see this movie or not. I do know that when I have a son, he will know what is right and what is wrong, and if he commits a crime of this nature, he will be severely dealt with by his father whether the justice system does its job correctly or not.

Don’t Think Twice

Bantucinema
Don’t Think Twice 7.5/10
Released: July 22, 2016
By William Rivers

“Hilariously absurd; Touchingly human.”

Don’t Think Twice is a film about people. It epitomizes what friendship is, in a way that doesn’t sugar coat the hard times, nor stifle the easy ones. The film stars Mike Birbiglia (Miles), Gilian Jacobs (Samantha), Kate Micucci (Allison), Tami Sagher (Lindsay), and Keegan-Michael Key (Jack) as a tightly-knit improv team on the verge of losing their beloved theater due to lack of funds. Throughout the course of the film we see the struggles that they face when Jack moves on to become a cast member on an SNL-type show called Weekend Live. As they all forge the paths toward the rest of their lives, they begin to discover things about themselves in a way that we can all deeply relate to in one way or another.

The cast here is one of great chemistry. You really feel like these people are all friends and have been for many years. These are the unbreakable theater kids you knew or were one of in high-school, still following their dreams as best as they can. Their joint sense of humor is one that is remarkably refreshing, because it shines no matter what is going on in the film. Even during the worst of times, they are friends and they use their tried and true tactics to cheer each other up in a way that is often a bit confusing to the audience. This is by no means a criticism though. We all have those jokes that can only be told in a certain company. We all have those weird quirks that only come out when we are among our closest friends. Whether it’s sarcastic fun making or morbid jokes at the most inappropriate of times, it is clear that the writer here understands people and knows how to display to the audience a deeply believable bunch of companions.

Individually, the actors’ performances are good but not great. At times they seem to be a bit too awkward in a way that makes them seem like they are trying too hard to be dramatic. I know that these are very good actors, but at times it is clear that their hilarious television personas and the people they become on stage are the real stars here. Drama isn’t really their strongest suit, but when the film needs to grab you by the heart, it does so with masterful skill. Again, I chalk that up to the chemistry between the members of the group. Improv, as they explain, is not about one performer, it is about the entire team. The film itself and its characters display this truth very well and as a result, you are rarely too thrown by any cheesy lines or odd reactions.

I would definitely recommend this film to anyone who is or has been interested in stage performing. It is something that is heavily relatable and touching. All of that is supported brilliantly by the cinematography. Mike Birdiglia is the writer and director, and it shows. He makes very good use of the wide angle shots and the whole film in general really feels like a single vision, unlike many films that have a bunch of different people behind the camera. It all culminates in a glorious whole that makes you think about your own life and put yourself in the shoes of these characters. The road ahead is scary at times, and this movie doesn’t cover that truth up. It displays it with clarity and realism, but reminds us to take a break from the chaos every now and then, and just have a good laugh.

Bantu Thoughts- Why Spider-Man Could Be Black, but Tony Stark Could Not

Bantucinema
Bantu Thoughts- Why Spider-Man Could Be Black, but Iron-Man Could Not
By William Rivers

So this article comes to you because of the recent unsurprising outrage at the fact that Zendaya has been cast as Mary Jane Watson in the upcoming Spider-Man films. Of course we aren't going to mention the fact that Zendaya is half white and half Black and therefore by the same standards that white people have toward mixed Black people (Being that even a drop of Black blood makes you Black), Zendaya is just as white as she is Black, and could even be considered to be straight up white if she so chose to be. (Of course these dumb rules don't go both ways, but I can dream.)

The issue that I'd like to address today is the difference between white-washing a character of color and changing a typically white character into a person of color in film. In the case of white-washing, there is likely never a good reason for doing that simply because of the extended cultural status that whiteness holds in the world today. Changing any character of color into a white person for the screen, would not only be offensive to the person involved (Being the historical figure of the creator of the character in question), but would also be an offense toward the entire race. You in this case would be erasing all of the important elements of this character/person's backstory that are directly involved in their race. Furthermore, changing any character with multifaceted race related character traits to another creed would be detrimental to the character involved.

To all of you out there who seem to not understand that last sentence: There are very specific differences between people of different races both inside and outside of the United States, and those differences are not just skin deep.

For my examples I'm going to be using Spider-Man and Iron-Man; two originally white characters who are well known and from the same universe. To start out, the seminal gauge for whether or not you can change the race of the character is figuring out whether or not their character traits are directly related to their race. Peter Parker (Spider-Man) is described as a nerdy high school boy, living in New York City, who is picked on and has never felt strong. His Uncle was murdered due to his inaction, and because of this he is using his new found powers to protect the citizens of NYC. Tony Stark (Iron-Man) is described as a billionaire tech genius and weapons tycoon. He comes from a long line of rich and powerful inventors who revolutionized weapons technology. He was following in his father's footsteps until one of his own weapons was used to injure him, he was kidnapped and forced to build weapons for international criminals. Instead he used his skills to build himself a suit of robotic armor that would allow him to escape, and protect the world from the types of weapons he spent his life learning to build.

Now you will notice that neither of those characters had any parts of their story that had to do with them being racially profiled, or discriminated against. This is because race having a direct influence on a character isn't something that can be easily seen by just anybody. There are nuances to every group of people that have to do with history and culture and the problem with the majority of white writers is that when they try to write for POC, they simply write for a white character, add in a few anecdotes about having been stereotyped by white people, or having family members on drugs or in prison, and call it a day. They don't know that there non-stereotypical nuances to the speech patterns, experiences, and thoughts and actions of every different race of people. Hence why Peter would be a great Black character and Tony would not.

Brought to my attention about a year ago while watching a video by Tim E. Kish, Peter Parker's story would be greatly enhanced if he were a Black character instead of the traditional white character that he always was. See the problem with characters that were created a long time ago is that most of them were white because most writers were white and whiteness in America is a default trait. It is one that isn't even mentioned. The value in that is that Peter's character has no overt nor subtle references to his whiteness. Peter Parker being an extremely intelligent, nerdy Black high-schooler in 2016 would be a very compelling character. He would have to deal with not being looked at as cool by his fellow Black classmates who don't talk like him nor show interest in the things he likes that aren't traditionally "Black" things. He would be an outcast both in his own community and in the community of whites in his school because he would be too "Black" to fit in with them and too "White" to hang out with the Black kids. Outside of school would be even worse because while being on the up and up, hew would be constantly stereotyped and treated as a criminal by the outside world. On TV he would see images of fellow Black men and women being shot down in the street by fearful police officers. If he was trying to do some good in the world, people still wouldn't trust him simply based on what he looks like. He would truly be the outcast that 50s white Peter Parker apparently was simply being a nerd. Peter's only salvation would be from having been blessed with super-human powers, because when he puts on that mask, nobody can see what he looks like underneath. For the first time, he would be judged for his actions rather than his skin. He would be loved by all people regardless of race. The only down side would be that people would still assume he was a white guy underneath. 

I don't know about you, but that seems like a very compelling character journey that I would love to see play out. As I said the 50s nerdy white kid thing doesn't work anymore. That's why people like Toby Maguire as Spider-Man and fewer people liked Andrew Garfield. I personally like Andrew Garfield's performance more because it feels real and less like the 90s geek stereotype that Maguire was. The only way to make that believable would be to make Peter another stereotype of a fat card game playing nerd of today, which wouldn't be pleasing for today's audience to watch. Being an intelligent, non threatening Black male in America is to be an outcast. Making him Black would not only not hurt the character but would enhance the character greatly.

Tony on the other hand makes considerably less sense as a Black person. Tony Stark comes from a long line of successful business owners and inventors. He was a billionaire before he even grew up and rode on his father's success until he finally made a name for himself with his Iron-Man armor. Yes anybody can be as intelligent as he is, but it is a lot less likely that a POC, specifically a Black man, would have such a long line of American business owners. It's just not quite something that most people would be able to buy because of the nation's history so far. If it were to work out, you would need to drastically change his backstory, which wouldn't be very respectful to the creators of the character.

As you can hopefully see, if the change will aid in the character's already existing theme, then any such change should be welcome. This isn't specifically against white people nor white characters, the way that many people seem to believe as they rant about Zendaya on Twitter. Representation is a good thing in any case, and there have always been an abundance of cultures that could have been pulled from over the years. Honestly, writers in the past have caused this shift on their own. If they had written their white characters to have a deeper and more culturally involved character arch, then they wouldn't be able to be changed. It is because of them that whiteness is seen as the default trait in any character created in this country. "White" isn't a trait connected to Peter or Tony because people already expect him to be just "white". That word doesn't honestly mean much of anything, but without diving into Tony's roots, we will never know what depth could have been captured. The tragedy of this country is the Europeans come here and become just another white person, where as everyone else (who may want to just become one of the many) come here and are never allowed to forget their differences. Differences are a good thing, at least it seems that more and more filmmakers are striving to utilize this fact.

Bantu Thoughts- In Bob We Trust: The Great Wall

Bantucinema
Bantu Thoughts- In Bob We Trust: The Great Wall
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJDtBLCT6hY
By William Rivers

For some future context, Bantu Thoughts is a segment where I give quick responses to articles and videos about the film industry or about films themselves, or just share a few original thoughts of mine of the sort. Today, I watched a video from a Youtuber that I highly respect, who goes by the name "MovieBob". Please go watch his video for the context of the following article, and please check out his channel. I have been following his stuff for a while now and anyone who is deeply interested in film will greatly benefit from hearing what he has to say.

While I do understand what Bob is trying to say, I think that the main issue that I have stems from the idea of what America is, as a concept that is pitched to the rest of the world, as opposed to what the product actually looks like. When Chinese filmmakers want to create a movie and they cast white actors, that is their decision to do so, and this explanation of why is a legitimate one. The problem lies in the fact that for over a century, the US has produced movies solely staring white actors despite have literally always having a diverse set of local cultures. From nearly the beginning, this country has been considered to be a "melting pot", so all sorts of people can all be considered to be American. When an Indian film company produces a movie, they use Indian actors, unsurprisingly. Therefore, when an American company produces a movie, they are expected to use American actors as well. The issue is that "American" in the eyes of the world, and even Americans themselves is far too often connected to "White", rather than the mixture of many races and cultures that the word has always been said to represent. (For instance the fact that once many generations of Europeans have been in this country for a time, they tend to refer to themselves as simply Americans, where as POC are never expected to be separated from their hyphenated origin culture: I.E. African-American. I rarely hear my white friends refer to themselves as Irish-American or Italian-American unless their family just got here in the past couple generations.)

We have Asian-American actors and actresses that would be available to any movie, and many who likely audition for these sorts of roles, yet we don't cast them in our own productions. There have ALWAYS been POC who could have lead movies, yet they were rarely given their shot and are thus now considered to not be as legitimate and note worthy as white actors. (I.E. If any given person of color was given a shot at staring roles on a regular enough occasion, with well known filmmakers, they too would be big stars. The excuse that there are no widely known Asian-American actors to use that would make the film in question profitable enough, wouldn't be valid at all. If you put people in the limelight, they will become big names)

The production quality that we as Americans are used to, and that the rest of the world is used to seeing from us, is just that: Production Quality. The race of the actor has never been important and never will be as long as we try to challenge that idea. The reason a good portion of the world expects movies that feature their own people to not look as stunning, is because the US spent a century building that facade. That is just another way that white supremacy has altered the world as a whole. For instance, Black people expect very little from "Black Movies", myself included at times. (Which is why I review Black movies just as harshly as I would any other) We can say "See, Black people don't expect the same depth and quality from their films, so it's okay if we don't cast Taye Diggs in a big budget film because he's not as legitimate in actor". The problem is that a statement like that is all too often followed by, "Black actors aren't as SKILLED as white actors and THAT is why we won't cast Taye Diggs." (Taye Diggs being simply an example of a VERY skilled actor who is nearly only featured in movies that are panned as being ONLY for Black audiences and are thus not judged in the same manner as other films.)

Black people settle for movies that aren't the same quality as movies staring white actors, not because we can't make good films, but because we have been trained to believe that any movie made by or starring a Black person, WON'T be the same quality. That is false, and is a problem that would have been solved a long time ago if Hollywood had used any of the many POC available all these years and shown the world (China included) that the skin of the actor, does not a good movie make.

No, this doesn't really get us anywhere in the discussion, and no there is nothing that can be done about this issue that isn't being already done by companies like Marvel, (Much to the joy of fans such as myself) but I find it important to acknowledge such things when discussing the state of the world and the ideas that fuel the actions of its people. There are many reasons why things are the way that they are, and while it is true that many people in other parts of the world don't seem to have a problem with the belief that movies that come from their own people aren't as legitimate as movies starring white Americans, we can't forget to acknowledge that this idea isn't a good one, and should be challenged.