(no subject)

[fredericks]

Hancock led to a rather inevitable race discussion with Middle Bro. I started things by pointing out that the makers of the movie neatly sidestepped direct mention of racial tension/discrimination against Hancock (played by Will Smith) and Mary (played by Charlize Theron) by labeling the people who perpetrated violence against the two characters "they". The ambiguous "they" who burned down their house in the Midwest in the 1850s and then beat Hancock with a baseball bat in the 1920s (and attempted to stab Mary in the B.C.'s, but who knows what may have been going down then). Anyone with a sense of the racial history of this country would know that an interracial couple would cause major waves in the US during those times (and, let's be honest, things ain't exactly hunky-dorey on the interracial front in the present day either). But not a peep in the script addressing it. Bro accepted it, saying "it wasn't important [to the story]", at which point my statement that the writers *chose* to make it not a part of the plot in order to keep the "feel good summer hit" status of the movie in check was met with "oh, you see everything according to race". Which is a damned frightening thing for me to hear from a young black man in this day and age. When did acknowledging race become a bad thing (btw, I'm going to go ballistic on the next person I hear say "I don't see race")? I know I'm trying to intellectualize a rather thin (if occasionally intriguing) "shit go BOOM" movie, but oh well.

If anything, the cut-and-paste feel of the movie leaves open the possibility that lots of stuff was conceived and fleshed out but left out at the last minute. The whole history of Hancock and Mary deserved a good ten minutes of unfolding instead of a two minute bit of verbal exposition. Hancock's rehabilitation, imo, shouldn't have been montaged. The establishment of Hancock's baddie? Could have happened with a little more plot padding. The ending? Pure sequel set-up. I think part of the reason I spent time thinking about things I wasn't too fond of was because I saw the kernel of a really amazing movie in Hancock. Like, "release in November and garner award buzz" amazing. But I guess that's Watchmen's job.

Comments

[army-kitten.livejournal.com]

i wasn't planning on seeing this film, even though i am a fan of will smith. okay really, i just think he's super sexy, but haven't been very into a lot of the movies he's in.

i think it's kinda fallacious, not to mention insulting, to "leave out" little details like the effects of racism in the U.S. (especially in the antebellum period?!?!) for the sake of a feel-good summer movie. er, what do you call it? "disneyfication"?

i haven't had to counter the "race is a social construct," argument in quite a while. i mean, it's one of those things where we can say it's not "real," and that's perfectly true, in the technical sense. but imo it's also true that something—racism—which has a real and often devastating impact on millions of people every day BECAUSE OF THIS SOCIAL CONSTRUCT pretty much negates the argument that "we" don't need to think about it.

though it seems most often that the people who want to argue that they don't see race don't see it because they're in a position of privilege and therefore can't see it or feel it. the same way a lot of men have no idea what female oppression feels like, personally, so it's easy for them to argue that it's not really there.

er, anyway. as you know, like anything else, the race issue is super complex, and inextricably woven with notions of culture, gender, and class. so it's not like it's easy to talk about it. the worst thing anyone can do, imo, is use some excuse to avoid talking about it or learn more about it or heaven forbid, open up their minds to the possibility that they might actually be wrong.

"i'm not racist, but..." usually prefaces the worst, most racist sh*t i've ever heard.

[sometimesdee.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the "social construct" becomes pretty fucking real when it becomes grounds for discrimination.

[army-kitten.livejournal.com]

replying for no other reason than to say your icon = LOL.

[fredericks.livejournal.com]

"i'm not racist, but..." usually prefaces the worst, most racist sh*t i've ever heard.
Any statement prefaced by "I'm [not] blank, but _____ " (or a reasonable facsimile) is usually going to be ridiculous and the speaker knows it on some level.

And I hear you on the social construct thing. It's trying to distance us (society) from our creation. And it's usually pulled out as an attempt to but the kibosh on otherwise enlightening back and forth.

though it seems most often that the people who want to argue that they don't see race don't see it because they're in a position of privilege and therefore can't see it or feel it.
My problem is with the statement in general. Friggin' say you choose to ignore race instead of acting like it filters through you completely. That's some great defense mechanism you have going there, when you can pretend race absolutely does not factor into your thought process.

[army-kitten.livejournal.com]

My problem is with the statement in general. Friggin' say you choose to ignore race instead of acting like it filters through you completely. That's some great defense mechanism you have going there, when you can pretend race absolutely does not factor into your thought process.

exactly. and "defensive" is definitely the word. people really dig their claws in and put their backs up when you tell them they're being fucked up. i hope i didn't sound like i think there's any excuse for it, 'cuz i don't. just because one person does not experience xyz does not mean they get to be oblivious to what happens to everyone else.

[fredericks.livejournal.com]

No, I got you. No one likes to ever think they're in the wrong. It's just human nature.