AVATAR...the review

So after all the buzz about the movie "AVATAR," I simply couldn’t help myself and fell into the movie frenzy. At first I had ruled it out completely…I just wasn’t willing to pay money to go watch some funky aliens but boy was I wrong. I finally watched the trailer after the movie had been out for 4 days and I just had to go see it. I unlike the many who chose to watch it in IMAX, was content watching it in just 3D (This makes me feel better okay! I wasn’t willing to watch it after 3 days since that’s how long IMAX tickets had been sold out for….booo people).

As I went into the movie theatre, I announced to my boyfriend I was officially putting on my media glasses. I felt a movie with content like this had to be closely scrutinized J

PLOT

James Cameron really hit a homerun with this one…the plot was amazing. It really brought to light what happened in America with the American Indians as well as what happened with Africans. This was ingenious to me, how the Na’vi people represented different types of people groups, not just the American Indians who we pretty much drove out for the sake of territory. I loved how it showed that the Na’vi people were intelligent and had even higher intellectual capacities than the sky people. This was necessary since for decades some have justified colonization as a means of “civilizing” indigenous creatures whose primitive ways of life is limiting. The movie did a good job of showing the reality of wealth driven agendas especially when it comes to super powers bulldozing over smaller ones.

WHAT I QUESTIONED

GRACE

Even though Grace, the scientist who was later killed, was portrayed as a “good guy,” I questioned her motives when it came to the school she ran with the Na’vi children. This was only slightly highlighted with a picture that Jake Sully found of her and the kids. I thought the ideology behind this was that it’s okay to interfere with the lives of indigenous people groups, as long as we’re providing them education. They need that.

JAKE SULLY

Now I know everyone fell in love with this character but I do have a few things to say. Is it just me, or Jake Sully was another John Smith character from Disney’s “Pocahontas?” Don’t get me wrong, I understood that he turned around and helped the Na’vi people, but why was he the hero? Why couldn’t the other guy who hated Jake in the beginning be the hero (sorry I forgot his name). Why does an outsider always have to be the hero? Why does he have to be the savior? And of course he takes the girl and the other guy who I mentioned above is all of a sudden in the shadows. Also, at the end, am I the only one who wondered why Jake stayed behind and became one of the Na’vi people. The script read, “in the end, the Na’vi chose a few sky people to stay behind.” I feel like this is where it should have been made clear that Jake was never going to be a part of them…because he really was one of the sky people and for things to be somewhat back to normal, he had to leave too.

Apart from a few things I questioned and the group of noisy young people who almost ruined the whole experience, I really liked the movie. It may even be my movie of the year, though there’s not much competition seeing I never really go to the movies anyway…HA!

Merry Christmas everyone!

PS: Why is there nothing on google for this movie? I had to steal the picture from a good friends blog (Kevin M). Oh..by the way, the picture is from the movies official website

http://www.avatarmovie.com/index.html

You've been BAMBOOZLED!

Spike Lee's, "Bamboozled" is probably one of the most racist movies I have ever watched. However, it addresses issues that need to be talked about when it comes to the representation of African Americans on TV. His movie is a satire, and it probably took me a while to understand it even though Pierre De LaCroix clearly mentions what a satire is at the beginning of the movie. It's definitely not a, "sit down with a big bag of popcorn" movie or a date night movie. I did though watch it with my boyfriend as he is one of Spike Lee's fan's.
I think "Bamboozled" addressed 2 major issues:
The misrepresentation of blacks in the hands of white producers, directors etc
And "Black Situation C0medy" in general....is it really genre that can be set apart from the history of black representation in the past.

Robin Means Coleman, whom I have grown to love, addresses this issue of blacks being told to act black and given scripts by white producers and directors on how they should act. Should black people be really told what to do and how to act in the show? Does this not lead to negative stereotypes being regurgitated over and over again. This is what happened when it came to Amos'n'Andy in the past. They were originally in "black-voice" over the radio but when TV's began appearing in most households, the people who had originally been the voice overs had to train the African-American's who then went on and acted on TV. They were portrayed as buffoons and coons. It was just so wrong. In one of the scenes, they are all sitting around a table and it's just white people trying to help with the ideas of a black comedy. More representation is needed not only with actors and actresses, but behind the scenes to in-order for blacks to be portrayed in a way that is consistent with their histories and ways of life (Means Coleman, 2000).

Another issue I think addresses is the genre of "Black Situation Comedy." When I sit down and watch a black sitcom, I am almost always guaranteed of stereotypes that will be perpetuated. For may people, the idea of sitting down to watch and laugh at black people is so reminiscent of minstrel times. Should we really be doing this? Pierre De LaCroix played by Damon Wayans says in one the scenes at the end of the movie, "just make to keep them laughing." Really??? Why should we be laughed at? Hasn't this happened for the last 2oo or so years since slavery? I'm not saying I don't love comedies but I question the ideologies ingrained.

Well that's my 2 cents...Farewell for now my fellow blog-followers :)

People of Color

Wilson & Gutierrez article “Advertising and People of Color,” really opened my eyes to a number of issues I wasn’t observant of. ( It’s funny, I just went to the refrigerator to see if could find other incriminating paraphernalia that would fit into what they were talking about). I believe it’s always an issue when people within a certain race or ethnic group are unable to control what is released about them. People of color in films, movies, magazines and other media related outlets are having their stories told by powerful white producers who are in the driving seats. Wilson & Gutierrez also talk about the fact that these products which often have the “other” race are being marketed and designed with a white audience in mind. This is even more disturbing to me.

This ad for Aunt Jemima Pancake mix was unbelievable. I can’t believe that at one point people actually had these kinds of things on their shelves. Then again, they probably thought it was upholding the black mammy. After being mistreated behind closed doors while raising someone elses children and cooking for the family, she probably saw this as her chance to shine. This probably goes the same for Rustus who supposedly a black chef in Michigan. In one picture I found online, he’s educating a group of black children about his secret recipe.
How about this comic that I came across. It really is crazy that this kind of stuff was out there and around for a while. What were they thinking?
The link below will probably give you a closer reading of the comic.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgY07vNSTJbH-99a5t4lxd5DykOehyphenhyphenbePWzQdCzOYBJStnaD2uzB3wDnnG1Mvu7jsCPHJ2SVsN5ZT3hFxXWlXNjYhDTqCmm8PalYKnJ2bthUCwysonN5ObWw60wWZokhP3qY8l1gmKYASmh/s1600-h/Aunt+Jemima+comic.jpg

Here’s another example I found online that the authors talked about from that period. I’m sure if we look in our cupboards a little more carefully, we’re sure to be surprised.

According to the authors of this article, companies pitching their products while stereotyping individuals has been done forever, and I agree. I think this is even the case with women always being used in commercials for cleaning products and vacuum cleaners. This may be the argument that my other fellow bloggers may use when it comes to somewhat justifying this, but I think when it comes to race or ethnicity, it’s a very sensitive topic. This is particularly so because those different ethnic groups have a history of mistreatment here in our country.

In high school, we were the Indiana Indians. Twice a year we would all gather in the high school gymnasium at a Pep rally and show “school spirit” singing “Go Indiana Go…!” Just as we would finish doing the wave all the way around the gym Jimmy would come out. Jimmy was a student at our school who had down-syndrome and he was always the Indian who would then come out dressed like an “Indiana Indian” and take a lap around the gym at the beat of the drum with the cool music behind it. It was all good right? WRONG! I’m actually quite embarrassed that I ever partook in such events and used the black shoe polish under my eyes. Somebody tell me what I was thinking!? I also question why we always used Jimmy each year to do the famous run around the gym at the pep rally. It just seems so wrong thinking about it now.

Below is a picture of my high school...with the Indiana Indian on the school board.

King does an excellent job at bringing out both viewpoints by his online analysis. It really is interesting how some people are so passionate and yet, in my not so significant opinion, are so completely wrong. I think of what it would feel like having someone come out on a field dressed up in “black face” and pretend to be black and have everyone sing black spirituals. It really is that sensitive and I think people should start looking at it like that.

Hip Hop...you're totally in or you're out!

I grew up in the suburbs when I lived in Africa. Most people don’t think of African countries as “white,” but where I grew up, this was definitely the case. However, I went to schools there with a number of white people and black people, it was pretty much even. Hip hop in my teen years was what got you the card to join the “in crowd.” If you could dance, you were cool…but it had to be Hip Hop. There, both black and white kids enjoyed Hip Hop without the pressure of an opposing race telling them it wasn’t for them. In fact, all of my white friends listened to some Hip Hop along with Pop music which was fine with everyone. This is where I agree with Kitwana, that most white kids who listen to Hip Hop don’t necessarily want to be black...they just love the music or enjoy dancing to it.


It was interesting when I came to America and entered the high school system here. Hip Hop seemed strictly a black people thing and if you listened to Hip Hop as well as white, you were definitely trying to be black…WHAT? I never understood this! Upon my arrival, many of my peers assumed that just because I was black I knew how to dance and of course I listened to Hip Hop music. I was soon deemed not “black enough” but the few blacks that were in the school when they realized I didn’t eat, live, sleep Hip Hop. To me, music was music. Kitwana talks about how when we speak about Hip Hop today, we are also referring to the “Hip Hop language, fashion, style, sensibility and worldview.” This explains a lot to me because all of a sudden, I realize why it was so hard to be an American Eagle wearing girl and listen to Hip Hop every once in a while. I even remember losing my “black card” according to my black peers when was humming Carrie Underwood’s song, “Jesus take the wheel.” It was crazy…how do you lose your black card when you’re black?

The many faces of Hip Hop culture. What to wear if you’re a girl:
First, get the latest kicks…

Get the latest clothing by a Hip Hop icon. It’s even better if their logo is visible for all to see:

Get yourself some Timbs…a staple in Hip Hop culture:

Sooo….later on I used Hip Hop as a way to rebel when things at home were getting a little crazy. My parents have always thought it was a lot of noise and so I started “jamming.” It’s funny…I even went out and bought a pair of Timberland boots and a few Baby Phat clothing pieces to prove to my black peers that I was indeed black. I began using words and phrases like hola, it’s tight, catch you on the flip side, hommie, crib, jack…the list I endless. For some, Hip Hop is a sign of rebellion like Kitwana talks about and boy did I feel empowered which is what he talks about too.

Hooks tells it like it is...

To be totally honest, I was really taken back by Hooks title and I was dreading reading the article. After I did, I was really glad that I read it and even shared some of Hooks thoughts with my boyfriend. Being black, I don’t think I realized just how much black women specifically are over-sexualized which is kind of ironic but so true. I appreciated how honest Hooks was about how black women are depicted even though it had me sitting at the edge of my seat most of the time. I agreed a lot with Hooks when she was talking about the black “butt” specifically. I have never fully appreciated this fascination and the more and more it’s glorified by the media, the more I cover up or shy away from everything associated with it including the all too common, “black pride.” An example of "butt" pride is below.

I have always been a fan of the underground “love your body” campaign but it seems so hard to do when you’re a black woman. You’re automatically classified in the “she loves her butt” campaign, especially if you have the curves to support what they’re saying, which has always been a personal problem. When Nelly first came out with his “Apple Bottom” jeans, I was really happy that they had begun making jeans for women who are a little curvier on the bottom. I went out to the mall and went into “Against all odds” and tried on a pair of Apple Bottoms. I was disappointed because it over emphasized the behind more than it did accommodate my curviness. As I soon realized, the goal of these jeans was to do just that, over emphasize the glorified “butt.” One of my favorite performers of all time is Beyoncé because I believe she is the ultimate performer, but I must say every now and then I question if she really needs to be “bootylicious” in all her songs. Somehow along with other black female performers, she believes she needs to do as many butt shakes as she can in order for people to like a song. I, particularly, am tired of this and don’t think it’s necessary. Not because I don’t appreciate curvy bodies, but because I think that the mentality behind it is distorted.


It makes me sad that I can’t think of one black female artist who hasn’t over the course of their career been overly sexualized except for people like India Arie. Just look at the array of pictures below. It really is the total distortion of the black female.

Alicia Keys above...and Rhianna below.

How about this surprising picture with Serena Williams as she poses nude in the ESPN magazine. It’s not enough that they highlighted her butt enough during her tennis matches. I’m particularly upset because of this image though because it just seems like a way to put her back in place because she has so many successes. It seems totally unnecessary and for me she just went from hero to complete zero.

I agree with Hooks that we need to come to that place where our system provides new and fresh representations of women’s bodies that aren’t overly sexualized and this may mean crossing traditional boundaries. Yes, we are sexual beings as created by our creator but we’re certainly not objects.

Black TV

Christine Acham’s article on “Prime time television and the struggle for Black Power” was very interesting. It was interesting first of all to hear that after all the misrepresentations or poor integration of blacks and whites on TV during the years of The Jefferson’s and Polly among a few, The Cosby’s was still criticized. It’s true, it did show a family that seemed pretty content as if it were a perfect world for them, but perhaps that was a first step in helping the black populations realize their potential. For years black had been “put in their place,” with stereotypes that didn’t quite represent black life or didn’t have much integration and it was time for a more positive view of blacks.

Another interesting thing in the article was the fact that many TV stations on cable refused black sitcoms and dramas. I didn’t really realize the extent of this. Looking at today, what is it like now?

I found this article online from the Washington Post with the same topics Christine Acham was talking about in her article. It comments on how black shows are being pulled from prime-time television…even in 2009. The article features people who have observed and worked in black TV with different views. One believes that in black shows, one doesn’t see the suburban black but my more of the urban. It’s an interesting article and fits into what we’re talking about today.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/06/tv-casts-diversify-as-black-shows-dwindle/

Race representation

I pondered on the thought Barker brought up…that race is a social construction and that without its representation it doesn’t exist. I believe there is a lot of truth in this. The very families we grow up in are the representations we need that shape our social constructions of race. It then makes me question how we come to define who we are within that race. Surely the people who look like us and are then represented on TV must have some kind of influence in how we end up viewing ourselves. I remember growing up and my dad loving the show “Sanford and Son” which really was about black unemployed men acting buffoonish. I would sit and watch attentively at the way everyone acted, how the black men were portrayed.

Surely this represented a notion of the black race and how they were seen. Without representation such as this along with many others, I probably wouldn’t have begun the thought process that some black people are ignorant, which is sad. This can also be seen as stereotyping which more than not Barker states is often negative. African amer icans have for a long time been represented as “naturally incapable” and lazy.
The sitcom Sanford and Son showed that exact negative stereotype of blacks.

Fast forward to now, and you have Tyler Perry with his black comedies like Meet the Brown, House of Payne and even the Madea series. Spike Lee recently stated that he thought Tyler Perry’s shows were a whole bunch of “coonery and buffoonery.” He thought that it brought him back to the days of “Amos n’ Andy,” another sitcom involving black men behaving badly. Though I know many people were outraged by this, I wonder how much of this is true. The black population back when Sanford and Son came out generally liked the show too and found it quite funny. It took a while for them to seen the negativity involved because it was “entertaining.” This is Tyler Perry’s claim to fame for his plays and comedies…they are entertaining and funny. One need only youtube any of the Tyler Perry shows to see what I mean. But how much of that goes a little too far?

The posted video is Tyler Perry’s response after the criticism made by Spike Lee on 60 minutes: