Sex and the City 2: Superficial, Racist, and just overall Bad

So this post was a long time coming. I meant to write it right after I saw the movie but I was sidetracked with school, work, exams etc. Anyway, here it is now. I’d be lying if I said I didn’t find certain things about this sequel humorous, but, I felt a strong sense of guilt and dirtiness whenever I laughed at a joke because, at least for the last half of the movie, a joke was made at the expense of another culture.

Before I get into this post, I suppose it’s important to quickly summarize what the movie is about or at least the part I will be focusing on.

The sequel takes place two years after the prequel. Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte are all leading lives that are (supposedly) more stressful than before: Samantha, now 52, tries to keep her libido alive by using hormones and at the same time she must deal with menopause; Miranda chooses to quit her job because her chauvinist boss constantly shuts her down; Charlotte’s two daughters are a handful – the eldest is needy and the youngest constantly cries – and she’s worried Harry may have an affair with the stay-at-home nanny; and Carrie’s marriage to Mr. Big is in a rut as she wants to go out but he merely wants to stay at home, watch TV, and eat takeout.

Maybe half-an-hour into the film, Samantha is approached by an Arab sheikh to devise a PR campaign for his business, and he offers to fly her and her friends on an all-expenses-paid luxury vacation to Abu Dhabi where they are given attractive man-servants amongst many other ridiculously excessive “perks.” While in Abu Dhabi, many things take place: Carrie runs into her ex-fiancé Aidan; and Samantha, Charlotte, and Miranda run up against a culture clash in the Middle East, as their style and attitudes contrast with Muslim society but none more than Samantha.

My issue is with the way the culture clash was depicted because, really, Sex and the City portrays Western views as progressive and liberating while the Islamic society is illustrated as primitive and oppressive. When the four friends discuss Western men and Western society, they all agree that while men in the States like to think they’re progressive, they really want “us [women] to wear burqas around our face.” Thus the film is stating that Western men are not progressive thinkers because they secretly harbour a desire to conform to Middle Eastern customs.

How ignorant, arrogant and completely vile is that sentiment?

Near the end of the film, when the four friends rush to make their flight, Samantha’s purse drops and a bunch of condoms fall onto the ground in the middle of a marketplace. At seeing the condoms on the ground, a group of local men begin to aggressively berate her to which Samantha yells “YES. I LIKE SEX.” A group of local women, dressed in burqas, help the four friends escape the angry mob by pulling them all into a room in which they commend Samantha for her outburst. After which, they take off their burqas and reveal they are wearing Western designer clothes beneath their traditional dress. This was supposed to be an emotional, touching and empowering moment for women but really, it was incredibly offensive. The Arabic women are only considered empowered because they’re wearing Western fashion and conform – to what the movie portrays – as Western beliefs, because we all know it’s impossible for Middle Eastern women or men to be progressive in their own cultural context.

Furthermore, the film illustrates the Islamic culture as something that is meant to be gawked at and ripped a part. When Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte first arrive at their hotel in Abu Dhabi, they go to the pool and make commentary on the burquinis (a burquini is a head-to-toe swimsuit that enables women to adhere to the Islamic dress code). If the commentary was merely informative then there wouldn’t be a problem but the commentary was meant to illustrate the swimsuit as ridiculous and oppressive and the audience was meant to laugh at the sheer ludicrousness of it. I honestly don’t understand how there has been no outcry over this movie!

And moving away from the blatant stereotyping, I don’t even understand how this movie is supposed to be empowering to women in general. Is it because the four protagonists are women? Is it because these women are sexual? Is that all it takes for a movie to be considered empowering to a female audience? None of these women have real problems to overcome! Charlotte has two daughters that cry a lot. What child doesn’t? She has a husband, a stay-at-home nanny, and she’s wealthy, and her problem is that she doesn’t have any time to herself? Puh-lease. As a child of a single mother, I was extremely insulted.

It really disheartens and angers me that the movies studios are making for female audiences consist of movies like Sex and the City 2 and the Twilight “saga”, for they are fundamentally problematic in more ways than one. That studios are also making racially prejudicial and offensive movies like Sex and the City 2 and Avatar merely prove the lack of progress we, as a society, have made in regards to race and other cultures, for film, like literature, is a mirror of the issues, prejudices, and concerns of the time and society in which it is made.

Good Hair (film) Waste of Money and Lack of Sociopolitical Bearing: Forgets to Explore the Question Why

When I first heard about Chris Rock's documentary, I was extremely excited. Finally, a (somewhat) big budget film dedicated to intelligently exploring the dysfunctional relationship between Black women and the concept of "good hair." Unfortunately, I was immensely, nay, profoundly disappointed. I thought the title "Good Hair" would be ironic because Chris Rock would explicate why Black women resent their natural (and beautiful) hair and strive to achieve and maintain straight "silky" white hair. Instead, the title is ironic because Chris Rock (in my view) belittles, condescends, and criticizes Black women for spending large sums of money on achieving and maintaining "good hair." Chris Rock fails to realize or he merely disregards the fact that the colonial legacy in North America plays a fundamental role in the way Black women view beautiful hair and beauty itself. Frantz Fanon attributes this phenomenon to two processes - the lactification of consciousness and the epidermalization of inferiority - both of which are the interiorization of an inferiority complex due to socioeconomic depravities, and the desire to "whiten the race as if to become like milk" (pg. 47).

Chris Rock touches upon this only a little in that he interviews various Black celebrities and hairstylists who state that Black women want "Fara Fawcett" hair or "Bond girl" hair etc. The problem with this is that Chris Rock does not follow up on this by illustrating that natural Black hair is indeed beautiful and valuable. He does not show that some powerful and beautiful/sexy Black heroines in film do indeed have natural hair, such as Pam Grier's character Foxy Brown. Furthermore, what really disappointed me was that when he facilitated a dialogue in which a group of women told one group member who was sporting an afro that she does not look "put together" or "professional" enough to be a lawyer (for instance), he does nothing to contradict them. He doesn't even give the woman with the afro any screen time to respond to these criticisms. He doesn't even try to find the root cause as to why these women feel this way or try to find out how Black women have come to the idea that to look professional one needs to have straight hair.

In addition, I found "Good Hair" highly misogynistic in that Chris Rock treated the men in the film as rational, as the voices of reason while the women were foolish hair-buying fanatics. The film completely disregards the reality that Black men are just as particular about Black women having "good hair" as Black women are. Many of the Black men in the film did not seem to respect or sympathize with Black women especially since Chris Rock characterizes the men as the breadwinners or as the funding behind the trips to the hairdresser. And when he showed Black women getting their hair done (according to the film, the cost of weaves range from $1000 to $3,500) he felt the need to ask these women what they did for a living, which I found demeaning. I did not find the film to be an insightful text and I truly feel that the film provides white audiences with even more stereotypes regarding Black women. Since the film does not seem to have a point, I think it is a very dangerous possibility that whatever white audience the film acquired will leave thinking Black women are foolish and indulgent, while Black women will leave feeling belittled.

In the end, I found "Good Hair" superficial, insulting, and incredibly disappointing as Chris Rock fails to provide any insight regarding the reasons why Black women are so hateful and insecure about their natural hair. As the film does not problematize the term "good hair" and only the women who try to acquire it, I don't think it does the Black (female) community any favours.

Black Children's [Canadian} Literature: Findings by Zetta Elliott

After Zetta Elliott, a Brooklyn-based African-Canadian author and educator, realized her books were not getting much attention in Canada, she decided to do some research and compile a list of children's books with Black protagonists. What she found was that the few Canadian children's books with Black protagonists available in bookstores or schools were written by white authors and the stories themselves did not take place in contemporary African-American communities. To take a look at her research follow the links below:

http://zettaelliott.wordpress.com/2010/04/06/numbers-dont-lie-do-they/
http://zettaelliott.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/stats/
http://zettaelliott.wordpress.com/2010/04/02/aint-they-black/

Harlem Duet and the prospect of "Going Beyond Race"

I had to read Harlem Duet for class the other day and when we discussed the play in our lectures, there was a recurring element in the reflections of my predominately female, predominately non-black classmates and that was, they thought the play “went beyond race”. Most people in my class said something along the lines of, “Even though I’m not a black woman, I can relate to the feeling of a husband/boyfriend leaving me for another woman…” While I appreciate that level of empathy or understand how non-black women and men could enjoy or relate to the play, it irked me to hear the statement “went beyond race.” Why? Because it trivializes that aspect of the play – an aspect that is so integral, so fundamental to Djanet Sears’ literary work – and it trivializes the politics and struggles and injustices that come with race as well.

The mere fact that Othello gives Billie that impassioned, insulting, and hurtful speech about how white women are easier than black women because they do not emasculate and pigeonhole men or come home complaining about injustice in the workplace clearly demonstrates that this play is all about race. Othello’s speech indicates that he cannot stand to be with a black woman any longer because it reminds him that he is a black man; the injustices a black woman faces in the workplace reflect the injustices he pretends not to experience at his workplace. Therefore, his rejection of the black woman is a rejection of being black.

This is further demonstrated by the fact that upon reaching a certain level of professionalism, Othello leaves Billie for Mona. Certain people in my class found the “woman does everything for the man and then he leaves her for someone else” cliché albeit sad. And perhaps they are right. What they fail to realize though is that Othello leaves Billie for a white woman because he feels as if having a white woman by his side means that he has made it – he is successful, he is worthy.

Of course, Othello’s desire to be seen as a man, to live his own life without the burden of history, without feeling a certain obligation is understandable. But still, it is essentially impossible to sympathize with him and that is because to him, being “seen as a man” and “living his own life” means rejecting his heritage, rejecting his culture and assimilating into a dominant and racist society he deems worthier than his roots. He blames the black community for putting the burden of history on his shoulders; he does not blame the white society for forcing the black community to bear this burden. He criticizes the oppressed for being consumed with a history that has hindered them from advancing and does not even think about who gave the oppressed this history.

And I’m not saying Billie doesn’t have faults. She certainly does. She is so consumed with race that it drives her mad and she ends up in a mental institution. She is too preoccupied with the past to live life in the present. She cannot be consciously aware of her African-American history while trying to live her own life, she wallows in the history. So yes, she most definitely has flaws. But throughout the play, I found myself agreeing with her and most of her viewpoints. Othello is merely an extremely selfish, self-hating black man who has deluded himself into thinking that history has no or should not have any meaning.

In the end, my point is, Harlem Duet is not a play that “goes beyond race” because race and all of the politics that surround it is the central, essential aspect.

The Ambiguity Central to Do The Right Thing

I'm currently taking American Popular Cinema since the 1970s and it's a wonderful course. Many of the films that are on the syllabus are ones that I have seen, ones that I love, and ones that I am so incredibly happy to write essays about and to deconstruct in lecture. And while I have enjoyed studying films such as The Godfather, Breakfast Club, Thelma and Lousie, and Halloween in an intensely academic way, I knew that I would feel differently (not negatively) about Do The Right Thing.

Even though Spike Lee's film was made in 1989, it is just as relevant and just as contentious today as it was then and my lecture proved that. Most of my class sympathized with Sal and therefore viewed the film as one that incites and encourages violence. Conversely, I sympathized with the African-American characters and therefore I felt the opposite. I say 'therefore' because who you sympathize with in the film determines how and what you think of the ending and the film as a whole.

In my opinion, Do The Right Thing does not incite or encourage violence and those who think it does are taking the film in an extremely literal sense. When the Black community destroys Sal's Pizzeria after Radio Raheem's death, they are destroying an oppressive idea. Sal's Famous Pizzeria is representative of the exploitation of African-American neighbourhoods and I think while this is subtle, it is something that unravels throughout the course of the film.

For instance, the fact that Sal does not comply or even consider Buggin Out's demand to put African-American leaders/celebrities on the Wall of Fame demonstrates my aforementioned point. Buggin Out makes a very valid point in saying that since the Black community funds the pizzeria, there should be some sort of representation of clientele. Sal's absolute refusal illustrates his inability to acknowledge anything productive or great from the people he takes money from on a daily basis.

That Sal never once leaves his pizzeria signifies his lack of interaction with the community. He only puts up with Mookie's horrible work habits because as a delivery boy, he takes away that necessity. Sal's only interactions with the community are business-oriented and somewhat condescending. He does not want to get to know the people of the community, he does not want to help in advancing the state of Bedford-Stuyvesant - he only uses the Black community to his economic advantage. In other words, Sal is capitalizing off of a poor Black neighbourhood.

Consequently, I can completely understand the community's frustration and anger at the end of the film. Police brutality is what killed Radio Raheem, yes. But it was Sal's inability to represent his clientele, his disgust of hip-hop (an aspect of African-American culture) and his inherent racism that caused the events that caused the police to arrive. Meaning, that it was the exploitation and capitalization of the Black community that catalyzed the police brutality. So the community makes an attempt to destroy the exploitation and capitalism.

They [the community] have seen and been through enough that pacifism and passivity seem to be synonymous concepts and they feel as if it is time to take action. It is time to do things a different way, a more militant way, a more reactive way. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

So I indeed will end with a Malcolm X quote:

"I don't favor violence. If we could bring about recognition and respect of our people by peaceful means, well and good. Everybody would like to reach his objectives peacefully. But I'm also a realist. The only people in this country who are asked to be nonviolent are Black people."

The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao: The Great American Novel of the 21st Century

It took me a while to write this blog post because after I finished reading The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, the only thing I had to say was that Junot Diaz's novel is absolutely, 100% amazing. But now I think I'm ready to explain why I think this book is one of the best books I have ever read.

Firstly, there is the narrative voice. From time to time there are shifts in the narrative voice but the story is written mostly from Yunior's perspective. I fell in love with Yunior's glib, devil-may-care tone when I read a short story, Fiesta 1980, from Diaz's debut, Drown (an anthology of short stories) and I appreciated it a lot more in Oscar Wao. Not only does this humourous narration make the book a highly entertaining read, it also allows for the reader to relate to the characters because, due to Yunior's slick and informal tone, they seem a lot more colourful and realistic even though the events these characters experience are quite extraordinary.

Furthermore, Diaz illustrates and opens up a world that is either familiar or unknown depending on who the reader is and what culture he/she comes from. I am not Dominican so I can't say anything for sure, but I feel as if Diaz is successful in explaining certain aspects of Dominican or Dominican-American culture without being "textbook" about it - and I'm not talking about the footnotes that are on certain pages - I am talking about Yunior's sly inputs during the course of the story.

I also found Diaz's continuous references to Lord of the Rings highly entertaining and surprisingly highly relevant. In fact I watched The Two Towers immediately after finishing the book. I also enjoyed the postmodern aspect of Oscar Wao and finally, throughout the book I found various passages and quotes that will add to my list of "favourite quotes" on facebook (I just HAD to bring facebook into one of my posts, I know).

In the end, I am absolutely in love with the Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao, I find Junot Diaz to be an author of extremely high calibre and I look forward to reading whatever novel he writes next.

Avatar: A futuristic movie filled with old-fashioned ideas

I’m not really one for science fiction but after all of the hype surrounding James Cameron’s Avatar, I had to see it for myself. I have to admit the movie was visually appealing (even if the 3D glasses I was forced to wear blurred my vision rather than enhanced it) but I found the story itself unoriginal and more importantly, I found the way in which the Na’vi race was portrayed problematic.

Yeah, the Na’vi are blue but their faces are a melting pot of ethnic features and their long hair is dreadlocked. Plus, the main Na’vi characters are voiced by four black actors (Zoe Saldana being the prominent Na’vi character and love interest to the movie’s white protagonist Jake Sully). Consequently, it is not enough that the Na’vi are meant to be an extraterrestrial race – no, Cameron must further emphasize the “other” aspect of these fictional people by giving them recognizably ethnic features and by having black actors portray them.

Now, I know that Avatar is meant to be symbolic; that it is supposed to be a reflection of the imperialistic and colonial exploits of our world (Cameron admitted this himself in an NBC interview stating that the plot is centered on how greed and imperialism “tends to destroy the environment” and so on and so forth). And I think that if Cameron had done it right, I would have appreciated it. But Cameron did not do it right. He merely perpetuated tropes and themes that have negatively or condescendingly portrayed other races. For instance, before the (white and for the most part middle-aged) humans officially declare war on the Na’vi, Sully inhabits his Avatar and desperately attempts to make a diplomatic agreement between the two races. But of course, the Na’vi ignorantly ignore his advice and believe that their bow and arrows will take down the humans’ advanced machinery. And when that doesn’t work, Sully becomes one of the Na’vi people and leads them into battle because for some reason, the actual leader of the Na’vi can’t seem to do it himself. Therefore, Cameron adds to the vast amount of literature and movies that portray the need for the white man to rescue an ethnic race because they are not intelligent or strong enough to overcome extraordinary obstacles themselves.

Of course, that isn’t the only contentious detail. The way in which the Na’vi are portrayed as the “primitive other” is also problematic, for while the film tends to praise the Na’vi people for being in touch with nature, the fact remains that these fictional and yet recognizably ethnic people are inherently bestial and are meant to be the antithesis of refinement and civilization. Cameron doesn’t depict civilization as being a particularly good or moral place but he still depicts civilization as something that is Western.

It is in my opinion that Cameron’s heart was in the right place when he made this movie but it is also my opinion that the story was hackneyed, that it lacked insight, and that it was filled with Western arrogance.