Racial Stereotyping

[ike358]

The thread on Cabin in the Sky made me think about this. It's something I've been bothered by for a long time, and now that I've found the TCM forums ("fora" ), I'd appreciate some other folks thought about this topic:

 

Racial stereotyping... and worse.. is nearly ubiquitous in classic US films. There are many levels. Just for the sake of hopefully making the discussion clearer, I'll list the levels of racial prejudice that seem to me to exist. They apply not only to African-Americans and other Blacks, but also to Indians, Hispanics, you name it. Anyone not 'lily-white'. But because they have been a larger part of our culture for the last 200 years, certainly the most common prejudice is against African-Americans. I figure the discussion would apply to films before roughly 1960.

 

Anyway, here are the levels I see:

 

1. No prejudice. Minorities are portrayed as equal human beings, with varying strengths and weaknesses. Extremely rare.

 

2. No overt or systemic prejudice. Minorities are portrayed realistically for the time period, but that portrayal accepts the injustice of its time. Very common. An example would be Sam's portrayal in Casablanca.

 

3. Derogatory racial stereotyping. Very common. This would include almost all movies that include 'black-face' scenes. The Jazz Singer is an obvious and famous example.

 

4. Intentional portrayal to foster prejudice. Not extremely common, but far from rare.

 

All that said, here's my question for discussion. If I find a "1", that's great. If I find a "4", I avoid it. "2"s don't bother me. I can enjoy them without problem or guilt, though I do notice the 'failing'. It's the "3"s that are my problem. I'm very uncomfortable watching such movies, though some of them are otherwise very good. The stereotyping basically ruins the movie for me, though in the case of the best such movies, I wish it didn't.

 

So, what do other folks think (if you've had the patience to read this far, anyway)? How do you handle the "3"s?

[flickerknickers]

Oh, Pu-leeeze! Not this again!

[ike358]

Sorry. If this had been discussed here, can you point me to where? Thanks.

[path40a]

There are two threads in the Hot Topics forum about "Babes in Arms" and "Wild Irish Rose" (search for blackface and/or offensive) from earlier this year (March/April) in which a lot of the regulars, and some we haven't heard from since, participated about some elements of this topic. Feel free to find, read, see what others have already expressed wrt it.

 

Like any divisive subject, you can appreciate why no one is in a hurry to "discuss" it again, I'm sure.

[wisecrackingdame]

And speaking of racial stereotypes, tonight TCM is showing Myrna Loy's MASK OF FU MANCHU, which is a fairly notorious movie, and was noticeably edited when it was released on video. I wonder if TCM will keep all those "filthy white dog" comments intact? The Asian depiction in this film makes "Charlie Chan and the Secret Service" look like "Eat Drink Man Woman".

 

As for your question. It's OK to be uncomfortable when watching a movie, it's OK to react and be angry, it's OK to keep your kids from watching something. It's OK that movies have flaws. You are supposed to have gut reactions to music, books, movies, paintings, sculpture.

 

Good for you! You should not be at peace with everything that meets your eye. That's what makes you smart.

 

Just don't ever support censorship. Give everyone a chance to have a gut reaction to these films.

[bggalaxy]

It's cool Ike. I know being a fan of the classics - one sees the evolution of stereotyping in film. There are a lot of new people here that may also be interested in this thread.

Us oldies have discussed this on a couple of threads - but feel free to to discuss it here if you like. Some of us oldsters may pass.

 

There is also a Charlie Chan thread at best guess 6-7 months back.

 

For the record - I too have a problem with 3

[gwtwbooklover]

Minnelli filmed Cabin in the Sky with such beauty. He showed the vitality of Lena Horne, the beauty, the sexiness of her screen presence. She is so beautiful. Minnelli could have taken the road of others who chose not to make (at the time) a sophisticated black musical or to show blacks in beauty. I wonder how Cabin in the Sky was accepted at that time by African-Americans?

[leobertucelli]

Stereotyping will always be with us. Primarily it's to advance the story line but actually it's there for an explotive device.

[sandykaypax]

Ike, I found your post to be thoughtful, well-worded, and respectful. Just because something was discussed previously on these boards, doesn't mean that a newbie (or an old-timer, for that matter) can't discuss it some more. If there are those who don't wish to take part in the discussion, then skip it. I've been a part of these forums for over 2 years, and I post less than I used to, because many of the topics are things that I've discussed before and I don't feel that I have anything new to add.

 

I was the originator of the debate about blackface in films like BABES IN ARMS. I was trying to figure out a way last week when the mud-slinging was getting fierce around here to bring those posts back to the top of the thread. The reason why I wanted others to read that thread was because patypancake, coffeedan, and some others took an opposite view on the blackface issue than I did, but there was NOT ONE NEGATIVE POST! No name calling, insults, etc. It is under the "My Favorites" section of the forums in the thread titled "musicals" and I believe it is on the second page, if anyone is interested in reading it. Thank you for path for mentioning it. I really miss being able to have that type of respectful, yet spirited debate.

 

I hope I don't sound like I am lecturing; as Path put it so eloquently over in the 21 questions thread--I am not a "board lord!" :^D

 

And paty, stay as sassy as ever!

 

Sandy K

[sandykaypax]

Ike or anyone interested in reading the aformentioned debate on blackface in musicals: it is in the My Favorites forum, go to page 2 and find the "musicals" thread, then go to page 4 of the topic. The first post is dated Feb. 19, 2002 at 11:11AM.

 

Sandy K

[Guest]

Ike, I'd like to echo Sandykaypax's comments as well and have a few added points to share, if that's okay--

 

1.) Your analysis of racism in movies was quite subtle--I personally find some sequences agonizing to watch, (such as the Holiday Inn blackface number)yet I've always understood that, in the context of the period, such portrayals were acceptable, sadly. At the same time, what really worries me sometimes is that racism of all types is often seen by viewers who are unfamiliar with the painful historical context. I do think it would be helpful if, prior to a movie containing these traits, TCM could just run a brief notation, accompanying their G, PG, etc. rating, indicating that racial stereotypes are present in the film about to be seen. Since, as you point out, racism was pervasive in Hollywood movies of the period prior to 1960, perhaps this notation could be limited to the most flagrant examples, such as blackface sequences. I realize that this may not be practical, but I think it's worth a try.

 

2.) As mentioned, there were a handful of Hollywood movies before 1960 that featured Black Americans with a degree of decency, albeit a somewhat limited portrayal. In the interest of seeing some of the better ones mentioned, perhaps some of the following should be brought to mind:

 

Imitation of Life(1934) with magnificent performances by Rochelle Hudson and Louise Beavers.

Lifeboat(1944) with Canada Lee

Pride of the Marines(1945) with John Garfield as star, there is a pointed scene in which a train porter, played by George Reed is given a fine moment that jumps out at the contemporary viewer

Body and Soul(1947) with Canada Lee

Intruder in the Dust(1949) with Juano Hernandez

Home of the Brave(1949) with the first notable truly heroic character played by James Edwards

No Way Out(1950)which launched the stereotype-shattering career of Sidney Poitier

 

Sadly, the subtle complexity of Poitier's many portrayals seems too often to be disregarded by contemporary viewers.

 

2.) The divisive remarks that have characterized so many discussions on the boards lately have discouraged me from participating more. There are interesting issues to discuss, but the insulting tone isn't always necessary. Disagreement can be stimulating, not debilitating.

 

3.) One of the categories that Ike cites in his breakdown mentions that he feels that there are movies that foster racism blatantly. Could you name any? Birth of a Nation

seems to be the most scurrilous example that I can think of, but I'm sure that there are others.

[Guest]

Of course, that should be 1, 2, 3, 4 points, not 1, 2, 2 and 3,. Unfortunately, I'm writing this on the fly during my lunch hour--please forgive the editing error.

[deeanddaisy666]

Interesting topic. Racial stereotyping in 'old' movies doesn't bother me, for various reasons:

 

I realize they are a product of their times.

 

I do NOT want to sanitize the old movies.

 

I do NOT want them burned.

 

I want to be able to view them as a piece of history, albeit an ugly piece of history, just as I want to be able to view the silent movies for their historical significance.

 

No one has a right to play God, as Bill Cosby supposedly did with the 'Our Gang' television series and those who are preventing the airing of the old 'Amos and Andy' show, and prevent ME from seeing every single media presentation available, regardless of bias or subject matter.

 

Finally,

 

those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

[bansi4]

I feel the same way about this as you do stoneyburke.

Bring on "Charlie Chan" and release that wonderful Disney movie "Song of the South" etc.

Hey, I'm Italian and I put up with the "Sopranos" and the "Godfather" films...which I admit I love to watch.

No big deal.

 

Mongo

[culturevulture04]

I think films and cartoons should be shown in their original form, and that censoring them so that they are more compatible to modern sensibilities is a huge mistake. Part of these films' importance is the social and cultural realities they reflected. Censoring them very often breaks up the pace and the rhythm, which ruins their effects. Worse, it gives us a false, sanitized picture of the social realities of the time when they were made.

 

That said, racial stereotypes in a film bother me a lot. They distract me from focusing on what the filmmaker is trying to say and cause me to focus on racial issues, which was not the filmmaker's original intention. It is painful to see African-American and Asian-American caricatured and portrayed as less than human.

 

The stereotyping is also often at odds with the ostensible message of the story. For example, in the Barbara Stanwyck/Fred MacMurray film Remember the Night, MacMurray is portrayed as a hero and a really great guy. Yet he humiliates his African-American servant. As a result, I wonder - does the MacMurray character have a hidden cruel streak, and will Stanwyck eventually suffer for it? I stop liking the MacMurray character, and so my enjoyment of the movie suffers. And this is not at all what the filmmakers intended.

 

There are some films I just can't watch anymore, Gone with the Wind being one. I'm well aware that, in the racism department, GWTW is nowhere near as bad as Birth of a Nation, but I personally find the racial stereotyping to be offensive. I've studied history, and knowing what I do about the realities of slavery and the Civil War and Reconstruction eras, I can't stomach the romanticized, nostalgiac view of a society that was so deeply racist.

 

As for comparing the racial stereotyping of Asian- and African-Americans to those of Italian-Americans in films like The Godfather - well, there is no comparison! The Corleone family is depicted as flawed but heroic - not as mindless buffoons or one-dimensional villains. And though strong prejudice against Italian-Americans and other immigrant groups certainly existed in this country, it is nowhere near what Asian-Americans, and, especially, African-Americans have suffered. Italian-Americans were never enslaved, and there were no Italian-American Exclusion Acts.

 

And BTW, I say that as an Italian-American who is proud of my heritage!

 

Thanks for starting this topic, Ike - it's a fascinating one. I know a lot of people will disagree with what I've said, but the tone of this thread so far has mostly been civil and respectful, and I hope I've succeeded in keeping it that way.

[bggalaxy]

Moira, great post! (Ditto to everyone else who has replied).

I like the part of adding that warning to the beginning of films. I have heard this idea before - thank for the reminder.

[sandykaypax]

Moira, good to see you here! I like your point about perhaps having a little intro before a film or short that may contain racial stereotyping. I am a big fan of classic animation and Leonard Maltin convinced Disney to let him include an intro and explantion for some of the shorts included on the recent dvd release of black & white Mickey Mouse shorts. Disney was not going to include these shorts before. I'm so glad that they listened to Maltin and let the viewer make up their own mind about whether or not they want to view the cartoon.

 

Now, if they only do that with Song of the South...

 

Sandy K

[bunderw170]

I'm black, and I didn't watch GWTW until I was 25 because I was afraid it would just tick me off. But it wasn't too bad.

 

I cringe when I see the way many blacks are portrayed in film. Most of my annoyance comes from 1) the devotion of black domestics ("Just let me do for you," Juanita Moore says to Lana Turner in the 1959 version of Imitiation of Life), or 2) Anyone who grins and mugs, a la Louise Beavers when posing for that damn pancake ad in the original Imitation of Life or Willie Best in just about all his performances, or 3) Singing happily, a la the Bette Davis vehicle, "The Great Lie."

 

But many other performances were dignified, even when playing servants, as long as they speak well, like Sam (Hattie's brother) McDaniel polishing Fred McMurray's car in "Double Indemnity" and saying intelligently, "Are you ready for your car? I'm not quite through." Dooley Wilson's part in "Casablanca" was certainly bearable. So was the well-spoken Marietta Canty, housekeeper to the Banks family in the 1950 version of "Father of the Bride," and Lillian Randolph calling out to Myrna Loy, "Judge Turner! Wake up, Your Honor" in "The Bachelor & the Bobby Soxer." I loved Maidie Norman, who played Elvira in "Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?" And Hattie McDaniel's attitude in many, if not all, of her films suggested that she knew she was as good as anybody.

 

I have fond memories of Roy E. Glenn, Sr.'s booming voice in "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" in both the telephone scene at the beginning, "Mary! He met a girl! Your mother says, 'Is she pretty?' Your mother says, 'How old is she'--Mary, what the hell does that have to do with it?" and later, when he is chastising his son Sidney Poitier like any parent, "I tell you, there were things your mother should have had that she insisted instead go for you. And I'm not talking fancy things, I mean things like a simple new coat." His performance in this film still ranks among my favorites. Beah Richards, as his wife, was always dignified.

 

Two standouts for me are how Spencer Tracy called his black housekeeper, "Mrs. Hickabee," in "Cass Timberlane," and how S.Z. Sakall turns to the black waiter in his restaurant in the 1945 "Christmas in Connecticut" to ask the meaning of the word "catastrophe," and the waiter explains it's from the Greek and means "a serious misfortune, a calamity." I have never seen a black person portrayed as so intelligent.

 

In closing, Myrna Loy once asked her director why every black person had to be portrayed as a servant. "Can't you show one walking into an office building carrying a briefcase?" she asked.

 

BLU

 

[sagebrush522]

Great post Blu. The way racial minorities were portrayed in old Hollywood wasn't all bad. I thought Boom Town wasn't too bad in that regard either.

 

 

Ariel

[leobertucelli]

I enjoyed your post - so articuate AND I'd love to see an entire evening of any films Willy Best was in!

[ike358]

First, thank you to all who have responded in this thread. Your posts have given me a lot to think about and have reminded me of a number of interesting movies (good and bad) to throw into the equation.

 

Let me take a moment to say that I am against all forms of censorship. At least I can not think of any censorship I would endorse, and there are certainly more 'dangerous' topics/facts that could be recommended for censorship than racism (how to build nuclear bombs, for example).

 

The post that mentioned Guess Who's Coming to Dinner? was especially thought-provoking. I love and hate that movie. Of course, it was radically 'liberal' when it was released, but today (to me at least) it seems overly 'pat'. The two things that ruin it for me are Poitier's decision to not marry if the parents don't approve and Tracy's pontificating sermon that ends the movie.

 

But great performances save the movie, especially Hepburn's and Glenn's. I think Glenn steals the movie in many ways, which is saying something when he's 'competing' with Tracy, Hepburn, and Poitier.

 

As for Gone With the Wind, although it's not among my 4 or 5 favorite movies, I do like it very much. I don't think less of it because it glorifies a culture that could only exist on the economic basis of slavery. Although it does do that, there are enough warts on "northern" pre-civil-war American culture that most movies could be criticized for the same reason. Heck, I don't think much of the moral quality of current American culture.

 

For the most part, I'd put GWTW in 'category 2'. The obvious exception is Butterfly McQueen's (am I remembering her name correctly?) portrayal. That is certainly 'category 3', but it is mitigated by being only one of so many characters in the film, including a number of blacks who are portrayed with at least a modicum of dignity.

 

I toss out my thoughts on these two movies mostly in hope of further discussion of them, since a number of folks seem to think this thread worthwhile. I do like the idea of 'notating' movies with racial stereotyping/prejudice, though I think it would have to be done subtly or else it would simply invite ridicule as 'political correctness'. Perhaps there could be an additional subcategory under "PG", namely 'R' (not used for anything already? perhaps 'RC' to distinguish it from the "R" rating?) for 'racial content'. Certainly such movies are deserving of parental guidance.

 

Just thought of one more item to discuss, although it's television rather than movies. The Amos 'n Andy series has been mentioned, and I remember watching it as a child and quite enjoying it. It wasn't til years later that I learned that the original Amos 'n Andy (radio) show had been done by white actors portraying (and ridiculing) blacks. Perhaps if I could see those TV shows again, I'd cringe at them. But if I can't see them, I have no way of knowing, since my memory of them is very vague except to remember I enjoyed them very much. I do remember their voices, and that they spoke in strong 'black' accents. But that in itself is no negative: linguists have shown that black 'accents' (actually sublanguages) in America are highly self-consistent, and of course all languages are equally 'valid'. What would matter is if the characters were portrayed as dumb, etc., and that I can't remember.

 

Again, thanks for all the responses!

[deeanddaisy666]

Good post, ike. And I'm going to volunteer to play the Devil's Advocate character on this thread.

 

While the idea of 'rating' a racially offensive movie or television show seems to be a solution, I have a question. Who gets to assign the ratings? Where does one find an open-minded, unbiased human being to assign the ratings? Think such a human being exists? I don't. Hence you have the Hays code for post-1932 movies and the overbearing Politically Correct society of current America.

 

Sorry, I'm not for censorship. And I am not for ratings. IF parents did their jobs, instead of foisting child rearing on the church, business and state, there would be no NEED for censorship or ratings.

 

No, I am not old enough or lucky enough to have heard the radio Amos 'n Andy. Yes, I am old enough and lucky enough to have seen the Amos 'n Andy show on television. Do da name Ruby Begonia mean anything to ya?

 

I grew up on a commercially mixed street in the 1950s where there lived...gasp...black people. And there were good black people and there were bad black people. And there were good Italians and there were bad Italians. And I grew up to be a conservative agnostic who believes in the Golden Rule. And that's all I believe in.

 

So, were my sensitive little eyes protected from the Vietnam war footage at dinner time or the slurs on 'All In The Family' or the sexual innuendos of the Warner Brothers cartoons? No. And I managed to make it to adulthood without hating anyone without just cause, and to strive to be treated as I treat others.

 

And that, ike, is why I want movies and television and print and the Internet left the hell alone. Again, IF people took personal responsibility for their actions and IF parents took a searingly personal interest in the lives of the children that they so blissfully procreated and IF the politicians and church and big business DIDN'T have a personal agenda in the politically correct BS they promulgate, then it would indeed be a better world.

 

All by itself. Well, the domestic part would be, imho. I can't speak to the abysmal international situation.

 

 

[ike358]

I generally like to wait for more feedback before responding after my last post, but your post struck a sensitive nerve. Some ratings I quite hate too.

 

Back in the early '60's, I took a train to "the City" (San Francisco in this case), just so I could see the new release Tom Jones. I had been 'approved' to write a review of it for my high school newspaper, and was eager to see it, having loved the novel (having been a fan of the 19th c. English novel since grammar school).

 

When I got to the theatre, I wasn't allowed entry, because the movie was rated R, and I wasn't old enough. I saw Charade instead, not a bad movie at all, and I wrote my review on it, but it still riles me to think about not being able to see and review the movie I wanted. Some years later, when I finally saw TJ, I wrote the review in my head over and over (but I was out of high school by then).

 

I have grown over the years from a religious liberal to an atheist slightly-liberal-libertarian mostly-cynic. I don't know what philosophy my views on ratings fit in. But I am opposed to R type ratings, think X ratings may have a purpose (though more for violence than sex), and definitely think PG rating have value. (As already stated, I'm against all outright censorship.

 

Why do I support PG ratings, and perhaps even X ones (not real sure one way or the other on those)? Because parents can't know everything.. such as the content of all movies that might be shown on tv. Thus thoughtful ratings can help parents decide if they need to watch a movie with their children, to explain certain aspects, etc.

 

The reason I think X ratings may have a value (in theatres) is that if you give your children enough freedom to grow as individuals, then you can't control all they do out of your sight. And for younger teenagers especially, X ratings may keep them from movies they really aren't mature enough to see. Perhaps I could be convinced otherwise on this, but I doubt if I could be on PG ratings, which in themselves at least, do nothing but give parents a helpful tool (if they are assigned properly at least).

 

As for who is qualified to assign ratings, I think lots of people (me for istance ), could do a fine job of it, as long as the criteria for the ratings were spelled out accurately and reasonably. I rather doubt that the right people are chosen to assign ratings in many cases, but for the PG category at least I don't think that makes them totally useless.

[bunderw170]

Add this to my list of peeves: The wardrobe person who gave Leroy Daniels pink socks to wear with a red print shirt in the shoeshine dance numer Leroy did with Fred Astaire at the beginning of THE BAND WAGON. I'd like to slap him or her!

 

BLU

[bunderw170]

Add this to my list of peeves: The wardrobe person who gave Leroy Daniels pink socks to wear with a red print shirt in the shoeshine dance numer Leroy did with Fred Astaire at the beginning of THE BAND WAGON. I'd like to slap him or her!

 

BLU