MovieChat Forums > Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song (1973) Discussion > A piece of African engineering

A piece of African engineering

posted 21 years ago by doriangray-1
19 replies | jump to latest

I saw this film recently and would like to comment on it. Many people look at it from the ideological point of view: it is made by blacks, it somehow conveys the message of white-police brutality, supports the ideological unity of the community and, I feel, ridicules the image of blacks as violent studs.
Therefore, carrying the "good" ideas, it is seen as good. I believe this approach is not valid since the movie is not any good, in my view. It is not that I do not like blacks, on the contrary, I do sympathize with all minorities and groups of people that have been mistreated in some way. However, this does not prevent me from criticizing this film.

First, there is not any real plot in the movie. The main character, whatever his name is, has sex for fun of other people, then he kills 2 policemen, then he has sex, then he kills another 2 policemen, then has sex... From the beginning he runs and does not know where, chased by the police and later dogs. In total, the whole thing is very boring.
I read somewhere that this film cost $500,000. I do not know what they spent it on. If you saw it, you know what amateur style it is like. I do not mind low professional level of these films, but what I expect from them is sincerity, and that is not what I get here. It is made with a quasy-artistic and would-be progressive style.

Somebody in the discussion mentioned that it is "hard pornography". I do not agree with the statement. There is probaly a problem with the definition of pornograpy. I do not like the word and when hearing it, I imagine something artificial and gaudy. The scenes concerned are not even realistic enough to be true. In fact I have not ever seen any realistic lovemaking on the screen. It is always a pose, a commentary, a judgement, a justification, an accusation. Never genuine. It is probably connected with the general attude of our society to sexuality, determined mostly by religious matters. Christianity, Islam - virtually any monoteistic faith is hostile to this basic phenomenon. This film, as an expression of our age and culture, is no exception. Pornographic... Whoever is pure to them all things are pure.

The only thing I really liked about this film is the opening scene when the young boy makes love to the woman. He is utterly cute and has truly a sweet back. But that is it.

[–] sladovich 21 years ago

wow, you are a real moron. You sympathize with "minorities" who have been "mistreated" but it doesn't keep you from criticizing the film. Was that even necessary? I really love it when people make mind numbingly sprawling and glib statements to preface a poorly written/thought-out critique of a film. Then you expose yourself in all your moronic glory with that last little bit of mind butter about the nice back. Please don't deface public territory again with such a disgraceful collection of words.

[–] doriangray-1 21 years ago

Yep, I am a real moron, as you say, and I take it easy. You should do the same :) I study English and I take every opportunity to practise the language. If I wanted to say what I really thought, I would have written something like "The film was a trash, but I liked the boy." But by saying something like that you do not practise anything, do you? Apropos, you extended my vocabulary - "numbingly sprawling..glib statements" - hmm. Maybe you are right, I sound too dogmatic in English and perhaps should work on it. But I am afraid it will take looong time before I reach your level of eloquence :)

[–] psharma 21 years ago

Just because you study english doesn't make you a good film critic. Some people see this as a profound film...one that sparked the blaxploitation genre of films...i'm not black, but even i can see the value in what this film was and its importance in cinema of that era. if you fail to see, it's your right.

but i will at least give it some defense. first off, you are right about its style. But it is an independent film. Since when are they supposed to conform to any particular style anyway?

This film is not trying to define society realistically. It was trying to react to it. Understand what was going on in the US as far as black relations at the time. This movie shows a black man successfully escaping the police at the end...something that wouldn't have normally been shown in ANY movie, without successes in the black movement, and without a movie like this. Black people never made it to the end of the movies in Hollywood. This was their media to not only survive till the end, but to be the hero. This obviously played to the emotions of its audience. I say "Bravo" that this movie had the balls to show something that was different from the norm. Who cares that it reaks of illegality, immorality, or otherwise shitty behavior (pardon my diction). We need this type of voice, be it different, be it wrong, be it anything. The African American community had more important things to deal with than people f*cking on screen, so that's no big deal. Again, it plays to its audience. Try to understand it in the context i attempt to describe. You may actually enjoy it. Otherwise, i'll be just another cheesy film.

If you have ever seen ANYTHING from India (Bollywood), you'll see the same thing, cheesy storylined movies that sometimes become classics. If you watch ANY Speghetti Western, you'll see the same thing. Either you enjoy it, or you don't.

And that's my humble opinion.

"Insert famous quote from movie here" -- by Famous Movie Actor

[–] ilonaholland 21 years ago

doriangray-1 on Sun Jun 13 11:36:15

I think people become indignant when bias is presented as fact. Also, when a-historicism is couched as truth. The film Sweetback is tied into an era of African American social empowerment on a national scale, as well as the absence of Dignity that was and still is accorded to Black people in American cinema. If you read up on these things I think it will better inform you.

Please don't reply to me with hostility and rudeness because I have a great return of service as we say in tennis. Love from Holland.

[–] tallpall 20 years ago

well you obviously missed the point of the whole movie. You have to realize back in the late 60's and early 70's was a very turbulent time regarding race relations. Those acts of police brutality actually happened, especially in LA. If you committed a crime or was even a suspect they pretty much beat the sh#t outta you or killed you.

[–] dokken 19 years ago

In your studies of English did you ever come across a thing known as a contraction?

[–] CandyDaddy 20 years ago

1-)

A piece of African engineering

I do sympathize with all minorities and groups of people that have been mistreated in some way

who the *beep* do you think you're fooling ?

2-) Just in case you're trully trying to make a point: The aim of this film was to be entertaining to the black audience at that specific point in time. You're missing the point with your bias textbook analysis. Just typical of the popular standardization of what defines "intelligence". Have a peek out of your paradigm for a change. What is considered smart in Wall Street or at the NASA may be useless in the amazonian forest or in the Africa savana. So ask yourself what all the people watching this in the theater at the time were chearing about. *hint* - take a history class about Blacks condition in the 60's and 70's.

3-)

"The only thing I really liked about this film is the opening scene when the young boy makes love to the woman. He is utterly cute and has truly a sweet back."

Should I even comment on this?

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 20 years ago

[deleted]

[–] thrdfrfree 19 years ago

You are obviously attempting a sly bit of racist critique.

The movie is remarkable because, as was said before, black people rarely -- if ever - made it to the end of Hollywood movies.

Moreover, at this time black people, asian people, eastern/central europeans, and amerind peoples (latin americans) were all portrayed as servants. White people in the movies of the era generally talked down to them, treated them more as pets than as people, and typically ignored them as anything other than a prop-piece.

This movie is not pornographic; it has some rather steamy sex scenes, which -- again -- at the time was remarkable, because hollywood movies rarely (if ever) portrayed sexual encounters honestly.

The plot of the movie is quite obvious, just very simple: Sweet Sweetback's gotta survive, and if he wants to he'll need to kill a few people, talk his way into a few women's beds, and run, run, run. The movie, therefore, portrays quite accurately the pressures and mood swings that accompany living "on the streets". Sweet doesn't have a 9-5 job to go to, because he refuses to act as someone's servant. We don't know how he got to where he is, but it could be any number of reasons that, portrayed in a major Hollywood film, would be accepted as innocent and acceptable.

What we do know, however, is that the cops are after him and they're quite willing to break whatever rules they must to grab the man and send him to the hell of prison -- or directly under the ground, if they have their way.

Your criticisms, however :: i find your words, your affectation of simplicity, and your obviously shallow and insincere christian posturing to be deeply offensive: both as a christian, and as someone who truly doesn't have any problem with minorities.

Deeply offensive.

[–] agsa85 19 years ago

white people will never understand what racism truly is. just felt like saying that

[–] doriangray-1 19 years ago

I think you're right only partly. I come from what Westerners call "East Europe" and when communism collapsed and we started to travel abroad, we were treated with a certain mistrust and hostility. Inferior breed, many people thought, but wouldn't tell..

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] doriangray-1 19 years ago

You're wrong, like many of your predecessors: I'm not a racist. The title I gave my original post is rather rude and stupid, sorry for that. But I still think it's a bad film.

"Moreover, at this time black people, asian people, eastern/central europeans, and amerind peoples (latin americans) were all portrayed as servants. White people in the movies of the era generally talked down to them, treated them more as pets than as people, and typically ignored them as anything other than a prop-piece."

However true, does this say anything relevant about the quality of the film?

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] sotoleon 19 years ago

You know what's funny? I'm not sure if people are getting the extreme constraints the film was under. So, if anyone is expecting a polished, super produced film, that's just . . . well, it's neither reasonable, or sensible.

As far as how good or bad it was, and what the ultimate quality of films are, that is all relative and completely dependent on your life experience.

I saw "Giant" and "CasaBlanca"; both are boring and totally romanticized versions of the "west" and the "resistance", respectively. Plot lines are boring, and will probably be of interests and bring pleasure to a select few, albeit also to film students. They do have narrative structure, and have coherence, but so what? Boring, boring, boring. No black people in Morroco in "Casablanca"? Huh? And as for those John Wayne westerns (or any, for that matter) . . . I'd rather eat tuna in zero degree weather.

Relatability. These movies are no longer in tune with the times, and are dated, and their artistic value is debatable.

My point is that some movies that are considered "classic" are just not very well done. But you know what? Cinema hadn't evolved to the point it has now reached; therefore, to expect a perfect film from a film that is pioneering, is not reasonable. I mean, it wouldn't be pioneering if it wasn't making new ground, creating artistic and political space for future films.

Anyway, whether or not SSBBAS is a great film, is dependent on an array of factors: political value, social value, economic context, personal life experience, racial biases, etc.

Let's look at the politics behind art, people. Otherwise, all you're looking at is form, at the surface value of things. And who wants to do that?

[–] doriangray-1 19 years ago

I take your point, but can't agree with you. You say that quality depends on the characteristics of the viewer or contemporary society in general:
"Anyway, whether or not SSBBAS is a great film, is dependent on an array of factors: political value, social value, economic context, personal life experience, racial biases, etc."

I don't believe that quality is relative, that is related to a particular set of political, social or personal values. Is one film good for a black homosexual Jewish republican chess player and bad for a Mediterranean upper-class housewife from the time of Claudius? Obviously not: point of view may differ but quality (as something absolute) is the same. Or it's at least my opinion.

"Relatability. These movies are no longer in tune with the times, and are dated, and their artistic value is debatable."

If a piece of art can be dated it's not of real value. Is Goethe obsolete, or Plato, or Caravaggio, or Bergman or Shakespeare? I don't think so. If artistic value of some works is "debatable", it's debatable, fullstop. It's not time or culture or person specific.

But of course, I may be wrong :)