MovieChat Forums > Little Shop of Horrors (1986) Discussion > Social constructs, and musical racism?

Social constructs, and musical racism?


I have to write an essay for my English class on the social construct, of the musical, so I would greatly appreciate any opinions of the topic you may have.

My professor suggested that I use the roles of Chiffon, Ronette, Crystal and the voice of Audrey 2, as my basis. For example: Although the mastermind which propels the movie forward, Audrey 2, is voiced by a “black ( for lack of a better term at this point in time)” male, the chorus girls which are “minor” characters, are the real reason behind the success of the movie. The “main” characters are played by “whites (once again used in this context for lack of a better term).
So what, I’m trying to get across, in a terrible fashion, is Do you think there was a racial reason for have the “Mean Green Mother from Outer Space” being voiced by a “black” male, or the Chorus girls also being “black” while the constant characters were white?

On a side note, I did not mean to offend anyone by using the words “black and white”, and if I did, my deepest regrets.

reply

How do you know that Audrey II is a black man's voice?. Just sounds to me like a deep voiced man. Maybe perhaps you are viewing the movie through, if not your own prejudices, but through your own assumptions?. It's a plant, not a person. (just for arguements sake, not saying you are racist ;) ...)

As for the 3 Do-wop girls?, traditionally there have been plenty of black threesome acts, and these girls are just an homage to motown, which is anything but racist.


________________________________________

www.pegwarmers.tv

reply

Interesting thought. However I always thought they used Levi Stubbs for Audrey II's voice because he had a great voice for the part.

Since the main characters all dwell "on Skid Row" wouldn't it then have been easy to say that they were sterotyping all African-Americans as being poor slum-dwellers if the main characters were African-American? Seems like a no-win situation for the casting director.

reply

I think that Menken and Ashman wanted a very strong soulfoul chorus and rb styled songs so they got some black actress who could sing very powerfully with a lot of soul. There's nothing wrong with it. Soul has traditionally been attributed to black people. When I hear white girls sing the songs sung by Chiffon, Ronette and Crystal it doesn't have the same soul. They were black in the stageplay too.

Naveen: Yeah you've done it! For me!
Dr. Facilier: Oh I've done it!

reply

I think they used Levi Stubbs because he had a great voice..It´s like people who accused The Lion King to be racist,because the hyenas were voiced by an Afro american woman and a Latinamerican man!

reply

.....this is Little Shop of Horrors. Why are you writing an essay on it? Especially a *serious* essay? It's a parody of bad movies. Like.... that's what little shop of horrors is lmfao. You might as well write an essay on racism in Scary Movie.



...Not to say that Scary Movie is anywhere near the brilliance of Little Shop, but you get the reference. Writing serious essays based on something that's parodying ANOTHER thing? Is just idiotic. Write your essay on the *original* thing it's parodying.

reply

But what about when it IS there?
When it's there, it's there. But that obvious fact doesn't change the fact that in many cases - including this discussion - people see racism where it simply DOESN'T exist.

Your attitude doesn’t just stifle the discussion, it completely obliterates it.
Thank you. Since this entire discussion is founded upon an utterly specious and incorrect perception by the OP, I think it rather deserves it.

And, by the way, I expressed an opinion. The fact that you disagree doesn’t change it from an opinion to an ‘attitude’. By that rationale, any opposing viewpoint amounts to nothing more than an end to further discussion. Personally I like to think that even the most idiotic OP’s deserve to have their ideas challenged and occasionally knocked-down through the use of intelligent and articulate discourse.


reply

[deleted]

Yet, what you did was to accuse the OP. And, it was NOT the OP who even came up with the idea.
Yes it was. The OP didn't set the assignment, but they did come up with the thesis. (Unless I'm a total misunderstanding buffoon - which does happen occasionally.)

And, yet, you have offered not one single word either 1) to support your assertion that there is no racism present, or 2) to counter any evidence or arguments related to the premise.
Agreed. I have, in this instance, fallen into the exact same trap as those with religious faith. I proceeded under the assumption that I was correct in my views, and that all facts needed to support my argument were pre-existing conditions of my beliefs. This is not only lazy debating, but - as you quite rightly suggest - ignorant. My bad. (I still think I'm right though!)

Simply bashing the people who are taking part in the discussion or bashing the concept of the discussion is, pardon me, just plain ignorant and stupid.
Yup. I'm just plain out of line here. It annoys me when others do it, and I thank you for holding up the mirror for me. Apologies all round.

When you are unable to provide any kind of support for your own thesis or to logically counter someone else's, yet you bash, you come across as an idiot
Again, agreed. However, it wasn't so much that I was unable to support my own thesis. It just didn't occur to me to try, since I was already stuck in that 'belief' trap by then. I 'knew' that I was right, and therefore all supporting arguments kind of got 'taken as read' in my own mind. My, what an ass I am!

your mantra ("people see racism everywhere!") outs your prejudices.
A worthy point to ponder. However, that’s not exactly how my ‘mantra’ runs. It’s more a case of “people who see racism everywhere see racism everywhere!” (Go ahead and snicker!) As to prejudices, yes, I have ‘em. But don’t be too sure you know what they are! You may be surprised.

No, you have expressed an attitude. When you denigrate some people for their inquiries by lumping them in with people whose inquiries you disparage with a self-serving diagnosis ("obsessed"), without even addressing the inquiry, then it is an attitude. You said not a single word that in any way addresses the actual question presented. It is like if we were standing in front of the milk in a grocery store and someone said "I smell something... do you think there could be some spoiled milk here?" and you were to reply "some people obsessed with bacteria find spoiled food everywhere", well, that doesn’t help the consumers who may purchase the milk and then get sick. Several people here have given evidence of a smell and you dismissed it with no analysis. That is NOT an opinion. That is an attitude.
Fair enough. I stand corrected. You are quite right to chastise me, and I'll try to keep a stiff upper lip while you deliver the spanking I so richly deserve. (Try not to leave bruises though, as - since I clearly talk mostly out of my ass - I'll be needing to save some face for further public speaking.)

Additionally, in support of attitude, you have, more than once, given this story a wave-of-the-hand pass ("WHOLLY [sic] INNOCUOUS ") even though strong arguments can be offered for its moralistic considerations of socioeconomic-political systems.
I like your style! Perhaps I should explain the 'wave-of-the-hand pass'. I grew up with "Little Shop". My dad was in the original West End cast (with Ellen Greene herself), and since the show was for two years the centre of my young life, I am perhaps more personally vested in it than others. I attribute much of my "attitude" to this point, as clearly this has not been my finest debating hour! I guess I got defensive of something I hold dear to my heart, and lost most of my reasoning skills as a result. If you can find it in your heart to forgive me on this occasion, I still fully believe that there is no racism in "Little Shop", and would like the opportunity to offer arguments in support of this belief at a later date. Right now, I must attend to licking some of these wounds. You have delivered a sound drubbing and won a decisive victory. I salute you!



P.S. I corrected my spelling of ‘wholly’ in your quote, since evidence of my inability to spell simple words was, I feel, not needed to further prove your point about my obvious idiocy.

reply

Ok, I know it's been long since the first post but... really? Levi Stubbs was the best voidce and Audrey II was the best character in the movie. Villains usually are. So, the best role in the movie was given to a black man. This is my racial view of the movie.

reply

Why not watch and enjoy the movie as just entertainment and can the is it racial or not - good God don't read so much into it.

reply

As a film theory survivor I must warn you not to listen to much to your professors. They have been cloistered in the halls of academia for too long. They like to pretend writing about movies is important. Film Theory is the frosting on the top of any social change movement. It looks pretty but it's unnecessary.

You want to write about racism? Write about Jim Crow laws. Thats racism. LSOH is a movie.

Having said that....

The history of the text of Little Shop Of Horrors is quite interesting. As everyone knows it was based on a B movie. That film is littered with Borsht-Belt yiddish humor which bleeds through to the off broadway show to the WB movie. This is where the "Jewish" influences come from. It's been a long time since I saw the original B&W film but I don't recall there being any black people it in it at all. The voice of the plant was most definitely voiced by a white person.

Whenever LSOH has been produced professionally (i.e. off broadway or movies) The parts of Chiffon, Ronette and Crystal have always been played by black women and I don't know of a instance where the plant was not voiced by a black man.

Lets talk about the girls first - it would not make sense for them to be white as their very names imply blackness. The entire score of the film is based on bubble gum Doo-Wop musical which has it roots in American black music. Their very names are from black doo-wop sining groups. They are the greek chorus of the production.

I would argue that they not black because the are minor characters, they are black because in main stream films people are white unless there is a reason for them not to be. If Audrey and Seymour were black it would change the story from a "Musical" to a "Black Musical" (i.e. the Wiz is the Black version of the Wizard of Oz).

This type of racism might be interesting to explore- but it is not unique to LSOH. Look at any movie from the last 30 years. Star Wars creates a universe with 1 black person in it. Of course Tyler Perry movies create universes were everyone is black unless there is a reason for them not to be black. So the answer might be simply that people tell stories from their own ethnocentric perspectives for their own communities.

As for the voice of the plant. It has always troubled me that the voice is always consistently played by a black man and yet the Baritone voice is undeniably menacing. Are deep voices menacing because as human beings that's how we hear menace? Or does a black man's Baritone voice signify menace? Comparisons could once again be compared to Star Wars and the use of James Earl Jones voice as Darth Vader.

Interesting idea for a paper. Please post it here when you are done.


reply

I don't think it has racist undertones at all.

The film takes place in the 60's. Look at Steve Martin's "greaser" look. And as such, the music is based off of Motown, which was dominated by blacks in this time period. Levi Stubbs, who voices Audrey II, was the lead singer of the Four Tops. The trio of black singers also represent the time period. Also, Audrey II needed to be able to sing (it's a musical, after all), so who better to voice the infamous plant than one of the greatest Motown singers of all time? Audrey II totally stole the show, which is a testament to Mr. Stubbs. If anything, it's a completely positive role.

As someone said earlier, if there weren't any black people in the film, it would be seen as "racist". But because there are, that's "racist" too. Much of the cries of racism today are unfounded Catch-22's like this. People see what they want to see.

reply

[deleted]