The messages about most black people and the majority of the non-white characters in the movies are negative and extremely stereotypical. It made me think how little Hollywood has changed over the past 70 years. The only difference is that black performers may be paid more, seen more frequently in films,or rewarded with awards, but still, more often than not, are used to reinforce negative misrepresentations.
shareAccording to The Devil's Candy, casting Freeman instead of a Jewish actor was an attempt to make the movie less racist than the book was perceived to be by some.
And, BTW, I don't think any of the white characters come off positive, either.
Why negative misrepresentations do you think the movie portrays? The Sharpton caricature could be one.
The problem with calling FOLLYwood "racist" is the fact that many African-American actors and filmakers participate in or make films showing their own race in a negative light..criminals,hustlers,drug-dealers,thugs,loud,uneducated,obnoxious,etc...I really don't understand this since it only reinforces stereotypes most African-Americans would just as soon see underplayed or vanished altogether.This is essentially the same problem with hip-hop..no matter how the artists try to spin it,this particular genre is completely steeped in senseless violence,strife and irresponsible behavior.
shareIn part though, the minorities expect it of themselves. A perfect example is the Cosby Show. Blacks portrayed as affluent, educated, none racial discriminated peoples are labeled "uncle toms". Statistically life is usually more difficult for minorities in America and so when story lines dont focus on this it gets slammed as "fake" and "white."
share"Fresh Prince of Bel Air" also tackled this issue quite eloquently, most notably through Carlton. I vividly remember one episode where Carlton tries to join an all-black college fraternity but is turned down because "he's not black enough." This leads Wil to step up in defense of his cousin and thoroughly school the frat brothers that treating affluent black people like traitors to their race just because they don't act like stereotypes is wrong, regressive and damaging to the black community as a whole.
Sadly, there aren't enough people voicing that opinion to make a difference yet.
The main negative images that stand out are the wild jungle-like threatening images of the drive through a BLACK neigborhood, when the two white characters instantly perceive two young black men as being dangerous criminals and it turns out they are right. The injured black teen's mother is single probably unfit, unemployed and a scam artist, like a "typical" black unwed welfare mother. The
Sharpton" like character, not only uses racism as an oportunity for his own gain, there is a message that racism doesnt really exist, but something corrupt and hypocritical Blacks uses just to invoke white guilt and to get over on the system. The scene in the black church with the choir singing in the background, while the preacher is working his scheme on the white authorities, who are protrayed as naive and confused and are being manipulated. The main white characters are also depicted in the bad light, but the difference is there is somewhat of a balance for them, because not only do whites have a wide range of portrayals in other movies and it has been this way since Hollywood's inception, there is the idea in "Bonfire" that the plot is only protraying these types of PEOPLE-not white people, even though the characters are white. However with the black characters, the issue is their race and the plot uses black stereotypes to deliver its messages about Blacks and politics.
"The main negative images that stand out are the wild jungle-like threatening images of the drive through a BLACK neigborhood, when the two white characters instantly perceive two young black men as being dangerous criminals and it turns out they are right. The injured black teen's mother is single probably unfit, unemployed and a scam artist, like a "typical" black unwed welfare mother. The
Sharpton" like character, not only uses racism as an oportunity for his own gain,"
sadly, everything you've mentioned here are pretty prevalent problems in our society. i guess it's only politically correct to portray white folks as villains in a film, but once somebody has the balls to speak about some of the atrocities black folks commit it's viewed as racist. Sharpton DOES use racial matters as a crutch for his own gain, many black neighborhoods ARE crime ridden.
take a look around at the world and try to look at it in an honest light, if you don't like what you see maybe you should do something about to change it. but shooting the messenger is not going to accomplish anything other than allowing you to bury your head in the sand that much longer.
Casting for movie in the Dallas area titled "Sluts" - theslutsmovie.com
Well put.
---
LIFE: It's just a movie.
Well, I thought this movie sucked, but considering that it is set in the middle of the crack epidemic of the 1980's, it's probably a fairly accurate portrayal, unfortunately.
shareThere a point where you are arguing how things should be and how they actually are. I live near the city and there are black neighborhoods and they are black neighborhoods because mostly blacks live there. In this movie every one is a horrible person except the jusge. But saying its rascist just shows the message hasn't hit home. When you break it down people were thinking for there own good. While people need to act better it won't always happen. they live in the real world and not some utopian cleaver society. So life sucks, but move on besides its just a movie
shareummmm........... ok..
shareI loved the book but it has been close to 30 years since I read the book. I thought however that the entire film was done wrong. From casting to directing.
The book however should be adapted again into a mini series for HBO. It should stick closely to the book.
I'm not so sure about that Ap1704.
I think you're forgetting that the most important person in the movie and the only key character to come out the movie with any sense of dignity and moral high ground is the Judge. I find it hard to believe that hollywood hasn't changed much in the last 70 years. Can you imagine them having an non-white actor portraying a judge back in the 30s?
I think not.
In the same breath, being Irish, I still cringe when I see the portrayal of Irish people in 'hollywood' films. It's mind bogglingly derogatory and totally innacurate. I laugh at it myself when it's in a comedy, especially a satire - because satire is supposed to be stereotypical charicatures...otherwise it wouldn't be satire and it wouldn't be funny.
As an aside, I have visions of hollywood execs taking Borat from Khazakstan completely seriously and how hollywood will portray eastern europe in years to come will be purely based on Borat. can you imagine?
Leaving hollywood aside, I would have said the film (BOTV) was more classist than racist.
In other words it was more about the point Sherman struggles to make to the detectives when they wanted to 'just look at the car'..i.e. there is a different *ROUTINE* for privilaged people like him.
At least, that's what I picked up on.
i.e. BOTV painted a very dark and pathetic picture of human nature, on the privilaged side and on the non-privilaged side, all colours and creeds included.
Actually, a black actor protrayed a judge in 1933 in "Rufus Jones for President" which featured a 7 or 8- year old Sammy Davis Jr. However this role was more comedic than anything else. In 1955 Juano Hernandez played a distinguished and dignified judge in "Trial" which starred the late Glenn Ford. However, other black caricatures images and the influencing social climate of the time overshadowed the few dignified roles Blacks did have in mainstream Hollywood films. Much like the negative black images depicted in BOTV overshadows the fact that the judge is black who delivers the movie's "message". But I will give the BOTV another look from a "classist" perspective. By the way, I am sure you know that for a long time in this country, the Irish were discriminated against considered to be the lowest of classes and for a while were not even considered white. So I guess that legacy influences many of the negative Irish stereotypes of yesteryear and some thatstill persist today.
shareI wonder what your opinion is on Gangsta Rappers...are they being unfairly stereotyped as well?
I mean Hollywood portrays them as thug life living/indiscriminate wild shooting ignorant uneducated morons...ooops thats not Hollywood, its themselves.
This was an excellent movie, and I believe correctly lampoons the idiocy of race, crime, truth, mistruth, the media, the criminal justice system, and politics.
Hey! Keep on plugging lest we forget Plessy v. Ferguson, and Brown v. Topeka.
"I wonder what your opinion is on Gangsta Rappers...are they being unfairly stereotyped as well? "
I think Gangsta Rappers are promoted as they are easy to sell, but they also reinforce racist stereotypes.
It's a satirical, cynical view of class distinction, racism, race relations, power structure, the judicial system, and media structure in not just NYC but the country as a whole. Virtually every character is biased in some fashion, whether it be racially prejudiced, snobbery, power-hungry, motivated by monetary gain, or notoriety. Basically it is a reflection of the lack of human morality that exists to some extent, albeit hyperbolized in this story.
My Karma ran over your dogma.
Exactly, I haven't seen film but read the book, which is a human comedy and total parody. And you know what, it documents pretty well what really does go on. Tom Wofle was a journalist way before he became a novelist.
shareIf the ''movie'' had maintained the construct of the book, which was a terrific read, then the racial dynamics would have been coherent. And it would have been appealing. Far too many bone-headed liberties were taken, with a predictable result. But then, that's Hollywood.........
share[deleted]
Its supposed to be a SATIRE on Social Class ( 'the vanities"), racial stereotypes, race relations, economic disparity and isolation, and basic human emotions, such as fear, greed and power.
On those subjects the film succeeds. NO ONE comes out of it looking good.
The Sharpton character manipulates, the Tom Hanks (Sherman McCoy) character thinks he's "Master of the Universe" until one wrong turn takes him out of his universe and into another reality ( The Bronx in the 80s was also the setting for the film, "Fort Apache" portraying it as an area under siege, which in many ways it was).
Some of the people like the McCoy character went to prison back in that time period ( "Wall Street") as their impulses are no different than those seen on the street. They're just masked differently.
Here is the racist message of this racist movie, as delivered by the Hollywood racists idea of a black judge:
"Racist? You dare call me racist? Well I say unto you, what does it matter the color of a man's skin if witnesses purjure themselves, if a prosecutor enlists the perjurers, when a district attorney throws a man to the mob for political gain, and men of the cloth, men of God, take the prime cuts? Is that justice?
Let me tell you what justice is. Justice is the law. And the law is man's feeble attempt to set down the principles of decency. Decency! And decency is not a deal, it isn't an angle, or a contract, or a hustle! Decency... decency is what your grandmother taught you. It's in your bones! Now you go home. Go home and be decent people. Be decent."
Didn't that make you want to go out and join the Klan?
[deleted]
AP has it wrong. Al Sharpton engaged in one of the ugliest, most racist hoaxes of the late 20th century; the Tawana Brawley fiasco. The Sharptonish character in this film is a fair reflection of the real thing.
shareThe exact same thing happened in Durham, NC in 2006 when three white Duke University students were falsely accused of rape by a black women. It followed the script laid out in this book pretty closely. They were the "great white defendant(s)". A hat trick for DA Mike Nifong. Or so he thought.
The stupidest part of the movie was EVERYONE applauding Fallow at the end for exposing the false prosecution. In the book, Fallow never had a guilt-stricken change of conscience, nor anyone else, and it ended with McCoy being repeatedly prosecuted by DA Weiss who won his re-election and the very Jewish judge (changed to Morgan Freeman in the movie) thrown out of office.
The biggest problem with the movie compared to the book is that in the very long book there was time to develop all the characters and lay out the issues more closely.
I also found the cameos by the likes of George Plimpton and Geraldo Rivera distracting.
I just read up on the Amanda Knox situation and I notice eerie parallels to Bonfire of the Vanities concept of "The Great White Defendant." When the story first broke of a bizarre sex orgy and thrill kill by two white privileged college students against another, it was too salacious for the media to resist. When the physical evidence came back, to the horror of the UK Tabloids, it all pointed at a single person, a local black burglar who had been known to threaten people he confronted during the break ins with a large knife. The media couldn't handle this, it didn't fit their PC agenda, so instead they started a smear campaign against Amanda Knox who by all evidence had nothing to do with the crime. She did make one heck of a "Great White Defendant" in the UK and Italian tabloid press.
shareThat's rubbish. The UK's most PC paper, 'The Guardian' went out of its way to defend the American Ms Knox and conduct several interviews with her, possibly because it hates the UK where the victim hails from even more than it hates the US.
PS: I'm a liberal but I get annoyed with people who hate their own country.
The film isn't flattering about Jews (who are all shady connivers), or indeed WASPs, most of whom are portrayed as greedy and obsessed with money.
The Judge is about one of the few sensible people in the film (along with Sherman's father?), and he's a black man called "White"!
Thats why this flick is so underrated - morons think its racist. ITS NOT. ITS CLEVER.
ARE YOU GONNA BARK ALL DAY LITTLE DOGGY... OR ARE YOU GONNA BITE ?
It's not that clever. The book's better.
shareof course its not racist , its what black people like to implicated, as usual bah
shareand of course what Arthur Ruskin said when he was talking to Peter Fallow about how Arabs in 1990 haven't seen an airplane before and how ignorant they are not knowing how an airplane lands. are u kidding me? Arabs in 1990 don't know anything about airplanes and bringing there animals with them? and actually i don't care about which year he had this experience with Arabs in airplanes that he was talking about because i don't remember he said a specific year or anything the thing it's really racist and fuel the stereotypical image of Arabs as the desert people who live in tents with there goats and camels and don't know or maybe new to the modern type of life
shareAnd therefore it portrays Arthur Ruskin, who is a hyperrich white man as a racist. How stupid are you people? Do you understand the difference between a movie having a racist character in it and a movie being racist? Apparently not...
shareHERE HERE!! (das wut im tawkin bout my *beep*
share