PingBack from http://angelina-jolie.bloggydog.info/?p=2545

Why wait until August 15 to find out?

Do you expect some kind of enlightenment from this? Just let history be your guide; it's the same ole, same ole. Or better yet, it's called exploitation.

I think the difference between an Eddie Murphy or Wayan's brother dressing up in "white face" as opposed to whites dressing in Blackface, is the history behind each. Blackface has a long history and its primary objective has been to negatively characterize African Americans in the most dehumanizing and exploitive means possible. Blackface is almost never an homage or a respectful characterization.

Of course, two wrongs don't make a right, but in this instance I would say that the historical context of blackface makes it difficult to place in the same category as so-called whiteface.

Perhaps I am rather incensed, currently reading Harriet A. Washington's riviting, yet extremely upsetting "Medical Apartheid" (a definate must read) and having recently completed Nelson Mandela's "A Long walk to Freedom", but I fail to see the comedic value in Robert Downey Jr.'s black-face performance.

Based upon the film's promotional photographs alone, this portrayal appears reminiscent of "Amos and Andy", Billy Van and Al Jolson, whose mockery of the black identity served to do no more than perpetuate the negative stereotypes and misguided, but widely held, beliefs that black men are bumbling, infantile buffoons able to contribute no more than a little song and dance.  

If we are to be represented by non-black actors, why can't we be represented in a positive light?  

Think back to the 1986 film "Soul Man" - the premise: a white student (C. Thomas Howell) was reject from attending Harvard due to his academic performance so, in his attempt to "pull one over", he disguises himself as a black student to meet the college's affirmative action standard and is ultimately awarded admission.  As the black student, Howell finds himself in humourous situations trying to be a convincing black man (think bumbling, infantile buffoon) and even falls in love with a black student, because of whom, he later reveals his true identity.  

Also, consider the 1974 Mel Brooks comedy "Blazing Saddles": a black man (Clevon Little) is appointed sherrif of an all white western town and is met with all imaginable sorts of opposition; the dialogue, very colourful.  Here, Little's sherrif is not the typical "Step N' Fechit" character, but, nor is he a positive representation.  It has been said that Brooks wanted to mock the racial stereotypes and add humour to the racial tension.  Could this have been Stiller's justification?

As Tubbs perviously stated, the historic connotations and expectations that arise when you dress any non-black person in black-face make such images so inappropriate.

Yikes people, relax . . .

First of all, it looks funny. And secondly, Downey is playing a white Australian actor who converts himself for the movie he thinks he's shooting. So part of the humor is supposed to come from how completely clueless the character is about the Black American experience. . . y'know, being white and Australian.

I'll probably get flamed for saying this, but if we REALLY want to have a meaningful conversation about race in this country, we're going to have to just let some stuff go. Not everything is worth getting offended over, and this is one of them.

L3ESmith - I agree, we have to let some things go.

Also, I liked Soul Man. The kid did not become black to get into Harvard, rather to get a race based scholarship that he thought was going to be unclaimed. Yes there was a lot of bumbling but it was a white kid trying to be black bumbling which we make fun of ALL the time where I live. The point of the movie was to show how the small "advantages" from being black (the occassional scholarship that helps only one young person) are hugely overshadowed by the more significant obstacles that he faced simply because the color of his skin had changed (being sent to jail on a DWB).

Not to drive a dead horse into the ground, but, as a side point to L3ESmith's comment, the perpetuationof the negative images that non-black people truly believe comes from the way we are depicted by mainstream media.  As a student at Indiana University School of Law, I met many intelligent non-black individuals who were so underexposed to black culture, that, when shown images or presented with texts, they found it difficult to believe that the horrors that occurred in antebellum America and even during the Civil Rights Movement were as extensive as we know to be true.  If this is true of educated people with some exposure to black culture, what do those with no exposure believe?

If the portrayals of blacks in the types of roles I mentioned in my previous post coupled with the distorted news, talk show, and other negative images are all a non-black person is sees, it is easy for that individual to beleive that those images are an accurate representation of our community.  Erroneous depictions and harmful mockeries are not helping us reach the point where we can "just let some stuff go".

I am curious to know how the black actors in the film will represent us.

Disclaimer:  L3ESmith- I am not bashing your comments and I do agree that there are some things we can and need to let go.

@L3ESmith

Cosign.  In this case if the movie is stupid and unfunny and noone has made a fuss about it, then it will die a quick and slow death.  

I don't want to say that we're "too sensitive" to racial slights, but to react to each and every small incident of prejudice, ignorance, or insensitivity with the same kind of guns blazing, full court press conference, marching in the streets intensity that should be reserved for things like the Jena 6 is counter-productive.

Remember the old saying "Don't judge a book by its cover"?

These are the same complainers that called "Don't Be a Menace to South Central While Drinking Your Juice in the Hood" offensive to blacks, yet never saw the movie (if they did, they'd know that the movie was a spoof - and quite funny).

I'd only hope that Stiller & Co hired plenty of black faces (no pun intended) as members of the production staff in this movie.

I've decided to make my comment without reading others so that my point of view is unfiltered or changed.

IMO, what it all comes down to is, "Has enough time passed?" Has enough time passed that white people can "make fun" of black folks? Have we not only come to terms but overcome all that has happened to our race that white folks can laugh at us at our expense? Have white folks "made ammends" with black folks so much so that their comedic point of view of our people is acceptable and/or humorous?

I don't think so...