Black Panther (2018)

[VinylGuy]

Africans are African but WE ARE AFRICA

OMG STIP CMON

We are the world.

JUST ONE WORLD.

DISNEY WORLD

[LoathedVermin72]

Africans are African but WE ARE AFRICA

OMG STIP CMON

We are the world.

JUST ONE WORLD.

DISNEY WORLD

lol

[Bi_3]

*SNIP*

No, Jackie Robinson's barrier was a much bigger deal. Barack Obama's presidency was a much bigger deal. But you don't need to be the biggest moment to still be an important moment.

Maybe? I'm reserving judgement until I see it, but I am highly suspicious of the hype surrounding these types of 'watershed moments' at this point in human history. I feel like it's our generation's narcissism that causes us to think of events that happen in our lives as 'important moments', when they are not every sub-bullets in a appendix footnote. If this movie launches a new wave of black artists and filmmakers into the mainstream... to bring new voices and new ideas, that's awesome. If it inspires historically disadvantaged kids to look beyond their immediate surroundings and strive for something bigger, that's even better. But like all lasting social change, it has to start from somewhere authentic, and historically that ain't franchised Disney blockbusters.

[Kaius]

I haven’t seen the movie yet, but I just wanted chime in and say I agree with stip.

To keep it simple: The “Disney factor” matters far less than the “Black factor” and it’s not even close. Pop culture has and likely always will be at least a signifier if not a catalyst for positive social/cultural change.

[96583UP]

blacks have been held out of the spotlight in US pop culture for too long

[stip]

*SNIP*

No, Jackie Robinson's barrier was a much bigger deal. Barack Obama's presidency was a much bigger deal. But you don't need to be the biggest moment to still be an important moment.

Maybe? I'm reserving judgement until I see it, but I am highly suspicious of the hype surrounding these types of 'watershed moments' at this point in human history. I feel like it's our generation's narcissism that causes us to think of events that happen in our lives as 'important moments', when they are not every sub-bullets in a appendix footnote. If this movie launches a new wave of black artists and filmmakers into the mainstream... to bring new voices and new ideas, that's awesome. If it inspires historically disadvantaged kids to look beyond their immediate surroundings and strive for something bigger, that's even better. But like all lasting social change, it has to start from somewhere authentic, and historically that ain't franchised Disney blockbusters.

No doubt some of the hype is marketing - but it can still be authentic nevertheless. Most culturally important moments are culturally important because we collectively decide that they are, regardless of how 'organically' this does or does not happen. And this feels fairly organic in the overwhelming reception its received - a movie that speaks to the zeitgeist of its moment. Who knows if this would have resonated the same way if not for the politics of the last several years? It still would have happened as these projects enter development way before they come to fruition, but the timing worked out great.

It's hard to know how to quantitatively measure or assess the impact something has on identity. But it can be no less real because of that, and this impact is one that it is hard for a dominant cultural group to appreciate because one of the privileges of being in that group is never having to worry about your own representation - taking it for granted.

One of the deciding factors in the Brown v Board of Ed decision 60 years ago was a psychological study that showed black school children were internalizing white standards of beauty and preferring to play with white dolls vs. black dolls because the white dolls were perceived as 'better.' It spoke to the internal impact that generation upon generation of cultural marginalization was having on the self worth of children. I'm not drawing a 1-1 parallel between school integration and a comic book movie, but they're part of the same process. That barrier came down in music a long time ago. It came down in sports a long time ago. Film not so much, especially the blockbuster film making that drives the public consciousness.

[stip]

blacks have been held out of the spotlight in US pop culture for too long

In film, yes.

[96583UP]

blacks have been held out of the spotlight in US pop culture for too long

In film, yes.

maybe now finally samuel l jackson can find work

[Kaius]

*SNIP*

No, Jackie Robinson's barrier was a much bigger deal. Barack Obama's presidency was a much bigger deal. But you don't need to be the biggest moment to still be an important moment.

Maybe? I'm reserving judgement until I see it, but I am highly suspicious of the hype surrounding these types of 'watershed moments' at this point in human history. I feel like it's our generation's narcissism that causes us to think of events that happen in our lives as 'important moments', when they are not every sub-bullets in a appendix footnote. If this movie launches a new wave of black artists and filmmakers into the mainstream... to bring new voices and new ideas, that's awesome. If it inspires historically disadvantaged kids to look beyond their immediate surroundings and strive for something bigger, that's even better. But like all lasting social change, it has to start from somewhere authentic, and historically that ain't franchised Disney blockbusters.

No doubt some of the hype is marketing - but it can still be authentic nevertheless. Most culturally important moments are culturally important because we collectively decide that they are, regardless of how 'organically' this does or does not happen. And this feels fairly organic in the overwhelming reception its received - a movie that speaks to the zeitgeist of its moment. Who knows if this would have resonated the same way if not for the politics of the last several years? It still would have happened as these projects enter development way before they come to fruition, but the timing worked out great.

It's hard to know how to quantitatively measure or assess the impact something has on identity. But it can be no less real because of that, and this impact is one that it is hard for a dominant cultural group to appreciate because one of the privileges of being in that group is never having to worry about your own representation - taking it for granted.

One of the deciding factors in the Brown v Board of Ed decision 60 years ago was a psychological study that showed black school children were internalizing white standards of beauty and preferring to play with white dolls vs. black dolls because the white dolls were perceived as 'better.' It spoke to the internal impact that generation upon generation of cultural marginalization was having on the self worth of children. I'm not drawing a 1-1 parallel between school integration and a comic book movie, but they're part of the same process. That barrier came down in music a long time ago. It came down in sports a long time ago. Film not so much, especially the blockbuster film making that drives the public consciousness.

[Monkey_Driven]

*SNIP*

No, Jackie Robinson's barrier was a much bigger deal. Barack Obama's presidency was a much bigger deal. But you don't need to be the biggest moment to still be an important moment.

Maybe? I'm reserving judgement until I see it, but I am highly suspicious of the hype surrounding these types of 'watershed moments' at this point in human history. I feel like it's our generation's narcissism that causes us to think of events that happen in our lives as 'important moments', when they are not every sub-bullets in a appendix footnote. If this movie launches a new wave of black artists and filmmakers into the mainstream... to bring new voices and new ideas, that's awesome. If it inspires historically disadvantaged kids to look beyond their immediate surroundings and strive for something bigger, that's even better. But like all lasting social change, it has to start from somewhere authentic, and historically that ain't franchised Disney blockbusters.

No doubt some of the hype is marketing - but it can still be authentic nevertheless. Most culturally important moments are culturally important because we collectively decide that they are, regardless of how 'organically' this does or does not happen. And this feels fairly organic in the overwhelming reception its received - a movie that speaks to the zeitgeist of its moment. Who knows if this would have resonated the same way if not for the politics of the last several years? It still would have happened as these projects enter development way before they come to fruition, but the timing worked out great.

It's hard to know how to quantitatively measure or assess the impact something has on identity. But it can be no less real because of that, and this impact is one that it is hard for a dominant cultural group to appreciate because one of the privileges of being in that group is never having to worry about your own representation - taking it for granted.

One of the deciding factors in the Brown v Board of Ed decision 60 years ago was a psychological study that showed black school children were internalizing white standards of beauty and preferring to play with white dolls vs. black dolls because the white dolls were perceived as 'better.' It spoke to the internal impact that generation upon generation of cultural marginalization was having on the self worth of children. I'm not drawing a 1-1 parallel between school integration and a comic book movie, but they're part of the same process. That barrier came down in music a long time ago. It came down in sports a long time ago. Film not so much, especially the blockbuster film making that drives the public consciousness.

This is some great historical context Stip.

[LoathedVermin72]

I admit this kind of stuff is tricky for me as someone who loves and cares about movies and art, and is often skeptical of marketing-fueled hype around popular films. I understand that I am a white man, and while I can intellectually understand representation in art, I’ll never fully understand the visceral, emotional response it may produce in some viewers, since representation and role models are not something I have ever looked for in movies, very possibly because it was something I, as a straight, cis, white dude, took for granted.

That said, I think I am naturally inclined be to be suspicious of these kinds of situations where the identity politics surrounding a movie drown out all conversations about its actual artistry, because I have seen this happen over and over in recent years, and this is just a more extreme version. I don’t think conversations about art should be dominated by political ramifications. Yes, that is important, and I can understand why it is more important to marginalized groups, but that doesn’t mean aesthetics are rendered worthless. That doesn’t mean marketing-induced hysteria isn’t real. This is a movie. This is a work of art. It is not some piece of groundbreaking legislation. We need to be able to discuss it in the same terms we would discuss any other movie. We need to be able to stay grounded. I understand why people are having emotional reactions to it. But people have emotional reactions to lots of things. Emotional reactions are not some sacred, indisputable thing we all have kowtow to, and I think dismissing thoughtful criticism of a work of art or its social impact because kids can identify with someone in a movie is just about the lowest possible standard we can hold a movie to.

[LoathedVermin72]

Also worth considering: is representation at the cost of the Disney-ification of black culture worth it?

[bart]

So we're just acting like Sebastian from The Little Mermaid didn't even exist

[Monkey_Driven]

I admit this kind of stuff is tricky for me as someone who loves and cares about movies and art, and is often skeptical of marketing-fueled hype around popular films. I understand that I am a white man, and while I can intellectually understand representation in art, I’ll never fully understand the visceral, emotional response it may produce in some viewers, since representation and role models are not something I have ever looked for in movies, very possibly because it was something I, as a straight, cis, white dude, took for granted.

That said, I think I am naturally inclined be to be suspicious of these kinds of situations where the identity politics surrounding a movie drown out all conversations about its actual artistry, because I have seen this happen over and over in recent years, and this is just a more extreme version. I don’t think conversations about art should be dominated by political ramifications. Yes, that is important, and I can understand why it is more important to marginalized groups, but that doesn’t mean aesthetics are rendered worthless. That doesn’t mean marketing-induced hysteria isn’t real. This is a movie. This is a work of art. It is not some piece of groundbreaking legislation. We need to be able to discuss it in the same terms we would discuss any other movie. We need to be able to stay grounded. I understand why people are having emotional reactions to it. But people have emotional reactions to lots of things. Emotional reactions are not some sacred, indisputable thing we all have kowtow to, and I think dismissing thoughtful criticism of a work of art or its social impact because kids can identify with someone in a movie is just about the lowest possible standard we can hold a movie to.

Good post LV.

[stip]

I admit this kind of stuff is tricky for me as someone who loves and cares about movies and art, and is often skeptical of marketing-fueled hype around popular films. I understand that I am a white man, and while I can intellectually understand representation in art, I’ll never fully understand the visceral, emotional response it may produce in some viewers, since representation and role models are not something I have ever looked for in movies, very possibly because it was something I, as a straight, cis, white dude, took for granted.

That said, I think I am naturally inclined be to be suspicious of these kinds of situations where the identity politics surrounding a movie drown out all conversations about its actual artistry, because I have seen this happen over and over in recent years, and this is just a more extreme version. I don’t think conversations about art should be dominated by political ramifications. Yes, that is important, and I can understand why it is more important to marginalized groups, but that doesn’t mean aesthetics are rendered worthless. That doesn’t mean marketing-induced hysteria isn’t real. This is a movie. This is a work of art. It is not some piece of groundbreaking legislation. We need to be able to discuss it in the same terms we would discuss any other movie. We need to be able to stay grounded. I understand why people are having emotional reactions to it. But people have emotional reactions to lots of things. Emotional reactions are not some sacred, indisputable thing we all have kowtow to, and I think dismissing thoughtful criticism of a work of art or its social impact because kids can identify with someone in a movie is just about the lowest possible standard we can hold a movie to.

I don't necessarily disagree. This was interesting to track with Wonder Woman. It was a case of the RT score not telling the whole story. It had a 92%, which is very high, but most of the reviews were 'this is pretty good.' And it became an important cultural phenomena after it launched (and somewhat over time - it endured) which changed the conversation around the movie. But the importance of WW as a cultural touchstone, its social significance, is somewhat (although not entirely) separate from discussions of how it succeeds as a work of artistic craft (although the point it wants to make, its politics, its relationship to its time and place, is not something that can be divorced either).

Black Panther as a cultural phenomena seems real, and very important. Groundbreaking even. But you're right in that the filmmaking within it (which I think is good) is not itself gorundbreaking.

[stip]

Also worth considering: is representation at the cost of the Disney-ification of black culture worth it?

While produced by Disney, the messaging in the movie is not as watered down and soft boiled as you might expect. I don't want to discuss spoilers but it is a somewhat familiar Malcom X/MLK dichotomy (that's pretty broad, but works as a hueristic) that is surprisingly sympathetic to the Malcom X view. Even if it doesn't embrace it in the end.


But your question, while interesting, probably has to be answered by the people whose representation is at stake. The larger question about corporate control over art is of course fair game for everyone.

[Orpheus]

That said, I think I am naturally inclined be to be suspicious of these kinds of situations where the identity politics surrounding a movie drown out all conversations about its actual artistry.

The hype train definitely built in a huge way for this movie, but it's been sustained because it's actually pretty fucking good. I thought it was visually interesting, the actors were great, and best of all, it has some really interesting treatments of the character, the fictional country, and their ramifications on the world they live in. I agree that art should be judged for its merits as art, but this movie isn't artless. We're also a little fatigued by seeing the hype from the American perspective. Africans are flipping out about it on a level that is pretty awesome to watch, especially since they have some really fast growing cinema movements of their own.

[stip]

The one place this movie kind of flags a bit (although its not a disaster) is with the third act. It's very much rooted in the conflicts and themes that were present throughout the film, and it's not a 'skybeam' ending. The fate of of the world is at stake, but actually in a kind of awesome way that its hard not to sympathize with at least a little bit

Spoiler: show

the big bad is trying to arm oppressed peoples to rise up and overthrow their colonizers

But if you're watching a four quadrant comic book movie, it's probably going to settle its differences with a fight. that's what comic book movies are, and that's not a Marvel thing. My objection is that the action wasn't awesome, and was eclipsed earlier in the film by some better fights

[stip]

Another interesting article detailing the disconnect between the more scientific exit polls and online fan sites that are vulnerable to review campaigns

http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2018/02/18/ ... s-and-meta

[LoathedVermin72]

Also worth considering: is representation at the cost of the Disney-ification of black culture worth it?

While produced by Disney, the messaging in the movie is not as watered down and soft boiled as you might expect. I don't want to discuss spoilers but it is a somewhat familiar Malcom X/MLK dichotomy (that's pretty broad, but works as a hueristic) that is surprisingly sympathetic to the Malcom X view. Even if it doesn't embrace it in the end.


But your question, while interesting, probably has to be answered by the people whose representation is at stake. The larger question about corporate control over art is of course fair game for everyone.

I’m sure bringing up Armond White will induce eye-rolls, but I have followed his writing for a long time. I have felt and learned from his passion for black art in a very powerful way. And this point from his review hit me very viscerally:

Black Panther’s Marvelization of black history and anthropology is pathetic, and the Marvelizing of black imagination is appalling.