PennTags Feed for /tag/film+1971

A Black Movie for White Audiences? / Clayton Riley

Riley, Clayton. "A Black Movie for White Audiences :A Black Critic's View of 'Shaft'. " New York Times (1857-Current file) [New York, N.Y.] 25 Jul 1971,D13. ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2004). ProQuest. University of Pennsylvania Library, Philadelphia, PA. 9 Apr. 2008

In this article, a little over 2 months removed from his glowing review of Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song, Clayton Riley laments the light bulb that inevitably flashed above the heads of Hollywood executives following Sweetback’s commercial success. This light bulb was the beginning of the genre known as blaxploitation. Riley begins earnestly with the line “amusement is a cheap high: being entertained means never having to face the truth.” In this article, he blasts the recently released Shaft, calling it a depiction of a false premise that has no bearing or purpose in the current realm of race relations in America. In other words, it is a giant step backwards. He is disgusted at the new “Hip Black Movie” that serves to deceive and set the Black race back while the White race watches and laughs in mockery. While he respects the director, Gordon Parks, he immediately decides that Shaft lacks both “style and substance.” Since the white private investigator was revealed in the 60s to be a “champion of nothing but his own petty interests”, Riley envisioned that the studios attempted to start over with a Black private dick, which apparently makes it OK. He realizes Shaft will be well received because it creates an image of black men as “noncompetitors” with the farcical, unrealistic depiction of John Shaft that makes white people laugh at the idea that he could be real. Sweetback, he said, on the other hand, resembles “a reality that is black…we may not want him to exist but he does”. White people don’t fear Shaft but they fear Sweetback, which makes this film so disgusting to him. Even more disgusting is that many black people bought the premise without question.

This is an interesting comparison between the two movies – one independently produced and the other produced by studio giant MGM. Melvin Van Peebles, the director of Sweetback, claims that John Shaft was originally a white character, changed to a black character after the success of his film. Inevitably, a character that is accepted by white society ended up on the screen, much to the chagrin of some of the black audience. This article is important in its distinction of Sweetback from the blaxploitation films that followed. Sweetback is NOT a blaxploitation film. However, the films that followed exploited its success and enraged black film critics everywhere, perpetuating a fantasy that had no place in the minds of black youth.

Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song: A Guerilla Filmmaking Manifesto / Melvin Van Peebles

Van Peebles, Melvin. "Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song." Outlaw Bible of American Literature / Ed. Kaufman, Alan, Ed. Ortenberg, Neil, Ed. Rosset, Barney.1560255501 series New York : Thunder's Mouth Press, c2004. pp. 286-289.

Call#: Van Pelt Library PS659 .O98 2004

This article describes the aspirations and challenges faced by writer/director Melvin Van Peebles in making his controversial independent film Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song. He declares his main desire for the film was to “get the Man’s foot out of [his] ass…and out of all our black asses” – in fact he originally titled the film How to Get the Man’s Foot Outta Your Ass. With that idea in mind, he made a list of requirements necessary to get his message across effectively, keeping in mind his limitations (both economic and social).

Using the basic story of a black man getting “the Man’s” foot out of his ass, Van Peebles listed “givens” in order to prevent himself from writing something he wouldn’t be able to shoot. These givens include: no copping out (a victorious film for the black man), high production value (must look as good as white independent films and thus must be in color), wall-to-wall action and entertainment (to prevent boredom and create a commercial power base so “the Man” might actually fund him if it seemed profitable), half the crew must be third world people, tight security (due to the controversy he was causing), and a flexible script to deal with the unknown variables such as caliber of actors/crew.

With this list of givens, Van Peebles describes his advantages over the major Hollywood studios in this subject matter and the possibilities he could utilize. He understood the black pulse but by seizing it, he might hurt the black cause as well. Since he realized that the more action he had, the more the mainstream audience would let him get away with, he decided to pack “enough action for three movies”, overuse screen effects, and create musical montages as space-filler. Thus, through his economic and social constraints, Van Peebles describes the process in developing Sweetback’s characteristics, characteristics that would become the standard in Hollywood’s blaxploitation wave that followed.

This article is very interesting and valuable in that it describes not only the pre-production process of the film but how those factors and considerations created the style that Hollywood would eventually emulate in their blaxploitation wave - as seen in films such as Shaft and Superfly later that year. As many directors often dream about working outside the confines and restrictions of their studio heads, this shows how one might approach such a project and the precautions one might take. It is a great example of the full auteur process in a manner that deals with a subject matter and goal not necessarily acceptable to all people.

Tavis Smiley Interviews Melvin and Mario Van Peebles / PBS Online Transcript

Smiley, Tavis. "Melvin Van Peebles". Tavis Smiley. PBS. 27 May 2004. .

After some bantering where Melvin reveals he is actually “Sir Melvin” (“brother from the south side of Chicago has been knighted”), Tavis Smiley begins the interview with Melvin Van Peebles and his son Mario. Tavis asks Mario what it was like growing up in the shadow of his father, who responds saying that Melvin “never though being successful would make him forget his blackness…who he is.” They discuss Melvin growing up in an institution/industry where he is “mad at the system but not mad at the people.” Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song was therefore an indictment of the system but not necessarily everyone who functions within that system. Melvin acknowledges that all the film unions were all-white and he sought to make a film that utilizes people of all races in spite of the singular racial perspective portrayed in Sweetback. Next they talk about Mario’s film New Jack City (1991) and Mario confides that since the studio heads are all white, it’s tough to pitch a movie with complex non-white characters. More often than not, studio heads use black characters in simple way (i.e. comic relief or subservience). Thus, most of the Van Peebles’ films are done by racially mixed crews and funded by black producers. They move on to Mario losing his virginity on screen in Sweetback’s beginning at 13 years old, which Mario says was a great experience (he kept asking for retakes). The conversation continues about the paternal link between Melvin, Mario, and now Mario’s kids in his recent biopic of his father, Baadasssss (2003). After discussing how they make due with limited resources and time (Sweetback was shot in 19 days “without technology), they finish by talking about how to promote a controversial movie nobody wants to advertise.

This interview was very interesting to read because it shed light not only on some of the feelings behind the controversial production of Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song, but also illustrated the father-son relationship between Melvin and Mario Van Peebles. Sweetback is a film that is meant to affect the younger generation, instilling them with a sense of pride and refusal to tolerate intolerance. As this interview demonstrates, Melvin instilled his son with a sense of purpose and duty, not only to his family and race, but to under-privileged, under-utilized film crews as well. Although the character of Sweetback ultimately becomes a loner, it was the production of that film that brought people together in order to challenge society and the Hollywood system with new, provocative images and stories. As Melvin said, it was the system, not the people, that needed to be directly confronted.

The 25 Most Important Films on Race: Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song (1971) / Richard Corliss

Corliss, Richard. "The 25 Most Important Films on Race: Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song (1971)." Time Magazine Online. 04 Feb. 2008. . New York: 2008.

In a listing about the 25 most important films on race, Richard Corliss arrives at Melvin Van Peebles' Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song. This time, over 35 years after its release, its context and place in film history is no clearer now than in 1971. While the Black Panthers used it as a mandatory recruiting video (a la the KKK with Birth of a Nation), Ebony Magazine denounced it. The wide range of responses and reactions seemed to be all on one extreme side of the spectrum or the other. However, Corliss acknowledges three matters that are undebateable: nothing had been seen like it before in a commercial theater, it "instantly shifted the dominant tone of black films from liberal to anarchist, from uplifting message movies to fables of ghetto smarts and stickin' it to the man," and it was an "out-of-nowhere hit," creating the new genre of blaxploitation. Corliss explains why Van Peebles himself was the anti-Sidney Poitier, a black hero that was too threatening and sexual to be allowed on screen. Van Peebles didn't care what whites felt about his film and that liberated him in a way that no Hollywood studio film had ever been liberated. The film even used child pornography (with Van Peebles' son Mario having sex with an adult woman) and because of all these factors, Corliss concludes it is impossible to analyze without some sort of bias.

This article is important and relevant because it finally places Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song into its several historical contexts without needing to provide clarity over which context is "right". Corliss understands the polarization of views this film has caused, as evidenced in the opening paragraph: "Libaration or exploitation? Radical politics or violent nihilism? Mature sexuality or child pornography? Modernist narrative or incoherent narrative? Trailblazer or piece of crap?" All of those views are right in a way, because when reviewing a film, the subjective experience is all that matters. You can never be wrong about an opinion on a film, so long as you have some piece of evidence to back up your claims. With an abrasive, in-your-face movie like Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song, it seems that everybody was caught off guard and gave their instinctual reaction. In a cinematic climate where critical reviews and trailers create expectations that almost predetermine a filmgoers' reaction to an extent, the release of this film, outside the traditional Hollywood avenues, created a genuine experience for a variety of viewers. As one might expect, the reaction was just as varied.

What Makes Sweetback Run? / Clayton Riley

Riley, Clayton. "What Makes Sweetback Run?." New York Times (1857-Current file) [New York, N.Y.] 9 May 1971,D11. ProQuest Historical Newspapers The New York Times (1851 - 2004). ProQuest. University of Pennsylvania Library, Philadelphia, PA. 9 Apr. 2008

Clayton Riley marvels at Sweet Sweetback’s Baadasssss Song several weeks after its release, “hailing” it as a “terrifying vision” and an “outrage designed to blow minds” in its depiction of a “very basic Black America, unadorned by faith, and seething with an eternal violence.” He both loves and hates the “precise stereotypical blacks and whites” depicted in such an extravagant way that a comparison to reality reminds him of the even more chilling truth of racial tensions in America. Although Riley says Black America is “unadorned by faith”, Sweetback’s run from the law almost represents a religious pilgrimage. Sweetback, the “phallic knight,” threatens White America with his sexuality and violence (seemingly his only sense of purpose) while threatening Black America by glorifying the ghetto pimp. As this outlaw hero, Sweetback reminds Riley of Charlie Parker, who had such an impact on people, regardless of race, but whose character flaws (heroin addiction) doomed those who followed in his footsteps (they thought heroin was the key to his briliiance). As people damned the genius of Parker, Riley argues they will of Van Peebles, until hindsight can create a more objective analysis of his work. Unlike another NY Times article on this film, this one raves about the new editing techniques and nonstop action, likening the “desperate level of energy” to that of the Black public.

This is a very interesting analysis, especially given the fact that it came so soon after the film was released. Riley is in tune with the angry, young Black Nationalists that this film caters to and describes exactly which chords it hits and why. However, the bias of this article is quite evident. Riley seems so excited to be reviewing a film made by a black filmmaker that he has trouble criticizing even the most insignificant of fallacies. His enthusiasm is evident of that of the black populace immediately after the film’s release, and although that enthusiasm will dissipate in the coming years, this article serves as a good barometer to measure the initial impact of Sweetback on the commercial public and film industry.

Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song