avocets
Avocets
rss 2.0 subscribe to this page
search


related to film+african_american+independent
3 + 1971
3 + baadasssss
3 + black
3 + blaxploitation
1 + ny_times
1 + song
1 + sweet
3 + sweetback
3 + van_peebles
view all
•  projects
•  owners
•  tags
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.

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.