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.