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.

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.