(Cashmore, 1997, p. 32)
While it was entertainment, the main attraction for white audiences was that it was a declaration of white superiority. Fuelled by white male obsessions, the minstrel defined blacks as comical irrational fools. Minstrels were entertainment for both lower and upper classes. White people could feel superior and unified while at the same time stereotyping the blacks. Thomas Dartmouth popularised the minstrel show in 1828 with his performance that became known as ‘Jim Crow.’ Pieterse states that Rice's character was a crippled plantation slave who danced and sang and whose name became a household word, destined for a peculiar career (Pieterse, 1992, p.133).
After the American civil war, black entertainers themselves began to enter the tradition of black face, forming their own minstrel shows, taking with them the caricatures and stereotypes created by their white predecessors.
In the early 20th century minstrel shows began to decline, the tradition however was continued in the media. Early silent films continued to cast white actors in blackface as good-for-nothing, lazy, comical characters. One of the most shocking examples of black-face in the silent era came in D.W. Griffith's The Birth of a Nation, in which cinema's largest early audiences were subjected to vivid images of white actors in black faces raping, stealing and threatening the people of the South. I will come back to this film again later.
Images like these, as Lee suggests in Bamboozled, have lasting effects on its audience. Representing black culture in such a way, as early on as film did helped to construct and fix white peoples view that all blacks are the same. We have seen how minstrelsy stereotyped black culture and how their representations became depicted as ‘true’ or ‘real’. The same would become true for the cinema.
Hollywood’s discourse is the language that is created through signs and signifiers, which, in turn, creates meaning. For us to give meaning to Hollywood films, we must understand the language of their society, which is our society. Their films are able to ‘represent’ their knowledge in a certain way. Because Hollywood as an institution is so respected, it limits the way things are represented in other discourse. Stuart Hall describes discourse as ‘ the production of knowledge through language (Pg.291, Hall, 1992). The way Hollywood depicts the world, in film, is crucial as it allows us/society to give meaning to situations, for example, how we judge other cultures. Discourse cannot always be taken at face value, as Foucault argues:
Statements about the social, political or moral world are rarely ever simply true or false; and ‘the facts’ do not enable us to decide definitively about their truth or falsehood, partly because ‘facts’ can be constructed in different ways. The very language we use to describe the so-called facts interferes in this process of finally deciding what is true, and what is false.
(Foucault quoted in Hall, 1992, Pg.292).
This is to say that the way Hollywood represents Black culture in film, is only true in the sense that they believe it. Their knowledge is then ‘blurred’, as the only truth that they are portraying is the truth, which is from an ideological perspective. Foucault takes another broader view of this production of ‘truth’ via power when he says:
Truth isn’t outside power… Truth is a thing of this world; it is produced only by virtue of multiple forms of contrast…and it induces regular effects of power. Each society has its regime of truth, its ‘general politics’ of truth; that is the type of discourse, which it accepts and makes function as true.
(Hall & Gieben, 1992 p.295)
While a Marxist approach of media might be that dominant groups are using it, to mask a reality, Foucault’s ideas imply that at least some of the issues that define the present day are hidden from all. Foucault’s ideas about power/knowledge are relevant when talking about Hollywood and its representation of truth in films, as their discourse gets away with representing stereotypes to its audience. They have played, and will continue to play, a crucial role in the way whites perceive blacks or other minority groups in society. They play a key role in perpetuating the effects of this historical oppression and in contributing to black cultures’ continuing status as second-class citizens.
Before discussing Hollywood films, I think that it is crucial to first, understand fully how representation and stereotypes work. Focusing on these ideas are important, as it will help later in understanding the way race and ethnicity are portrayed in film.
As a definition, representation is the way meaning is given to objects or images that are being shown.
Too delve deeper into representation l have looked at the work of theorist Stuart Hall. Hall explores the role of media images in society. He argues that meaning emerges
Not from objects, but from the way they are represented, through verbal and visual language, he calls this the ‘constructivist approach’. Hall states that ‘ it is not the material world that conveys meaning: it is the language system or whatever system we are using to represent our concepts. (Pg.25, Hall, 1997).
It is important to look at how representation contributes to the meaning of ‘difference’ in film as I highlighted earlier, the first images of black culture surrounded the notion of blacks being lazy and primitive, this idea stayed in the minds of some. Studying film representations therefore involves understanding the creation of new forms or ways of understanding reality. As Stuart Hall argues, the meaning of external ‘reality’ itself is a construction of media. Media texts are not simply external ways of representing a reality out there. They themselves constitute the meaning of reality. For example, the cultural meaning of ‘black’ is created in Hollywood films, as primitive to larger dominated groups, in terms of culture and morals.
Film can create and sustain the majority’s accepted social stereotypes of minority groups. Depending on the groups’ place in society, these representations can be positive or negative. The lack of knowledge of other cultures very often results in more dominant groups relying on stereotypes, to formulate opinions about minority groups. Images and portrayals of these groups, often stick in the minds of other groups,
A stereotype is a fixed and simplified characterisation that is constantly repeated to gain acceptance, by mainstream audiences. These characterisations are usually exaggerated. Stereotype's focus on one aspect of a social type and amplify it. For example, the “Uncle Tom” stereotype in early Hollywood films was understood through his willingness and need to please whites. In order for a stereotype to ‘work’ it needs to be recognised by an audience. Decisions are then usually made. Negative stereotypes often results in negative opinions of others.
The negative use of stereotypes towards black culture, often draws upon the structuring absence created by suppressing the difficulty of the black man, this is done by claiming their one-dimensional role as the whole and the absence of certain
Characteristics (in this case, lack of independence, moral strength, anger, etc.) as proof of the character's inferiority. Because this representation is one-dimensional, it tends to label the type as either “good” (tolerated by the mainstream) or “bad” (feared and/or hated by the mainstream).
Stereotypes are not simply used to contain non-dominant social groups, they can also be used to reaffirm mainstream ideology. In society different groups are characterised by other groups. Where people are unaware of other cultural practices, the media helps to give qualification of that group,
Before images of black people had been displayed in early cinema, Blacks were only associated with slavery, by whites. This ‘regime of truth’, helps to construct the stereotype of blacks. Early images of black culture in film also contributed to the stereotype, instead of slaves however, blacks were now known as entertainers. Racial representations continued into the most popular form of medium. Donald Bogle in his book Toms, Coons, Mulattos, Mammies & Bucks: An Interpretative History of Blacks in American Films (1973), highlights that the new stereotypes in films came under the categories of Toms, the Good Negroes (Pg.6), Coons, the eye popping… slapstick entertainers (pg.7), The Tragic Mulattos, the mixed race women, cruelly caught between ‘ a divided racial inheritance (Pg.9), the Mammies, the prototypical house servant, usually big, fat, bossy and cantankerous (Pg.9) and finally the Bad Bucks, physically big, strong, no good, violent, renegades, on a rampage and full of black rage. (Bogle, 1973, p.10).
The Birth of a Nation (1915) is a good example, which illustrates many of the stereotypes that Bogle speaks about. The film was a break through in its Industry, and with it, came the stereotypical representations of black culture. Hall states that ‘The repertoire of stereotypical figures drawn from ‘slavery days’ has never entirely disappeared, (Hall, 1997, Pg. 252). Agreeing with this statement, I would suggest that films such as Gone With the Wind (1939) and Stormy Weather (1943), show how films in the fist part of the 20th century complies with Bogle’s notion. During this time stereotypes were bold and blatant. Hall continues by stating ‘ not until the 1950’s did films begin cautiously to broach the subject of ‘race’ as problem’ (Hall, 1997, p 252,).
At present, some may argue that the representation of black culture has lost its stereotypes. In recent years, the success of black actors such as Denzal Washington, Eddie Murphy, Whoopi Goldberg, Laurence Fishbourne and Morgan Freeman have performed in an array of roles. This has meant that images and misrepresentations
Have become less obtrusive, or obvious. Some of the time however, negative representations still prevail in film. Hollywood in particular continues to manipulate individual thoughts on minority groups. In my opinion blacks are still stereotyped, only now its much more sophisticated and lies more in the sub-text of the script/story.
The way, in which Hollywood discourse presents images, usually imbed themselves in their readers’ mind. Many white people in society still have little contact with people from outside their own culture except, possibly, for interaction at work. Such racial isolation heightens the influence of imagery, which is represented in film, which serves as a powerful stand-in for real-life exchanges. This results in larger more dominant groups believing what the images portray, validating what they already believe to be true. Tricia Rose argues that ‘Contemporary images of black men continue to challenge hegemonic constructions of whiteness even as they rewrite and reproduce forms of patriarchal authority (Rose, 1994, p.102). Black actors, particularly men, today, often act in roles that show them as hostile, incompetent and over sexed, they are commonly represented as a threat to dominant white society.
Spike Lee through Bamboozled, points out that both blacks and whites are entertained by the exploitation black entertainers in the media. Ultimately saying that the media, in this case Hollywood, produces what audiences want to see, in this case it is the racial discrimination of black entertainers echoing the earlier demeaning images of the minstrel’s period. Hollywood films influence not only how others view them, but also how blacks see themselves.
Supporting Lee’s view that the racist stereotypes of minstrel shows have been an integral part of popular culture up to the present day, the analysis of a recent Warner Bros. film named Show Time will be looked upon. Show Time (2002) Directed by Tom Dey, Starring Eddie Murphy and Robert De Niro is about two LA cop whose differences land them in a reality T.V show. Both actors in the film are big Hollywood stars, Murphy known for his comedic roles and De Niro for his mafia connections. In this movie, tough, De Niro swaps to play a more loveable character, while Murphy sticks too his more familiar role.
A ‘Buddy Cop’ film has been chosen, as you will find that it is usually within these films that Hollywood discourse plays a major part. Meaning is relevant in genres such as ShowTime, as it allows the audience to relate to familiar images of ‘good’ guy ‘bad’ guy. Their preconceptions of each are often exercised in ‘cop’ films. The importance of ‘difference’, very often comes into play here. To understand what or who is ‘different’ in a text is critical to Hollywood discourse. For example, the main difference in ShowTime is the characters. De. Niro is a white man and Murphy a black man. In this case, both men are different in respect of skin colour. Linguistically speaking this type of ‘difference’ known as binary oppositions.
The fact that both ‘cops’ noticeable come from different cultures will automatically be recognisable to the reader. There association with each culture will now come into action. The expectation that the reader will have for each character will straight away be different for each, based on the colour of skin. Through association, each will expect to achieve different things. Signs and signifiers in film create meaning, thus audience watching film. The discourse of Hollywood relies on this form of simplistic meaning and association to sell films. This I believe is what Lees’ Bamboozled tries to express. One could only imagine the disarray, if the characters roles were to reverse. Stuart Hall in his essay, ‘The Spectacle of the Other’ concludes that this meaning of difference ‘ highlights the connection between visual discourse and the production of [racialised] knowledge. (Hall, 1997, p.244)
To study the film further, Eddie Murphy as a black man, portrays most or all of the stereotypes that I mentioned earlier. Cool, with his dress wear, aggressive in tone and manner, he is the ultimate entertainer, or what Bogle would describe as an original ‘coon’. When watching the film it is clear to see that Murphy’s main purpose is to bring comic relief to the audience. Murphy, like the other black actors that I have mentioned are Hollywood’s official icon of the black race. And are cast accordingly.
Murphy’s character (Trey) goes through all the traits of a stereotypical black man. He is not stable or serious about life and career choices, he is more interested in joking around. The film reinforces, to the audience, their idea of black culture by using stereotypes. For example, the muggers were black and Hispanic, and were presented to us as primitive, in terms of irrational thinking. Most disturbing, however was the constant reference to black men and their love for guns. One scene that reinforced the idea of black culture to their audience, was when they showed De Niro’s character happily content with his ‘old’ car, while Murphy, tough he earned less, (this point was made clear) enjoyed the luxury of a really expensive Porsche. Adding to the stereotype that black me love fast cars. This mainstream Hollywood film portrays black males negatively. Films made in this way only add to the existing stereotypes that people have. It is clear to see, then, that by watching ShowTime, Hollywood discourse is somehow misleading.
Lee’s bamboozled forces us to remember how close in time we are to the hateful racism of minstrel shows and how minstrelsy has influenced our current popular culture. By understanding the meaning and full implications that representations have on connotation, I’ve shown how perpetuated stereotyped images continue in modern films. Some may argue that blatant racism like that of the minstrel show have long declined off our screens, but I have only to look at contemporary Hollywood films to discover that all genres persist on representing black culture negatively. You only have to look at Oscar winning films, Training Day (2001) and Monsters Ball (2001), to understand that the racism that Spike Lee debates’ about is still a big issue that needs to be tackled. Personally, I believe that unless people from minority cultures become producers and directors, the idea that blacks are ‘stupid fools’ will always appear on screen
