How is it racist? — Page 6

Black maids deserve to have their stories told. So do white women who try to help oppressed minorities. I find the 'white savior' moniker very very offensive when used to insinuate that certain stories should not even be told.

Practical implementation is, of course, an important discussion, newintown. One far beyond the scope of this thread. And I'm not about to play the great white savior who offers suggestions

Not to suggest, Dear Idiot, that great white saviors don't deseve to have their stories told - they do, it's a question of how often those stories manage to get made in relation to stories of liberation that don't require a great white savior at their helm - and I don't think The Help qualifies as a story that did rely on a great white savior for reasons I already stated.

Having said that, I am a member of other underrepresented groups (not to imply that such memebership gives me greater qualifications to speak my mind on this subject), I think getting stories out there which portray people who are underrepresented, no matter whether the moving force is a person directly representing the underrepresented or not, requires the balls to just go ahead and do it, and for those in power who control the pursestrings of big bucks (the people who usually control the movies that get seen, for better or for worse) simply having the guts to defy the idiocy of conventional wisdom.

^Agreed. It's a business just like any other. And in many ways an ugly one, like most. However, the assumptions about what will succeed and what won't need to be challenged. Those that do shake up the system, sometimes triumph. On that very subject, see another recent movie, the excellent Moneyball.

uncageg - I agree with you completely. I think chalking this story up as a "white savior" story is more about making a statement than objectively analyzing the story itself. Had this been a story about a black maid uprising in Mississippi where they independently show up the white society in the early 60s might have been exciting and interesting, but would it even be believable? At least in a story that doesn't end with the maids lynched or jailed? Or is it true that there simply were not any white people in Mississippi who assisted in the Civil Rights movement? Or if there were, the story shouldn't be told?

Bottom line is, the movie got produced because the book was a massive best-seller and a sensation, just like most films based on novels whether they are about "white saviors" or any other topic that make up 99% of the novels that receive film treatments. I would be curious to know if the "white savior" attitude towards this film or novel is a more common sentiment among the white or the black communities (or both). This is actually the first time I've heard this attitude towards this story, but I was preoccupied when the novel came out, so I could have missed it.

---

I'm a bit leery of the defense of racial inequalities on the ground that market demands dictate artistic content. Not because the argument isn't true, but because it is being argued here as if focus on white characters and their concerns are essential for films to be profitable.

It isn't that simple and good movies about black characters have been and continue to be quite successful. Even Tyler Perry moves makes fortunes.

On the other hand, taken to an extreme, one might even claim that slaveowners "weren't racist", they were just following market demands that dictated they acquire free labor to harvest their cotton. I'm certainly willing to admit that it's easier to go with the flow of market demands than to buck them, but we ask people to resist the pull of market forces in the name of ethics all the time.

I see no reason why artists should be exempt.

That being said and though I am as offended as anyone (anyone white anyway) at "white savior" narratives, I didn't think THE HELP was as bad as I feared it might be. As others have pointed out, the white narrator doesn't exactly "save" the African Americans. The latter have their own acts of resistance and the white writer is merely there to report them.

I suspect for some the problem is in that last sentence: that the problems, concerns, tragedies and triumphs of African American characters only become relevant to Hollywood when a white character chooses to investigate. And that's a fair criticism.

Personally (since I remember the final years before integration), I was happy to see African American housekeepers recognized as the heroic figures they often were (and in some cases still are): raising their own children PLUS those of the very people who oppressed them, and all the while finding ways to rebel against Jim Crow laws. One needn't pine for a return to that hateful system to recognize the valiant struggles of those it was designed to control.

for me, the issue is not about being saved by a white character, but that the voice isn't theirs. they are given voice by the white character to the wider public. it implies that stories of minorities struggles can't be told and heard, unless filtered by a white panacea.

i think what's interesting about these conversations on this board, is how sarcastic the racist statements are. they are told in pseudo jest, but with the edge and sting of sincere truth.

We live in a culture that has incorporated discrimination into the foundational structures on which the culture operates. we see it blatantly in the criminal justice system and education system. we see it more subtly (for some) through media representations and marketing stereotypes.

for the issue of whether an actor is snubbed because of racism is just that - an issue for discussion. but the vehemence with which some people reply makes me wonder just who liberal we are on these issues. what's the harm in a public dialogue. it's not like the award will be reawarded. if we can't have conversations about issues that are clearly still sorting themselves out - i do i worry about just how far to the middle right we've flung.

---

Maybe they spoke more than before, but the representation of gay men wasn't enormously different than it would have been on Love American Style.

I trust you mean no different than "it would have been on LAS" for heterosexual characters. Charles Nelson Reilly notwithstanding, I don't remember any openly gay characters on LAS.

Look, I understand that WILL AND GRACE wasn't an adaptation of a Larry Kramer novel, but it certain brought gay subject material out into the open to an extent not seen previously in episodic TV. Particularly in the first few years before the quality began to decline.

And in terms of your market argument, SOME show with major gay characters had to come along and be a smash hit in order to enable those that have followed.

newintown, I'm sure you are right that nobody in Hollywood is willing to lose millions just to explore neglected subject matters. On the other hand, producers and network executives are human beings; they don't like being labeled racists and homophobes any more than you or I do.

To say groups such as the NAACP and GLADD have NO effect, that every decision is entirely market-driven overstates the reality.

Probably so, Idiot, but my point was that while nobody is denying the power of market forces, human beings also value prestige. (If they didn't, movie stars would never pass on blockbuster sequels to make movies for Sundance.) Being on the right side of civil rights issues conveys more prestige than being on the wrong side.

To henrikegerman:

Gaveston, as you know I didn't raise the market model as a concern, here. It was Newintown who did and I endeavored to respond on those terms.

henrik, I certainly understood your position and I didn't accuse newintown of actively supporting racism, homophobia or the like. Rather, I understood his argument to be that money rules all and "all the rest is talk". I don't have a copy handy, but I think there are numerous studies showing that primates (including humans) will often opt for status over material gain. (This becomes particularly likely when basic biological needs have been met. Maslow's Hierarchy and all that.)

That "status" is the reason GLAAD gives awards.

newintown is correct that no amount of message board discussion is going to force Disney to throw away money on something they are sure will fail. But pressure from advocacy groups does tend to increase the prestige of a BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN (or even THE HELP, despite objections) over BACHELOR PARTY 3. (Which isn't to say we won't see the latter at the neighborhood multiplex someday.)

Roots?

...would be on HBO or Showtime today, and thankfully so. But that's a great example of a compelling story told well and few turned it off because the main characters were African-American.

"Roots?

...would be on HBO or Showtime today, and thankfully so. But that's a great example of a compelling story told well and few turned it off because the main characters were African-American."

Roots was originally aired on ABC. Why should it be "rightfully so" broadcast on HBO now? That is a pay station. Why not air it on network television? Not everyone has HBO, practically everyone can get one of the "big 3" stations?

But you are right that it probably would be on HBO simply because the network station don't do mini series like that anymore.

Juggles, if your "roots" post was in response to Gaveston2's post about pressure from advocacy groups, roots wasn't aired because of that. It was a best selling novel that got filmed for tv.

---

Kad, I agree. The characters were depicted as gay men that I knew and were in my life. Not stereotypical. And that is groundbreaking, in my opinion.

---

Black maids deserve to have their stories told. So do white women who try to help oppressed minorities. I find the 'white savior' moniker very very offensive when used to insinuate that certain stories should not even be told.

The "white savior" label is more about HOW stories are told than WHICH stories are told. Put another way, the term is a reference to narrative strategy, not an insult to any particular character, fictional or historic. So unless it's your work which is being so labeled, I don't know why you would be offended.

A variation of the "white savior" narrative is what one (white) director I know called the "Didn't we learn a lot?" play or movie, in which the point of African-American civil rights seems to have been that white people learned about tolerance and social justice. (See Ally Sheedy in HEART OF DIXIE. Not to blame Miss Sheedy; that's just the first example that comes to mind and Sheedy actually says to her maid, "Kizzie, you are my light!")

There's nothing wrong per se with stories about white FBI agents or white activists working in the South in the 1960s. It's just that Hollywood has approached the civil rights struggle through the eyes of white characters so often, it's as if white people were the primary actors in that conflict rather than black people.

And ultimately that's a misrepresentation of history (however unintentional and no matter how accurate any one story of a particular white person may be).

(NOTE to henrik, it's a matter of emphasis through sheer repetition, not that any one narrative is untrue or unfair.)

To be clear, this is a general observation and not a specific comment on THE HELP. As I said above, I think THE HELP goes well beyond the "white savior" narratives of the past to show black women who take actions of their own. Of course, white people are also involved; whites and blacks have always lived in close proximity in the American South.