***********SPOILER ALERT***********
I will be ruining The Help for you if you have yet to see it, so please continue at your own risk.
A few days later of seething & scoffing at the simpletons that were actually hoodwinked into enjoying The Help, a jolt hit me... I hadn't read the book or seen the movie yet.
I was building this whole case of damnation without any firsthand knowledge. Ignorance is the only word that could describe my current state. Wanting to protect my pride, I resigned to view the movie so that I could dispel my ignorance in hopes of keeping the same viewpoint.
So now that I have seen the movie, I'm very emotionally conflicted.
Con:
I still am very opposed to any notion that minorities have no inherent voice and to be heard they need a white person to speak their cause. And I do still hate the pat-on-the-back white people are giving themselves, in light of this movie. I also resonate with one of Wanzo's main assertions, that she wants to see more of the black story outside of being a service person (and today, I would add, gangster, rapper or athlete). So much of the real story of the pre to post Jim Crow South has not been told so movies like The Help lose a bit of contextual credibility. The ABWH protest letter says it best, "In the end, The Help is not a story about the millions of hardworking and dignified black women who labored in white homes to support their families and communities. Rather, it is the coming-of-age story of a white protagonist, who uses myths about the lives of black women to make sense of her own." (more on this quote later). You also get a feeling from the movie that 'there were a few meanies who cajoled the rest of the white people into treating black people horribly and if left alone, they wouldn't be so mean to black people' (i.e. the scene where Hilly fires Aibileen while Elizabeth, her employer, sheepishly looks on & the scene where Constantine gets fired by Charlotte because, Charlotte's important dinner guest says that 'she doesn't stand for that kind of behavior'). Bigotry and oppression were the norm, where, civility and decency, were the exceptions. All that being said...
Pro:
The movie was well executed. Great pacing, story-telling and the acting was superb. I don't think this movie set out to describe the entire Jim Crow South. I just think it was trying to tell one story. The movie assumes you know the context of the narrative, which is dangerous ground to walk on, especially, with 'history' being passed down by the ones with the power. This is one of my conflictions; the contextual problem. Is it okay to tell just one story? How much context is needed? How beholden to the audience, is an artist in telling their story/message? At some point, it could get overwhelming to expect an artist to canvas that much context into their work. But I love context! Nothing is in a vacuum & any story is shaped by all of the pertinent circumstances, locations and world events that belay it. Hence the rub. Unlike this confliction, advocacy is a gigantic weight that evens the scales in my judgement & is an undeniable theme of the movie. Though, every peoples' voice is inherently worthwhile & deserving of audience, it's just true that there are times/places where demographics of society have not been heard, even today. If your voice is not being heard, regardless of demographic, and someone speaks on your behalf, that is life-giving. That hits right at the essence of the gospel that Jesus brings & is. With the curse of the fall, we have lost the right to be heard by God. But He doesn't let us stay in silence forever, like we deserve. He sends Jesus, whose life, death & resurrection earn us our place at the table. God's spirit even intercedes on our behalf. Jesus didn't just face the threat of social outcast, but actually died so that we can have a voice & silences our accuser in his resurrection!!!!!
With any amount of con the movie presents, this is where I land: We must advocate!
1 comments:
Your contextual argument is truly the fundamental problem with this film. You ask if it's reasonable or fair to expect an artist to cover so much story or background. The problem is that generally, people do not hold an artist accountable for their contextual shortcomings. 1 dimensional characters (white or black) have become so commonplace in cinema that it becomes expected by the audience. So we, as consumers of stories, do not demand change and thus do not hold an artist accountable. The general complacency of the people who liked this movie is what truly brothers me. We don't demand better, so this story and stories like these are the stories that will continue to be told.
Making an audience go through emotional peaks and valleys with formulaic musical scores and the age old story of overcoming injustice is very easy to achieve. I'm sure everyone got teary eyed when Minnie was presented with the meal Celia spent all night preparing. "finally, vindication!" But it's all too superficial. In the grand scheme of things, contextually if you will, what was at stake for Skeeter? What was at stake for the maids? Skeeter would face social ridicule and lose a boyfriend. That's HUGE when you compare it to the paltry things at stake for the maids. All they had to lose was their jobs, future jobs, their homes, their children's livelihood and their own lives.
So in this case, advocacy seems to be the only redeeming quality of the film. But is advocacy for selfish reasons, for self-discovery and career progression, truly advocacy? Skeeter feigned true concern for her maid friends by saying she wouldn't go to New York, but wasn't that her goal the entire time, to work in New York? She wound up going. Ultimately, Skeeter used her maids for her own personal pursuits more than any of their employers. She even paid them as if she had hired them. Let's not confuse opportunity for advocacy.
Post a Comment