theblackactor.com

Sass

You know who I’m talking about –- black actresses who bring a “sassiness” to their portrayals. A few actresses come to mind, one in particular.

    

Broadly speaking, being a black woman –- and living in real life and not on the screen, I know that sass is often a part of who we are. Many black women are sassy or have elements of sassiness that pervade their personality.

    

Sassiness is not limited to ghetto girls and the uneducated.

    

The truth is, sassiness is alive and well every day within many of us. Of course, there are varying degrees of sassiness. Someone could be (1) sassy and someone else could be (10) sassy.

    

In fact, I’d say it’s unusual to find a black woman who is completely devoid of sassiness, regardless of socioeconomic standing, much like it is unusual to find a black person devoid of that thing called “soul.”  

    

Of course, not every black woman has sass. This is probably in large part based on their upbringing and their childhood environment, etc. And it is true that many educated black women and high achievers don’t own this behavioral trait.

    

Anyhoo, as far as sass on screen…

    

I think there’s a place for it when it’s called for, but its misuse is the problem. I suppose actresses (those not as skilled) use this as a means of expression to beget realness to the blackness of their character. They likely think this is necessary to establish their character’s authenticity.

    

My main complaint about sass is that it is usually uncalled for. And when there’s too much of it, it transforms the character into a caricature. It diminishes the character’s credibility. In these instances, sass is as an inappropriate expression of what sass could be (strong mindedness, opinionated, fearlessness about voicing anopinion).  Instead, you end up with rudeness and brashness that is… unbecoming.

    

My second problem with sass is repetition. Many actresses who rely on it use it, use it ALL THE TIME. I figure one of two things is going on here:  (i) the actress is placing pieces of her real life persona onto the screen, or (ii) the actor deliberately sets out to portray the character in this way when it is unnecessary to do so, when it is detrimental to the characterization. The actor's inability to transform into character and her reliance on this vehicle to layer her character, are miscalculations.

    

The third problem with sass:  Actors who don’t understand what surely must be a fundamental element of acting; that is, nuance. Sometimes it is appropriate or may even enhance the character if a little bit of sass is applied. Or sometimes a moderate amount of sass might be interesting or funny or entertaining, but too often the sass is too much.

    

That actress who came to mind -– before I think of her as a good or bad actress doing good or bad movies, I think of her as “that sassy actress” because she ALWAYS IS.

    

There’s nothing wrong with a sh*t-talker as long as she exists for a valid cinematic reason, rather than existing as a function of the actor’s inability to express herself.  I’m like, hellllooooooooooo, I know you are black. I can see that you are. 

    

There’s a place for it, without a doubt, but unnecessary, excessive and misuse of sass makes the actor look stupid. As a consequence of the actor’s fragile understanding of elements of speech communication, I cannot feel truly engaged with the character, because the sassiness is a distraction… and annoying as hell.

    

What do you think about sass?

Do Black Guys Die First?

How many times have you heard someone say, “They always kill a brotha first.” “Well, you know who’s gonna die next; they always kill off niccas first.”  Blah blah blah.

    

I have heard this many times. No doubt, you have too. I’ve repeated it dozens of times, myself.

    

But is it true?

    

Do black men die first more than whites? Is this a justifiable complaint or is this just our perception? Is there a disproportionate representation of black males being killed off first, relative to their white counterparts?

    

I don’t know.  But I wonder.

    

In film, often people have to die. Somehow, some way and seemingly all too often, for no obvious cinematic reason, a “choice” is made by someone. 

    

A choice is made by someone. A choice is made by someone.

    

And so it is... the boss has spoken... the rules will be enforced... the law laid down... for It has been determined… and it will be done...  the black man is to die first.

    

I’ve seen the black man die first many times but never took note of the frequency of this occurrence.

    

Immediately, The Perfect Storm (2000) comes to mind. The black fisherman was the first fisherman to die. And if I remember correctly, in Apocalypse Now (1979), Larry Fishburne was the first soldier to go. 

    

Can anyone think of films in which the black guy dies first?

    

Of course, sometimes there is a cogent cinematic purpose for the black guy to die first, but I’m talking about when the choice to kill the black man first is an arbitrary choice –- and when the story points don’t necessitate this, and when the white guy could have easily died first without affecting the story.

Spike Lee and those chi chi's

This grown man reminds me of a schoolboy who saw his first chi chis… time after time after time.

    

One of my issues with Spike Lee is his portrayal of women in his films. They’re often portrayed as sex objects. If you view his films, you will see this unmistakable pattern demonstrated in film after film.

    

There is evidence of his breasteses fascination in the following films:

    

Inside Man (2006) – (which he directed and co-produced. He didn’t write the film.) In the scene when one of the hostages was being interrogated by the police, the hostage’s large breasts were highlighted and figured prominently in the frame; in fact, the boobs were taking up almost all of the frame. Previously, one of the other hostages, during questioning, said he remembered seeing this woman in the bank. When asked why she was memorable, he remarked, she had “nice tits.”  Or was it, “big tits.” Whatever. Same thing.

    

Do The Right Thing (1989) – Rosie Perez’s nipples are shown 16 minutes into the film.  Later, she performs a striptease for Spike Lee Lee’s character, Mookie.

    

Mo Better Blues (1990) – Denzel Washington’s character is a womanizer. He had two women, any man’s dream. We see genitalia.  See article below.

    

Jungle Fever (1991) – First scene, we see Lonette McKee’s breasts.

    

Crooklyn (1994) – Now this was interesting (if not revealing). In this film, there is a little girl (probably about ten or so). She can’t wait till she grows ta tas. We see her stuffing her shirt with tissue so as to create boobies for herself. As if it weren’t enough with grown women, the tit fetish has been attached even to a child. Yes; as women, we’ve all been there. As little girls, you are waiting to be like the big girls and wanting your breasts to grow. Understood.  There are many things little girls and little boys experience; many things that make them feel happy, sad, worthy, etc. There are lots of things a child hopes for and longs for. Of all the possible struggles this child could have had, OF COURSE, her struggle would be feeling inadequate (and made to feel inadequate by her brother who taunted her, by calling her “flat chested”) because she had no chi chis. This child’s concern is noteworthy because the psychosis is cinematically launched onto even a child. In the film, the child received a gift. The gift the kid received wasn’t a bicycle or a doll.  It was, of course, a training bra.

    

Girl 6 – (1996) (Spike Lee directed and produced this film. The writer was a woman.)  In the first 6.5 minutes, we see bare breasts. Moments later, the camera pans onto Girl 6’s (Theresa Randle’s) perfectly plump round ass. At 9:10 into the film, when Girl 6 was in acting class, we had more opportunity to gaze upon her chi chis. There they were --her nipples, like little eyes watching us -- wanting us to watch them. During her one-on-one drama coaching, all we see is her perky, protruding nipples staring at us from under her sweater; yes, this same woman who, while at an audition, was annoyed at the casting director who had insisted she remove her shirt for a role. Mother Theresa, one moment. Jenna Jamison, the next. Despite the theme of the film, there was no dramatic reasoning to justify the constant focus on this woman’s breasts. In one scene, we had an opportunity to gaze upon them for nearly two whole minutes; that’s how long they were in the frame. Interestingly, in many ways, she’s walking around the whole movie with her shirt off and her ta tas out. 

    

He Got Game (1998) – Several exposed breast scenes and “unnecessary” sex scenes. We even see breasts being squeezed. That was interesting. When I say squeezed, I mean squeezed. LOL. Lesbian sex. Interestingly, there is a scene where Denzel is having sex with someone, but he’s sexing her with his pants (and belt) on. But we see her bare ass. LOL.

    

Summer of Sam (1999) – More bare breasts.

    

Bamboozled (2000) – There is a video playing -- a liquor commercial, which shows hoochies dancing suggestively and sexually. 

    

She Hate Me (2004) – More female sexuality. Genitalia. Lesbian sex… again. He likes lesbian sex. See below. 

    

Clockers (1995) – Women are: video hos, murder victims, angry moms and crackheads.

    

 

I am a member of the black, female, United States moviegoing audience and I am intolerant of Spike Lee’s inability to separate his own preoccupation with female sexuality from his cinematic vision, especially since he doesn't brand himself as a porn director. If he were, his preoccupation with female sexuality would be a given. His choices make for subpar filmmaking and if I choose to support his films, I am forced to suffer though his choices. And if I never watch one of them, someone in Japan or Germany will.

     

(That’s a whole nother post; someday)

    

For more on Spike Lee, see…

 

Spike Lee's She Hate Me
Spike Lee's What's with the va jay jays?

Spike Lee - What's with the va jay jays?

Vaginas are just fine. So is childbirth. Everyone on the planet knows babies are born through vaginas (with the obvious exception of caesarian births).
    
I want to know why Spike Lee chose, in Mo Better Blues (1990), to show us in full, plain view, the birth mother’s vagina.
    
I think everyone has seen in TV and film, dozens of childbirths. Filmmakers seldom show the audience the actual vagina. The camera routinely pans away, sparing the audience the view of genitalia. There are exceptions; those being documentaries, medical TV shows and the like. 
    
The scene would have worked without showing us the va jay jay. This display of lady parts was unnecessary to the scene and the flow of the film. The image did nothing to push the story forward or illuminate the shot in any way. He could have, for example, merely cut to hospital personnel lifting up the newborn. Showing us cooch was a deliberate choice on his part. 
    
My theory? It has to do, I think, with the weirdness inside of him. Spike Lee wanted to see it.  My guess is that there is was that thing inside him; that thing… It’s okay. We all have some weirdness inside us. Most people hide it. Spike Lee -- you showed us yours; under the guise of filmmaking.
    
He repeated this antic in the dreadful She Hate Me (2004).
    
Childbirth scenes are handled lots of different ways. For example:
    
Sometimes,
    
Pregnant lady, laying down in hospital bed, sweating, screaming, pushing. Poof! Baby is born.
We see newborn, bathed in body fluids, placenta attached, emerge from beneath the sheets of the covered woman
    
Sometimes,
    
Pregnant lady, laying down in hospital bed, sweating, screaming, pushing. Poof! Baby is born.
Cut to baby being washed off
    
Sometimes,
    
Pregnant lady, laying down in hospital bed, sweating, screaming, pushing. Poof! Baby is born. Cut to baby wrapped in a blanket
    
Sometimes,
    
Pregnant lady, laying down in hospital bed, sweating, screaming, pushing. Poof! Baby is born.
Cut to new scene; child laying in mother’s arms
    
Sometimes,
    
Pregnant lady, laying down in hospital bed, sweating, screaming, pushing. Poof!  Baby is born.
Cut to some other scene
    
Leave it to Spike Lee to show the audience furry, pubed va jay jays. LOL.

More on Spike Lee:

Spike Lee's She Hate Me

Spike Lee's She Hate Me

Spike Lee’s 2004 film, She Hate Me, was awful. And presumptuous. And ill-considered.

    

Spike Lee regulars Ossie Davis and John Turturro show up again, as well as rapper-turned-actor, Q-Tip. This film stars Anthony Mackie, as John Henry Armstrong, a young, corporate executive who is employed by Progeia, a biotech company. The film begins with Armstrong blowing the whistle on his company’s corruption and mismanagement.

    

After that, the movie turns into medieval water torture something laborious… something nonsensical… something illogical. The pic was all over the place, with 1,248 storylines occurring simultaneously. The film went from corporate whistleblowing to the outrageous lesbian-hetero-sexcapades-for-money. After that, a new Mafioso storyline is introduced culminating in Armstrong impregnating a Mafioso’s daughter. Next, Lee is onto the Watergate break-in (and the plight of fellow black whistleblower, Security Guard Frank Wills). The film ends with a quaint, if not absurd, familial scene; Armstrong -- all smiles and hugs -- bonding with his baby mamas and their respective children.

    

The signature bizarre Spike Lee camera work persists in this film, as it has in the Spike Lee joints that preceded it. Story lines are undeveloped. New characters are introduced late in the film. Blah Blah Blah.

    

You just gotta ask…

    

Why would Armstrong - an educated, in-demand pharmaceutical executive - need to earn money in this manner?  He hadn’t been out of work that long before he started planting seeds. He did this so easily, without really examining the ethical and moral ramifications of this behavior. He had no savings? Was he that hard up for cash? Even with his assets frozen, seems like he would have somehow had other options – especially given his intellect and education.

    

But this post is not about the things that make this film a perverse disastrous montage of absurdity.  This post is about other things.

    

Assumptions – The Lesbians

     

The lesbian story line is illogical and preposterous and emotionally implausible.

    

The lesbian characters were crafted to have a virtually insatiable sexual desire for Armstrong. Yet, they are lesbians. Not bisexuals. But lesbians. Why would these lesbians -- all eighteen of them -- be desirous of sexual intimacy with this man? It’s one thing if they just all happened to prefer to be impregnated naturally, but no; they wanted sex with him. Interestingly, the lone lesbian who chose not to have intercourse with him and opted for artificial insemination, ended up not getting pregnant (although all the other women -- all seventeen of them -- did). In the end, seemingly believing that Armstrong -- and only Armstrong’s -- penis inside her was the only way she could ever possibly become pregnant, she virtually begged him to have sex with her.

    

The first group of lesbians are femmy. Each group is noticeably less feminine than the previous group.  The third group shows up (the hardcore dykes) and we are supposed to believe that these women want carnal sex with him -– even if by virtual force -– all so they can be mothers. 

    

Why show these different groups of women? Would Spike Lee have the audience believe that no matter how committed to a lesbian lifestyle, that really at the end of the day, a lesbian woman is nothing more than a conflicted sex toy that is surreptitiously desirous of sex with a man?

    

What is this portrayal about, Spike Lee’s secret belief that lesbians are sexually fluid or changeable?  And that given the right penis, they seek to be freed of their sexually suppressed lives by way of the penis?

 

Images - Sex Objects

    

When femmepimp Fatima Goodrich (Kerry Washington) accompanies the first six lesbians into Armstrong’s home, she assures Armstrong  that the women are “highly educated,” “highly successful businesswomen” in their fields. That must explain why Oni (Bai Ling) who, though highly educated, does not know what circumcise means.

    

Conversely, highly educated John Armstrong prances about in fine suits and tidy shoes. We see that John Armstrong is a professional, a biotech executive who has arrived, being the youngest VP at Progeia. 

    

One of the educated and successful black women is shown to be a ghetto hoochie who utters the word “skepticalism” when she means to say “skepticism.”  Evelyn (Paula Jai Parker), our platinum recording artist, blond wig wearing, exposed midriff wearing, ginormous chain-wearing, tatted, ghetto-talking, thug-whore is one of the highly educated, highly successful businesswomen.

    

Educated women somehow are still shown to be whorish sexual objects, for this is the purpose women often serve in Spike Lee’s films. No matter how educated or successful, Spike Lee preserves black women’s usefulness as sexual objects. 

    

Spike Lee Creepiness

    

This continues. Is this Spike Lee’s own personal fantasy? Does he sexually desire lesbians -– the kind who want to have sex with men… the kind who want to have sex with him?  Is this his very own clandestine pleasure?

    

I’m Just Sayin’.

    

And by the way, the animated traveling sperm scenes are ridiculous.    

    

 

 

 

You may also want to read:    

    

 

Spike Lee - What's with the va jay jays?