 |
| Roland Ruiz, who has two significant scenes, is billed under "Barber," "Bully #1 and #2," and "Make Out Girl." |
I propose to you that a film with the subtle racism of "Boyhood" is worse than a film with the overt racism of, say, "Birth of a Nation," for example. When we see "Birth of a Nation," after returning from the bathroom because of becoming sick to our stomachs, we know without a doubt what the problem is and we can easily criticize the film - despite its merits in editing - for its horrendous content.
A film like "Boyhood," on the other hand, has been praised universally for its "life-like" dialogue and visual realism, largely due to the fact that it was shot over the course of 12 years. Much like "Birth of a Nation," it is being praised for its innovative technique and will likely be shown in many a film school, just like "Birth of a Nation" often is. However, unlike "Birth of a Nation," the racism depicted in "Boyhood, " I suspect, will not be seen as clearly as the racism in the former film.
Let me explain. "Boyhood" is a film about a family. Truth be told, I'm not sure why the film is called "Boyhood" because it seems to be more about the entire family than just the male child in the family. Nonetheless, the film follows the growth of the family over 12 years in Texas. The family is white and everyone around them is white, except for one character, who is a migrant worker. We only see Enrique, the migrant worker, twice in the film. There are two problems with this dynamic: 1) the idea of "reality" which the film is clearly trying to convey; and 2) the problematic Enrique storyline.
1) "Boyhood" is a film that will be praised for years to come for its techniques in presenting "reality." If you are only looking at the family in an isolationist kind of way, the film does seem realistic. The characters are not polished, their dialogue is awkward with believable levels of emotion, and the difficulties and joys they face are ones we are familiar with. HOWEVER, the setting is completely unrealistic in the sense that anyone who lives in Texas KNOWS that you cannot walk five feet without encountering people of Mexican descent. We see Patricia Arquette's character, simply known as "Mom" (which I think is a bit reductive), travel throughout the state, have various jobs - including one as a professor at Texas State University - and at no level in her life do we see friends who are of Mexican descent, co-workers who are of Mexican descent, or even people in restaurants who are of Mexican descent. I was LOOKING. As someone who lived in Texas for five years, and whose parents lived in San Marcos, where Texas State University is located, I know for a fact that this is an impossibility. The bulk of people in these areas are of Mexican descent - some of them are White Latinos/as (which can pass for plain, ol' White), but many of them are not - and you can see these folks in everyday life. Furthermore, you simply cannot avoid having them in your own everyday life. If you somehow manage this task, you must be trying very, very hard, and the Mom character is not depicted as that kind of person. She would literally have to stay in her house 24/7 and shoo people away from her door who are delivering her mail.
The reason this type of racism, by elimination, is so insidious, is because in such a supposedly realistic film, it implies that deleting reality is normal and even wholesome. When we see a hard-working family being real and caring toward each other, and oddly removed from a state that has a majority of people of color, we think that this kind of removal is understandable and normal. We simply don't think anything is wrong. It's like watching "Friends" (which showed NYC homogeneous instead of realistically multicultural) except you are convinced that it's not a bad TV show; no, you are actually watching art, art that deserves awards, but which does the exact same thing as "Friends," in terms of our perception of the world/reality.
2. The actual storyline that actor Roland Ruiz was forced to bring to life - bless him, we all need work - is the horrific "save me White person" trope that has been depicted in countless films, from "Dangerous Minds" to "The Blind Side." A simple Google search will bring up many criticisms of this pervasive form of racism. Not only does his presence in the film stand out more because of the lack of other Latinos/as throughout the film, but the interaction he has with Mom is so ridiculous that one simply cannot ignore how it underscores the deletion of reality/brown people throughout the film.
In the first scene Enrique and Mom are together, he is fixing some plumbing issues and Arquette says that he's smart and should go to school. I cringed and hoped that was the end of it. Unfortunately, years later, we see him coming towards Mom in a restaurant, beaming, and the friend I was with knew the words before they came out of Enrique's grateful mouth: "You changed my life!" Mom's brief statement had inspired him to turn around his life. Ugh. Both of us were furious. I met hundreds of Latinos/as in Texas while I was there and the majority of them were extremely educated and capable people - even the ones who ALSO, not ONLY, knew how to do physical labor. You cannot go to Texas State U. and not encounter Latino/a professors. There are overachieving, type-A Latinos/as everywhere! At every level of society! I should mention that I was not in some Ivory Tower when in Texas; I lived in a variety of neighborhoods, including the working class West Side of San Antonio, and taught everywhere, including a juvenile detention center. So to think that Enrique needed this woman, who was struggling herself, to give him advice and introduce education as a "novel" concept is more than condescending. Furthermore, people who talk to you for less than one minute do not change your life. If Linklater wants a realistic film that spans years, he should know that.
Some folks will argue, "Well, what's wrong with the Mom character being nice?" You must look at the overall structure of the story. If you delete all people of Mexican descent from the imagery onscreen, then only have one interaction with a person of Mexican descent, and that one interaction is one of a white savior uplifting the Mexican, THAT IS RACIST. But, because it is cushioned in the decade-plus depiction of a warm, interesting family, we will accept it. We will say, "Oh, but it's still such a wonderful film." We will say, "Oh, but didn't Linklater really accomplish something with this." We will say, "Look at how brilliant we can be." We won't say, "Damn, we made a really racist film." Ever. I mean, it's not like we have the KKK running around lynching people, right?
No, there is no lynching taking place. Only sweetness abounds in this film. And for us Latinos/as, it's the kind of sweetness that places us in the same category as a dog, who you teach tricks, who makes you happy when he does said tricks. Or perhaps the same category as wallpaper, lovely wallpaper you only notice when you want to admire your interesting-looking surroundings.
But the truth is we are not dogs or wallpaper. We are like keratinocytes, which make up the main part of your skin, Mr. Linklater. You don't think of us much, but we are very important to everyone's existence. We build, we protect, we are flexible, and those of us in the know are very aware that if we went missing, the world would be exposed to all kinds of dangers. I can tell when we are missing. When will you be able to?
Con carino,
Dr. GYA
18 comments:
I have to confess that when I saw the title of your article, I sighed the sigh of someone who was expecting to feel annoyed and defensive. I generally prefer to give artists a wide berth, politically. But, you are correct. It is ludicrous and inaccurate to show Texas without showing who actually lives here. I live in San Marcos, where there is a fantastic mix of people. It is sad that the director missed an opportunity, both politically and artistically, to represent the blend of cultures that makes this part of the country so wonderful.
Thank you, Ouchcomics. As someone who loves Linklater's "Slackers," it was hard for me to write this. But I also love the variety of people who I met in Texas while there, so I felt I had to speak about that. Thanks for understanding.
Second paragraph comparison to a KKK film? Are you serious right now? I literally see no difference between this style of argument and saying that Obama is just like Hitler. Completely absurd and uncalled for.
The term mom in a film about a boy growing up is reductivistic? The perceived lack of race is racist? Is this a parody? It's like this author completely missed the whole movie, because they were busy crusading.
This is seriously one of the worst artistic critiques I've ever read. What has to be done to satisfy you? Clearly verity isn't what you want. The truth of the situations of people's lives is never and will never be a clean and PC as you would like it to be. This is the sort of perspective that kills art. It misses the message because it doesn't fit into its own nicely enough. Maybe you need to step back from the moral crusading for a little while so you can enjoy life and art and its imperfections.
Sorry you feel that way, Tim. By the way, your response proves my thesis.
Oh, and apparently others feel differently. Here are some responses (after the article was widely shared) on FB...
Gabriela Diaz: Vi la película, y parecía que había sido filmada en otro planeta, much less TX... The ENTIRE movie parecía like they worked at avoiding Latinos...
4 hrs · Unlike · 4
Erin Ploss-Campoamor: YES! I was also really bothered by the lack of Latin@ characters and that stupid "white savior" scene. It's a shame, because otherwise the film as a whole is excellent. Reminds me a lot of Girls, a really well-written, "hyperrealistic" TV show that is completely devoid of POC.
2 hrs · Like · 1
Michael Morley: Very interesting. The interactions with the mom and Enrique stood out to me as well when I saw the film. Makes me want to watch Fast Food Nation again with fresh eyes. I've been learning a lot from the articles you've been sharing. Keep it up
19 hrs · Like
Trinidad Escobar: It's a terrible movie. What's weird for me is that the daughter in the film was one of my students last fall, and I had no idea that she was in this movie until I watched it. There's no good acting in it either-- ick, and the racism. Gawd.
19 hrs · Unlike · 1
Michael Smolinsky: I seriously laughed in the theater when he comes up to her in the restaurant. I felt bad for the actor, but that part of the movie made me cringe.
19 hrs · Unlike · 2
Rachel Jennings: Thanks, Vincent! This erasure of people of color is very common and really unforrtunate. Boyhood is a perfect example of such erasure Thanks for sharing!! Great piece. Yes, I'll have to draw the attention of my students to the film / blog.
19 hrs · Like · 2
David Beltrán Romo: To me, Texas wasn't even part of the storyline. Boyhood could have easily been Pennsylvania. Were the migrant scenes necessary? Not at all. It did not add or remove anything from the mom's character development. However, it did create an idiotic perception of "you did your best as a mother, but at least you saved a Mexican"
47 mins · Like · 2
Fanny Palumbo Veliz: Thank you for this Sara. This also took me out of the film. It was a great movie but I was wondering the same thing, and when they finally had a person of color it was the illegal alien who needed rescuing. Look at the other films nominated this year, it's almost always the same thing. Even Birdma a film by a Mexican filmmaker that takes place in NYC! No person of color. No Latino. Even our own filmmakers when they "make it" they cast ALL WHITE with maybe a token minority actor. This is not because of a lack of talented actors, but because we have all grown accustomed to only seeing white people in films. It's become normal. But to me, it takes me out, every time. And many people are starting to feel the same way.
22 mins · Like · 1
Ann Hudspeth: This. That Enrique storyline really pissed me off. I didn't notice the whitewashing of the restaurant scenes etc, but it doesn't surprise me. Austin is so segregated though - I actually can imagine going to a restaurant like Matt's El Rancho and it being all white. We are progressive on paper but not in real life.
1 hr · 1
Susanna Guzman: Yep, my thoughts when I saw the movie was 'White World' with 'White Problems' = BOOORING!
19 hrs · 1
Typhaine Leclerc-Sobry: Good piece. I have to say that i really enjoyed Boyhood despite the completely unrealistic story-line of the Latino laborer having his life changed by Patricia Arquette's character. But i didn't notice as much the absence of people of color in the movie -- which i find totally fucked up, in retrospect.
15 hrs
I could go on, but I think you get the point. Or maybe you still don't, and that's okay.
Aside from the general lack of insight and eloquence in Tim's comment, the most telling thing about it is his inability to be a good reader.
Dr. Acosta's article does not ever make a blanket valuation of Boyhood as being "worse" or "more racist" than Birth of a Nation. Rather, she is analyzing the films omission of Latinos from the film in a state that is majority Latino and saying that this omission is in many ways more dangerous than Birth of a Nation because Birth of a Nation is overt in its racism. The viewer has a clearer understanding of the racism. Boyhood's racism is subtle and sophisticated so that the viewer is complicit in consenting to the racism without having to confront their own consent. They can just consent to the absence of Latinos as not necessary "to the story." In this way it is psychologically and culturally more damaging. But this is not the same as saying Boyhood is more racist than Birth of a Nation, which Dr. Acosta, a well respected scholar in her field, would never imply.
Those damn gringos and their racist movies. We need to create a regulatory agency to require that all movies contain at least 70% POC to make up for past racism. Or just ban white people from making movies. I like that idea more.
Not to take away from the overall astute analysis here, but the caption accompany Roland Ruiz's photograph is a bit misleading. The cast in "Boyhood" is billed by appearance, not in terms of screen time. That is why, for instance, the young actress playing "Elementary School Girl" is billed above Ethan Hawke.
Ah, good point about the billing.
You go! SO tired of being invisible--
Some good points here. The Birth of a Nation comparison is a bit over the top but most of the other points are valid or certainly deserve discussion. That said, you missed one of the film's other sins, it's really boring. The only real trick to it is that it was filmed over 12 years. Nice challenging piece. Thanks
I don't really feel like using posts from an echo chamber like Facebook as any demonstration of legitimacy. So people who like you already liked an article you're writing? What is this, proof that the choir agrees with the preacher's damnations? A comparison to the KKK is flat-out irresponsible.
The fact is, Texas is a segregated state - and there are a lot of people who are proud of that. Austin is a segregated city - but it sees itself as progressive, so that's mostly ignored. This movie reflects that, but the movie isn't worth getting angry over; what we should be talking about is the underlying reality, and what to do about it.
Actually, Tim, those comments were mainly from strangers. As I said, my essay was widely shared (that means that people who I know initially shared it, but then the branches grew and went to variety of places I don't know). Only one of the posts I placed here is from someone who I have met personally.
And Clay, sorry, but the deletion of a race of people from the cultural landscape within our most awarded works of art is something I will always find problematic. As a scholar, I believe reflecting an accurate cultural landscape in our works of art IS the way to deal with things like segregation.
Hm. Seems like someone's upset he wasn't born white.
There is a scene in the movie Boomerang where Martin Lawrence develops a ridiculous, eye rolling explanation as to why the game of Billiards is inherently racist (i.e.the game is won when the white ball knocks the black ball out of the game). I bring up this scene because reading this blogpost is like watching that scene over and over again in slow motion. I will start by saying two quick things: 1) the boogie-man (racism) is very real and very deadly - but he's not hiding under every single bed in every house, and 2) much like lawerence's character, a person , when determined and imaginative, can/will imbue racist notions on to anything (after all we all know that vanilla chocolate chip ice-cream represents white culture swamping and overwhelming and appropriating black culture).The film does a brilliant job of depicting how seemingly huge moments in one's life actually have very little influence in the long run, and how seemingly trivial moments will stay with us as fond memories or truly important moments for the rest of our lives (themes that most adults can relate with regardless of the racial composition of the cast).
I also grew up in the west side of San Antonio but now live in the middle of a west Austin neighborhood in wich I can go for days with out seeing another person of color. I've worked in west Texas for a number of years and can tell you one can eat at a restarunt in Marfa in which most nights only white people will be present.
My doughter had a scean in Boyhood as the sassy school mate and she's of Mexican descent just like me. But I do understand what your saying. It's our fault for not supporting our own artest more. We support a Latino director who uses the same B Latino actors over and over again in order to make a buck. We pay to see these movies over and over again.
I don't think the intent was to show racism in the directors part. Or any one else's. The comond experience of raising a young man hit home on all who have had that experience. Aside from the parent actors, the bad acting of the kids is what amazes me got by the critics.
Mexican-Americans are getting there. Support our filmmakers so we can give our own stories a chance.
Me.
Not sure what is more sickening and exhausting, the hate filled comments drenched in white privilege, or the completely lack of fundamental reading skills expressed by the hatred of the white privilege possessed comments.
The essay NEVER implies that racism is "under every bed." It actually does what a strong essay is meant to do, analyze a specific moment/ object/issue and unpack what might not be seen on the surface or at first glance. The "under every bed" argument is what is called a straw man: you can't find fault with what is ACTUALLY said so you invent a fake argument of what you WANT the essay to say so you can poke holes in an argument the author never made. That's some English 101 logical fallacy work at play.
And to equate some lowbrow scene with Martin Lawrence with the work analytical work of a renowned scholar is condescending and rude.
If you think the erasure of a population from cultural artifacts that have a wide reach is not a big deal I think you should be evaluating your own colonized/white privilege infected mind and not misread someone else's work so you can protect the racist status quo of American mainstream media.
And to post that “someone's upset he wasn't born white” is racism at its most blatant, not to mention completely ignorant to say, as well as it is ignorant to get the gender wrong of the author you are responding to. Ad hominem attacks only reveals a lack of intellectual rigor on the part of the person making the attack.
Post a Comment