Movies

HBO’s new ‘Native Son’ still can’t figure out Bigger Thomas

Latest adaptation of Richard Wright’s novel excises some of the crucial violence against a black woman

Nobody knows what to do with Bigger Thomas.

The lead character of Richard Wright’s seminal 1940 novel, Native Son, is one of the most frustrating in American literature. The latest evidence is a new film adaptation written by the Pulitzer Prize-winning playwright Suzan-Lori Parks and directed by visual artist Rashid Johnson in his feature film debut. It airs at 10 p.m. Saturday on HBO.

The Bigger Wright left us on the page is a 20-year-old black man who lives in a one-room Chicago tenement with his brother, sister and mother in 1939. In Wright’s opening scene, Bigger wakes up in the family’s freezing apartment and pounds a giant rat to death with an iron skillet. Bigger is bitterly aware of the limitations his race and class have predetermined for him, and so are his friends. They have nothing, and so they rob other black folks of their tiny bit of something. Bigger seems doomed to a small, miserable life until he gets a job across town as a chauffeur for a wealthy white family, the Daltons. The Daltons don’t consider themselves racists, but they benefit handsomely from the structural circumstances that have placed a boot upon Bigger’s neck.

What follows is tragic: A panicked Bigger accidentally kills the Dalton heiress, Mary, whose kindness and uninformed, if well-intentioned, habitual racial line-stepping do more to endanger Bigger than help him. After a night out with her boyfriend, Jan, Mary drunkenly invites Bigger, who’s driven her home, to her bedroom. Bigger assents, hoping to simply settle Mary in her room before stealing off to his own in the back of the house. Instead, he smothers her to death out of fear they’ll be discovered and he’ll be fired. Afterward, Bigger shoves Mary’s body into the mansion’s furnace.

When reporters discover bones and jewelry among the furnace’s ashes, Bigger flees. He explains to his girlfriend, Bessie, how he ended up killing Mary, then rapes and kills Bessie too, disposing of her body down an air shaft. When he’s finally caught, Bigger is bound for the executioner’s chair.

Needless to say, this is not a character who inspires sympathy. The HBO movie is the third attempt to bring Bigger to life on film. (In 1941, Orson Welles produced and directed the story as a play.) Wright actually starred as Bigger in a 1951 version of Native Son filmed in Argentina by the Belgian director Pierre Chenal. A 1986 version, with Victor Love as Bigger, had a big-name Hollywood cast, including Matt Dillon, Elizabeth McGovern, Geraldine Page and Oprah Winfrey.

Each of them has had to struggle with hard questions about Wright’s central character: How much of Bigger’s awfulness can be attributed to a country that twisted him into a murderer and how much of his evil is individual? Is cruelty from those denied dignity inevitable or a choice? Is Bigger a person or a literary device manufactured to inspire horror?

Nearly 80 years after Native Son was first published, we’re still searching for answers.


Ashton Sanders, as Bigger Thomas in HBO’s Native Son, stands in front of “The Bean,” a landmark public sculpture in downtown Chicago.

Chris Herr/HBO

This latest film adaptation, produced by A24 (the company behind Moonlight, Lady Bird and First Reformed) has the distinction of being the brainchild of a student of James Baldwin — Parks studied creative writing under Baldwin at Mount Holyoke College.

Baldwin famously seethed at Wright’s interpretation of black life and dismissed Native Son as a “protest novel” full of one-dimensional stereotypes, and he likened Bigger to Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom.

“Bigger is Uncle Tom’s descendant, flesh of his flesh, so exactly opposite a portrait that, when the books are placed together, it seems the contemporary Negro novelist and the dead New England woman are locked together in a deadly, timeless battle; the one uttering merciless exhortations, the other shouting curses,” Baldwin wrote in the essay Everybody’s Protest Novel. And yet Baldwin softened his stance toward Wright and Native Son after Wright’s death in 1960. Wrote Baldwin in Alas, Poor Richard:

Shortly after we learned of Richard Wright’s death, a Negro woman who was rereading Native Son told me that it meant more to her now than it had when she had first read it. This, she said, was because the specific social climate which had produced it, or with which it was identified, seemed archaic now, was fading from our memories. Now, there was only the book itself to deal with, for it could no longer be read, as it had been in 1940, as a militant racial manifesto. Today’s racial manifestoes were being written very differently, and in many languages; what mattered about the book now was how accurately or deeply the life of Chicago’s South Side had been conveyed.

The ambivalence Bigger inspires in Baldwin and others has come to be one of his defining characteristics. In 1986, Temple University professor David Bradley, writing an introduction for a new edition of the novel, shared his roller coaster of emotions about Native Son, which fluctuated with each new reading.

Is Bigger a person or a literary device manufactured to inspire horror? Nearly 80 years after Native Son was first published, we’re still searching for answers.

Both the 1986 film and the new one struggle with the monstrousness of Bigger’s actions — and both decided to dull them. Neither one includes Bigger’s rape and murder of Bessie. It’s the biggest omission from both versions, and especially notable in this latest adaptation, given how much Parks and Johnson elected to change.

They removed Bigger from the South Side of 1939 and dropped him into modern-day Chicago, simultaneously eradicating the bleakness of Bigger’s life as Wright fashioned it. Bigger no longer shares a one-room apartment with his mother, sister and brother but rather a multiroom unit with space for a dining table where the family gathers regularly. His mother, Trudy (Sanaa Lathan), is an ambitious paralegal eyeing law school, not a desperate washerwoman consigned to abject poverty. Trudy has a romantic partner, a do-gooder lawyer named Marty (David Alan Grier). The Thomas household is warm and structured, and there isn’t nearly as much pressure on Bigger to get a job to prevent his family from being turned out on the street.

Bigger, too, has undergone renovation. Played by Ashton Sanders (best known for portraying high school-age Chiron in Moonlight), this modern Bigger sports green hair, black fingernail polish, and an assortment of black coats and jackets customized with graffiti and patches. He’s an Afropunk and an anarchist who prefers the sounds of Bad Brains, Minor Threat and Death, as opposed to, say, Chief Keef. Sanders is tall and lanky, and he mostly plays Bigger as a quiet kid who folds into himself but who can be goaded into violent outbursts. His girlfriend, Bessie (KiKi Layne), has been transformed from a figure of pitiable, gin-soaked scorn into a sober and sensible hairdresser.

From the book to the screen, Wright’s white characters remain the most static. Mrs. Dalton is always blind, and Mr. Dalton is always the dutiful limousine liberal who sees himself as doing what he can to help the downtrodden Negroes on the other side of town. Mary Dalton (Margaret Qualley) and her boyfriend, Jan Erlone (Nick Robinson), remain a couple of rebellious anti-capitalists (here, they’re Occupy Wall Street sympathizers) thumbing their noses at Mr. Dalton’s money and privilege while simultaneously enjoying it.


Ashton Sanders and KiKi Layne in Native Son.

Thomas Hank Willis/HBO

The urge to use a new adaptation of Native Son as a corrective to the perceived faults of Wright’s original work is understandable, especially when its setting, Chicago, is repeatedly slandered as a cesspool of black cultural pathologies. Its murder rate trails that of several other cities, and yet it’s seen as an avatar for gun violence and a favorite example of those looking to deploy the whataboutism of “black-on-black” crime. Chicago is the home of Emmett Till and Laquan McDonald, and somehow also the place that produced Barack Obama and Harold Washington. Victims of white supremacy and heroes who manage to dodge it are much easier to hold in one’s head. But where do we place Bigger?

If we take him as Wright wrote him, perhaps the only appropriate place is exile. Maybe that’s why the resulting Bigger imagined by Parks and Johnson is far more sympathetic than Wright’s original rendering. For instance, Johnson neglects to show Bigger decapitating Mary once he realizes her body is too big to fully fit in the furnace. And in this modern version, Bigger never makes it to jail, much less a trial. He’s gunned down by Chicago police officers the moment they find him.

Parks and Johnson gesture at Bigger’s violence toward Bessie — he begins to strangle her but doesn’t go through with the deed. Bigger’s sexual violence, though, is completely eliminated. When I spoke to Johnson recently at HBO’s offices in New York, he told me that he thought of Bessie’s survival as the truest outcome for this retelling.

“We can’t murder and rape Bessie.”

“Between 1939 and today, stories around violence towards women and the way that we interpret them has changed dramatically,” Johnson said. “I was raised by a black woman who’s an academic and a feminist. I am not capable of telling stories where a woman is treated violently in the respect that Bigger treats Bessie in the book. That’s not something that I’m interested in.

“I think it neuters the other aspects of the story that are quite complicated around both race, class, etc. I think that it does a damage to the story and its contemporary telling, that story cannot survive. So we’d originally written it with the murder of Bessie and the rape of Bessie and the story, and I read that version in the script because we tried to keep as much in as possible in our early stages of interpreting it. And I called Suzan-Lori Parks very early in the morning and I said, ‘There’s something that is very challenging for me,’ and she said, ‘We can’t murder and rape Bessie.’ ”

Yet black and Native American women today experience the highest rates of death as a result of intimate partner violence, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Wright’s Native Son, in part, is a tale of black masculinity, disfigured by white supremacy and run amok. It is a horror story, in the way that Toni Morrison’s Beloved can be seen as horror too.

In 2015, when Straight Outta Compton was released, hip-hop journalist Dee Barnes wrote about the violence she experienced at the hands of Dr. Dre. “There is a direct connection between the oppression of black men and the violence perpetrated by black men against black women,” she wrote. “It is a cycle of victimization and reenactment of violence that is rooted in racism and perpetuated by patriarchy.”

It’s impossible to separate the murder and rape of Bessie from any discussion about how race and class have victimized Bigger. The same factors contribute to Bigger’s abuse of Bessie, although they do not excuse it. We can see a contemporary example of this dynamic in Erik Killmonger, the villain of Black Panther. Like Bigger, Killmonger is meant to engender sympathy, for the United States turned him into what he is: a psychopathic human instrument of death seeking revenge and power. And yet, for all his wokeness regarding imperialist theft, Killmonger has little regard for women. He does not hesitate to kill them, and he certainly doesn’t have any remorse about it.

When we turn away from black misogyny, as Parks and Johnson do, and as filmmaker F. Gary Gray did in Straight Outta Compton, we do a disservice to black women’s lived reality — the stories preserved on-screen tell an incomplete truth.

This new Native Son from Parks and Johnson doesn’t answer many of the questions Wright presents. Rather, it leaves us with even more questions: How can a film adaptation work if it excises one of the most horrifying scenes in its source material? And can Native Son truly capture the worst effects of America’s subjugation of black people if it turns away from the mortal injuries that befall black women as a result of it?

Soraya Nadia McDonald is the culture critic for The Undefeated. She writes about pop culture, fashion, the arts, and literature. She is the 2020 winner of the George Jean Nathan prize for dramatic criticism, a 2020 finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in criticism, and the runner-up for the 2019 Vernon Jarrett Medal for outstanding reporting on black life.

Books

In ‘The Dead Are Arising,’ Malcolm X’s spirit is still very much alive

Tamara Payne talks about the award-winning biography she wrote with her father

When I spoke to Tamara Payne about the Malcolm X biography The Dead Are Arising: The Life of Malcolm X, the way she described her responsibility to the famed human rights icon was simultaneously simple and daunting.

“We’re bringing Malcolm back to us,” Payne said.

The Dead Are Arising is the product of nearly 30 years of work by Payne’s father, the legendary Pulitzer-winning journalist Les Payne. The elder Payne died in 2018 and Tamara, who had been the primary researcher on the project, stepped in to finish the book, which won the 2020 National Book Award for nonfiction.

The book’s release last October coincided with an America exhibiting striking parallels to the country in which Malcolm X was assassinated in 1965: one bursting at the seams with racial strife, political chaos and a maddening cloak of white supremacy. And one in which Black folks were staring death in the face to prove their lives mattered.

The Paynes’ book is not a repeat of Malcolm X’s autobiography, one of the most powerful bestsellers in history. Instead, it peels back the layers of every facet of Malcolm X’s life and family history and places them in context. They dug through mounds of classified documents and did hundreds of interviews with Malcolm X’s family, friends, associates and enemies, many of whom don’t recall events the way Malcolm X did. These include the details of his father’s death, his time in prison, the Nation of Islam’s meeting with the Ku Klux Klan, his time in Ghana and the day of his assassination.

Days before the 56th anniversary of his assassination, Tamara Payne sat down with The Undefeated to discuss Malcolm X and her hopes for the book’s legacy.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Can you describe your emotions the night before the book was released?

The night before it was kind of like everything was on hold, really. Like something big is about to happen. I think it really happened for me when Amazon started putting up the presales. And then it was just kind of like, OK, it’s public now.

Why was the historical context so important to this book?

In Dad’s first interviews, it was all news. And Dad as a journalist, he wants to know what’s new, what’s hard to find out. He was excited about that, but he also said we have to put him in context. We have to understand the world he was born into. Malcolm is always presented as fully formed and angry, as if he’s sprung out of nowhere.

I can’t tell you how many people have walked up to me and said, ‘I don’t like Malcolm. He was too aggressive. That’s why he failed.’ These are white guys. I mean, just even the audacity to say that after just meeting me. And I was like, ‘Well, what do you know about what was going on in 1965?’ And they were like, ‘Not much.’ I said, ‘Well, let me explain to you what was going on and what the fights were.’

In The Dead Are Arising, Tamara Payne and her father Les Payne peel back the layers of every facet of Malcolm X’s life and family history and places them in context.

Bettmann/Getty Images

So if you really think about Malcolm’s response, he was acting natural to the circumstances he was in. Now, how do we get into that? You have to understand history. But to just say that you don’t like Malcolm when you’re taking him out of context, and he wasn’t speaking to you anyway?

We wanted to provide a context for Malcolm and the world he was born into, as well as his life with his family and who he was as a person.

I can’t tell you how many times I found myself saying, ‘Wow! I never knew that.’ How did your appreciation for Malcolm change over the course of writing this book?

My admiration for Malcolm only deepened. My father was a deep admirer of Malcolm. And he, before meeting [Malcolm’s] brothers, didn’t even feel that there was a need to have a biography of Malcolm because we had the autobiography and we had his speeches. My dad used to play his speeches on weekends for us growing up. I have vivid memories of that. When you listen to Malcolm at 6 or 7 years old to The Ballot or The Bullet or Message to the Grassroots, it doesn’t mean you understand every word that comes out of his mouth. But you understand the emotions, the timbre and his use of language, and you recognize that analysis and that critique when you hear it and feel it.

When we were doing research on Malcolm, and we’re finding out different things — like with the Klan meeting in 1961 — I was like, ‘Oh, man, he met with the Klan.’ We knew that that had happened. But also understanding that he really didn’t want to be in a meeting negotiating anything with the Klan. He’d rather have a face-off. But he’s a representative for Elijah Muhammad, as is Jeremiah X. But Malcolm is different. It’s kind of like Malcolm had bigger ideas for what the Nation of Islam was going to be. And we understood that early on. And it got him in trouble. He wrote about that in his autobiography.

But when we read it in this book, I think you get a more sense of, wow. He had to be set down quite a few times because of his energy and his enthusiasm. The reason is because Elijah Muhammad wanted it to be a certain way. He didn’t want to mix it up with white people and the integrationists and Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement. He just wanted to be in his own separate thing. Let us do our own community, and leave us alone, and have our own separate state. Malcolm was like, ‘If we’re going to be citizens of this country, how do we do that with help?’ And he probably figured that it was going to take time to figure out how to make that happen. And so he always had larger ideas. You can even see that when he split, even though that tore him apart. But he knew he had to because he had outgrown the organization.

So for me, my emotional thing was that my admiration for him deepened. And especially when you realize the context. His cause was for this country to work for everybody. And he never put himself in front of that cause. I know people may want to say that he did, but he didn’t.

Once you realize the history that goes along with this, including what happened before, particularly the stuff of Marcus Garvey and W.E.B. Du Bois and the others, you get a real sense of who we are as a people. Which is why I encourage people, when they read this, I hope that they also will look at their own families. Because our families lived at the same times Malcolm’s family lived through. So we’re products of the Great Migration, right? Our families lived through the Great Depression. Our stories, I’m sure, will be very similar to what Malcolm’s family went through.

Why do you think Malcolm was searching for something to believe in so much that it became his own worst enemy?

Well, it has to go back to losing his father at such an important age. He was 6 years old when his father died. And after that, he kind of is searching for somebody to fill that void. His father was huge in his life. His father would take him to UNIA [Universal Negro Improvement Association] meetings so he got to see his father in action. So when his father’s gone, and there isn’t that disciplinarian, there isn’t that person organizing the chores and making sure that everybody carries their weight for the household to run, you kind of need that.

Tamara Payne says she has vivid childhood memories of her father, Pulitzer-winning journalist Les Payne, playing Malcolm X’s speeches on weekends.

J Conrad Williams Jr./Newsday

That happens to a lot of people, men and women, when they lose their father or whomever that parent is. They search in different ways. And I think when you look at it that way, you also look at him as a human being. And this is not unusual. Of course, if somebody important to you dies, you’re going to miss that person, but there’s this huge hole. And sometimes you try to figure out how to fill it.

You see that with his relationship with Elijah Muhammad. He filled that hole of the father figure who could actually give him that protection, the guidance, a structure for him to fall into to move up and down the structure. The framework of the Nation of Islam, right? So it gives him kind of a placement, something to fit into, and someplace where he can grow. So the Nation of Islam is very important. And it was a good organization. And I still think it’s an important organization. And Malcolm always said that, even after the split. But no organization’s perfect. There are going to be problems, period.

What do this book and movies like Judas and the Black Messiah or One Night in Miami say about America’s fear of Black liberation?

They’re afraid. I mean, Black liberation of our minds and our hearts has always been a threat. COINTELPRO wasn’t particularly created against Black liberation. It was created against whatever J. Edgar Hoover deemed to be a threat to American society. And Black liberation of mind and heart is what he considered to be a threat against the American status quo and white supremacy.

What do you hope this book does to those long-standing questions about Malcolm’s death and who was behind it?

Information is powerful. This is something my father has always taught us growing up. We need information to be able to make informed decisions. So to understand it’s not simply that the Nation assassinated Malcolm, and how the order went out from Elijah Muhammad. But also understanding that it was weakened from within through the forces that they had no control over in the U.S. government. That’s important. I think those questions are still out there. I still think that there may be other organizations that had an interest in seeing Malcolm die.

We are telling the most accurate story that we can tell. This is not based on supposition. This is based on actual investigative reporting. We spoke to real people. We have real sources who shared these stories, who told us what they knew. And they knew this was going to go into this book. Yeah, people are going to have problems with it. But sometimes information is going to take you down a road where you may not want to go, you think you don’t want to go. But at the end of the day, it’s enlightenment. You can make better decisions for yourself and your life once you have the truth. And we’re getting closer to it. The amount of work that my father spent on those last chapters — he was working at his highest level of his craft.

It was dangerous. And it took courage and it took commitment. And he never wavered from that. He wanted to solve it. I don’t think it’s fully solved, but we definitely are adding to that picture. And that’s important. Malcolm’s death is an open wound for us as a community. It really is. As is Martin Luther King’s. Medgar Evers. All of these deaths, they’re open wounds for us. And we have to figure out ways to heal. But part of understanding how to heal is how they went down and whose hands were involved in that. Only then can we really look at healing, because part of that is also looking at accountability.

How do you feel knowing this book will be known as one of the definitive accounts of Malcolm’s life?

It’s a huge responsibility because of the admiration we have for Malcolm. And we know that Malcolm was one of the most important, charismatic figures of the 20th century. That’s no question about. I think that it is time that we really embrace him as that. Including people who said, ‘Well, when he was around, I didn’t listen to him. I didn’t agree with him.’ And that’s fine. There’s nothing wrong with that. It’s important that people understand they don’t have to choose between Martin and Malcolm, because they’re both important.

Justin Tinsley is a culture and sports writer for The Undefeated. He firmly believes “Cash Money Records takin’ ova for da ’99 and da 2000” is the single-most impactful statement of his generation.

Black History Always

From the first March on Washington to today, images of Black suffering reveal America’s painful truths

New documentary, ‘The March on Washington: Keepers of the Dream’ traces the connections over six decades of protest

0:20

She is wearing a belted dress and carefully done hair, falling backward to the sidewalk beneath the hands of three white police officers. It is 1963 in Birmingham, Alabama. Then we see her lying on her back, pocketbook askew, trapped in a position that connects past and present in one sickening instant:

A cop is pressing his knee down onto the Black woman’s neck.

This is one of the most arresting sequences of the new documentary The March on Washington: Keepers of the Dream, which premieres Thursday at 10 p.m. ET on the National Geographic Channel and begins streaming Friday on Hulu. Produced in collaboration with The Undefeated, the film explores how violence against Black people, inflicted by police and white vigilantes, fueled both the original civil rights movement and its current revival.

The photos of the woman in 1963 were taken during the famous Birmingham protests, as the battle against Jim Crow segregation gained momentum. Thousands of Black women, men and children repeatedly took to the streets, where they were beaten by police wielding clubs, sprayed with fire hoses and bitten by police dogs. About 2,500 protesters were arrested, including Martin Luther King Jr. and, presumably, the unidentified woman in the photograph with the knee on her neck.

A police officer with a knee on a woman’s neck before arresting her during protests in Birmingham, Alabama, on May 8, 1963.

John Duprey/NY Daily News via Getty Images

Fifty-seven years later, Black folks still have that knee on our necks – physically, in the killing of George Floyd, and metaphorically, from systemic racism that chokes Black opportunity in education, housing, employment and elsewhere.

The March on Washington documentary connects the 2020 march, led by Rev. Al Sharpton, last summer’s outpouring of activism, which took place despite the risks and restrictions of the coronavirus pandemic, and the 1963 March on Washington, when King gave his immortal I Have a Dream speech.

I was a producer of the film, and while working with the director, Marquis Daisy, we were struck by the way past themes of injustice and disenfranchisement are manifested in a new form today. The footage of past lynchings and beatings was hard enough to watch, even before getting to modern videos of Black people such as Sandra Bland, Laquan McDonald and Philando Castile being accosted or shot to death. At times we questioned whether the total of all these graphic images was too much for viewers to handle, but Daisy came to the conclusion that we could not shy away from them. “That history may be uncomfortable, but we have to recognize it,” he said. “Understanding this history is what has moved America forward, and I hope this film will help continue to push us along that path.”

While the stated purpose of the 1963 March on Washington was “jobs and freedom,” and the major policy goal was to pressure Congress and President Lyndon B. Johnson to enact what would become the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, images of Black suffering and death helped create the momentum for the march to happen.

Protesters surround the Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial during the 57th anniversary of the March on Washington on Aug. 28, 2020, in Washington.

Erin Lefevre/NurPhoto via Getty Images

From photos of the gruesomely disfigured face of Emmett Till, the 14-year-old boy killed for talking to a white woman to television footage of fire hoses turned on peaceful Black protesters in Birmingham, consciences were shocked worldwide. “These very brutal images … made it possible for the movement to go forward,” Mary Frances Berry, a University of Pennsylvania history professor, said in the film. Berry, a former chair of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, was speaking of what the world saw in Birmingham, but her statement also applied to the summer of 2020 and video of the killings of Ahmaud Arbery and Floyd, which inspired another march.

A theme of vigilantism runs against the story of Black progress. There is a through line from the white men who were acquitted of all charges in the killing of Till in 1955 to the white men who shot Arbery and were not charged by local authorities until after a national outcry. For every Black milestone, there is a Black tragedy: Four little girls killed in the Birmingham church bombing after the 1963 March on Washington; Trayvon Martin gunned down after the election of President Barack Obama.

Decades ago, the Ku Klux Klan seized extralegal authority to keep Black people in what they thought was their place. “It’s much like today,” Berry said in the film, “we talk about the ‘Karens’ who feel called upon when they see some Black person doing some routine thing that they think is out of the way or they shouldn’t be doing it, [and] take it upon themselves to impose a kind of order.”

The film covers the years between 1963 and 2020 by way of the war on drugs and mass incarceration. Starting with President Richard Nixon’s policies in the 1970s, then championed by presidents Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, these political strategies created an image of Black men as out-of-control criminals who deserved to be handcuffed, beaten, shot or killed. Is it any wonder, then, what happens to a Rodney King, or an Eric Garner, or a Breonna Taylor?

“The argument and the demand is that there has to be a greater accountability and acknowledgment of Black life,” author Wes Moore says in the film. “Whether we’re talking about the marches of the ’60s, or the marches that are taking place right now, that’s what the marches are about.”

America is a much different place today from when hundreds of thousands marched on Washington in 1963. Our country has been changed for the better by the faith, determination, hope, sacrifice and blood of countless people – and by the power of the images that laid bare all those truths.

Jesse Washington is a senior writer for The Undefeated. You can find him giving dudes the bizness on a basketball court near you.

Commentary

Draymond Green strikes another blow against white control of Black athletes

The Cavaliers’ treatment of Andre Drummond crystallizes the hypocrisy of how players are supposed to shut up and sit down

Draymond Green’s latest speech is a sign that white control of the Black athlete is in its final days.

From Jack Johnson to Jim Brown to Curt Flood to Colin Kaepernick, resistance has long been inseparable from the history of Black athletes. Over the decades, they have knocked down exploitation and inequality brick by brick. Now, athletes such as Green have their sights on the masters of a system that allows a group of nearly all-white team owners to act in ways that the owners – and much of the public – often refuse to accept from Black players.

Green’s comments were instigated by how the Cleveland Cavaliers treated center Andre Drummond. The Cavs, who recently acquired young center Jarrett Allen, are planning to trade Drummond, a two-time All-Star averaging 17.5 points and 13.5 rebounds per game this season. When the Cavs traveled to San Francisco Monday night to play Green’s Warriors, they decided to deactivate Drummond. He watched the game from the bench in street clothes, and apparently won’t play until he is traded. Cavaliers sources told ESPN that it’s unfair to Drummond to limit his minutes as the team gives more playing time to Allen.

Draymond Green sounds off on double standards between teams and players

Unfair to limit his minutes? Please. They just limited his minutes all the way down to zero. More likely is the Cavs don’t want Drummond to get injured and evaporate his trade value. The Cavs took him out of the lineup because it’s the best thing for their team. But if Drummond had demanded a trade and chose to limit his own minutes to do what’s best for Drummond – sort of like what James Harden just did in Houston – the narrative would have been much different.

Green used Harden as Exhibit A to identify the hypocrisy of players being lambasted for saying and acting like they want to leave a team, while teams can say or do whatever when they seek to trade a player.

Andre Drummond (center) watches from the bench as the Cleveland Cavaliers take on the LA Clippers on Feb. 14 at Staples Center in Los Angeles.

Adam Pantozzi/NBAE via Getty Images

“At some point, as players, we need to be treated with the same respect. And have the same rights that the team can have,” Green said. “Because as a player, you’re the worst person in the world when you want a different situation. But a team can say they’re trading you. And that man is to stay in shape, he is to stay professional. And if not, his career is on the line.”

Harden was criticized for the behavior he used to force his way to the Brooklyn Nets – I called him “selfish” – but as he told ESPN’s Rachel Nichols, “I had to do what I had to do in order to get to where I wanted to go.” What the Cavs are doing is selfish, too. Yet they are widely perceived as being smart about their business, while smart business is not part of the narrative for Harden, or LeBron James moving from Cleveland to Miami, or Anthony Davis forcing his way off the New Orleans Pelicans to play for the Lakers. When players flex their leverage, they get called disloyal, ungrateful or worse.

“We talk all of this stuff about, ‘You can’t do this, you can’t say this publicly,’ ” Green said. “If you say that publicly … Anthony Davis got fined [$50,000] for demanding a trade, but you can say Andre Drummond’s getting traded publicly and we’re looking to trade him publicly, and he’s to stay professional and just deal with it?”

Let’s be real: Many people resent the money that athletes make. They see a group of young Black megamillionaires, in all their tattooed, bejeweled, cornrowed glory, and want them to stay in their place. Yet those people don’t begrudge the money made by owners, who are far richer than the athletes. Owners are perceived to have earned it, while athletes are often thought to have lucked out in the genetic lottery – as if it doesn’t take years upon years of blood, sweat and tears to make the NBA.

The idea that Black athletes should be grateful for what they get extends to the NCAA, where players who generate billions in revenue – most of whom are Black – are told to be satisfied with the six-figure value of their scholarships. It’s not a coincidence that most white people oppose paying college players, polls show, while most Black people support it.

But the system of sports control has never been more vulnerable than now.

The Supreme Court will soon hear arguments about the limits the NCAA imposes on compensation to college athletes. Regardless of the ruling, more and more Black college athletes are refusing to accept how they have been treated by their conferences, coaches and the NCAA. NBA players now routinely change teams before their contracts have expired. In pro football, where players have the least leverage of any major sport, owners have recently been forced to accept players’ racial justice demands. Young Black superstar quarterback Deshaun Watson is in the process of forcing his way out of Houston because he was not substantively consulted, as most franchise players are, when major personnel moves were made.

Speaking of Houston, it was Green who called out Texans owner Bob McNair for saying “we can’t have the inmates running the prison” as the NFL tried to prevent athletes from kneeling during the national anthem to protest racial injustice. (The NFL lost that battle.)

“For starters, let’s stop using the word owner and maybe use the word Chairman,” Green posted back in 2017. “To be owned by someone just sets a bad precedent to start. It sets the wrong tone. It gives one the wrong mindset.”

Now NBA players are starting to say that they should get a piece of the ownership pie. A new day is coming. It’s just a matter of time.

Jesse Washington is a senior writer for The Undefeated. You can find him giving dudes the bizness on a basketball court near you.

A triumphant ‘Judas and the Black Messiah’ unfurls the life and death of Fred Hampton

Daniel Kaluuya is electric and memorable as Chairman Fred

When writer-director Shaka King released his first feature in 2013, a small indie romance called Newlyweeds, it was obvious that the NYU film school grad had something special. It was the sort of film that should have immediately led to a dance card full of work, but it didn’t. Instead, King turned out two shorts, Mulignans (2015) and LaZercism (2017) and kept himself afloat with TV work before turning in a triumphant, nervy sophomore effort: Judas and the Black Messiah, which debuts Friday on HBO Max.

The film tells the story of the untimely murder of Illinois Black Panther Party chairman Fred Hampton (Daniel Kaluuya) and the undercover informant Bill O’Neal (LaKeith Stanfield), who rose in the party to become Hampton’s security captain.

Daniel Kaluuya (left) plays Illinois Black Panther Party chairman Fred Hampton and LaKeith Stanfield (right) stars as undercover informant Bill O’Neal in Judas and the Black Messiah.

Courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures

King has pulled off the near-impossible, taking a story of an anticapitalist civil rights martyr who we know will have a tragic, bloody end, and approaching it with daring and confidence. (The real Hampton was 21 and asleep in his bed when he was assassinated by Chicago police in a pre-dawn raid that left his apartment blanketed in bullet holes.) King’s choices are unexpected, but welcome. He leads with audacity instead of preciousness, opening the film with a heist by Stanfield’s O’Neal, a car thief with one trick he’s managed to perfect: posing as a fed in order to jack someone’s ride. O’Neal, like everyone, sees himself as the hero of his own picture, and King indulges O’Neal’s conception of himself as a Negro Dick Tracy by shooting the sequence in a noir style.

The film then follows the twin storylines of Hampton’s life as a young revolutionary and O’Neal’s descent into race betrayal, borrowing some beats from The Departed, but with less sprawl than the 2006 Scorcese tale. O’Neal flits between unease at his situation and a grudging respect for Hampton while enjoying the material rewards of snitching: steak dinners, cigars and expensive scotch that would be out of reach were he a Black man who abided by rules — any rules, both the written and unwritten ones.

Meanwhile, a real, loving relationship of mutual respect blossoms between Hampton and his girlfriend, Deborah Johnson (a luminous Dominique Fishback). Romance and revolution grow entwined, but not melodramatically so. A sequence when Hampton exits jail is played with a lovely, almost aching tenderness. Nary a word is uttered, but Hampton discovers that he is going to be a father. In the hands of King and co-screenwriter Will Berson, Fishback is able to break out of the archetype of dutiful movement helpmeet who is awestruck by a great man. She pushes back with anger and passion against her partner’s prediction of an inevitable, untimely death. He may belong to the people, but he belongs to her, too.

Fred Hampton (Daniel Kaluuya, left) embraces his girlfriend Deborah Johnson (Dominique Fishback, center) in a scene from Judas and the Black Messiah.

Courtesy of Warner Bros. Pictures

Kaluuya and Stanfield are reunited in Judas and the Black Messiah after memorable turns in the culture-shifting Get Out. Observing how both men have grown as performers in the years since is staggering. They were already in command of their considerable talent, and they’ve only developed more control over their instruments. This is especially true of Kaluuya, who somehow tops himself every time he drops into a character. There are no traces of the cold, stalking menace Kaluuya so expertly deployed in Widows. Instead, his Hampton is warm and confident, fully aware of his oratorical powers but not arrogant about them. He inhabits the improbable grounded decency that made Hampton such a cult figure — simultaneously singular but also of the people.

“When he got up in front of a group of people, the words just flowed,” Black Panther Michael McCarty recalls of Hampton in the excellent 2015 Stanley Nelson documentary The Black Panthers: Vanguard of the Revolution. “You were awash in the words. And I don’t care how many people were there, it’s like he was talking to you. That’s a dangerous person.”

There are a few documentaries that, paired with Judas and the Black Messiah, would make for a weekend well spent. Besides Nelson’s Vanguard of the Revolution, there is the 14-episode documentary Eyes on the Prize (part one, 1987, part two, 1990), which includes the only known video interview with O’Neal, and MLK/FBI (2021), the new documentary from Eyes on the Prize II co-director Sam Pollard, which details FBI director J. Edgar Hoover’s obsession with thwarting the cause of racial justice. In Judas, Martin Sheen plays Hoover as a stalwart G-man directing a mission: stopping the rise of a “Black Messiah” such as Hampton because he feared that such a person could actually bring about the rise of a true multiracial democracy.

Stanfield’s O’Neal is twitchy and incapable of true cunning. He behaves with the scared, false confidence of a teen, a nod to the real O’Neal’s youth (he was 17 when he first began informing on the Panthers). He’s focused on saving his skin as he hopscotches from one extralegal crisis to another, not quite registering the ethical trap he’s created for himself until it’s far too late.

In the mouths of Kaluuya, Stanfield and Fishback, there is an organic naturalism to the slang, cadence and rhythm of late-60s speaking, rather than the jokey, overly emphasized delivery that usually accompanies such performances. It’s easy, in a period film, to overdo the lingo, to the point that one imagines the actors’ code-switching between takes to say, “Can you believe people actually used to talk like this?”

What a pleasure it is to take in a film that hits on every single cylinder, from directorial style to writing to cinematography to performance to editing to sound design and mixing. I was left hoping that Warner Bros. will rerelease the film in theaters once the COVID-19 pandemic is firmly in hand and it’s safe to go to the cinema again. I want to see Judas and the Black Messiah on an enormous screen in a pitch-black room full of people and feel the rumble of Kaluuya’s voice pouring through the speakers in the call-and-response of “I AM. A REVOLUTIONARY!” It’s impossible to truly capture the full, messianic magnitude of Hampton — imagine what could have been had he not been slain — but King has gifted us with a truly incredible attempt.

Soraya Nadia McDonald is the culture critic for The Undefeated. She writes about pop culture, fashion, the arts, and literature. She is the 2020 winner of the George Jean Nathan prize for dramatic criticism, a 2020 finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in criticism, and the runner-up for the 2019 Vernon Jarrett Medal for outstanding reporting on black life.