posted
So George Lucas and some other people made a movie about black people and airplanes and apparently it was really, really bad.
According to the reviews, it sucks horribly, but I'm curious to see what you guys thought. I haven't seen it yet, but I found this commentary to be pretty hilarious:
Did you guys have a similar experience as these guys? Was it really that cheesy/bad/racist?
Honestly, I'm disappointed. I'm in the Air Force and I know about these pilots (my squadron in Basic was named after them, so we were made to study their exploits), so to see them reduced to this is a little disheartening.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
My father really wanted to see the movie, so I joined him. Yeah, it wasn't good. It's not terrible, but it certainly had a lot of problems. Honestly, if not for the fact that it had the major budget and the big names attached with it, I think the movie would have been simply forgettable. But because there was so much money poured into the movie makes it seem worse. The other problem is that because this is a genuine chapter of American history you would hope that it would show due respect to the people it's portraying.
For example, The Patriot was an insult to American history. But it didn't try to paint itself as dramaticized non-fiction, it was historical fiction with a heavy amount of focus on the fiction aspect. Red Tails is a lot like the Patriot in this respect. Big budget, big names, misrepresentation of history. But because Red Tails emphasizes that it's the story of real men, it makes it seem worse.
As a movie taken without its context, it's simply okay. Taken with the context, it's pretty bad.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
A lot of the lines delivered in this really bad movie (well, at least the first third or so of it, stopped watching afterwards) are bad enough to convince me that they were trying to do cheesy, hammy lines on purpose to get that wwII classic movie feel. like, there's no way to get even bit actors to deliver lines that poorly and stiltedly unless you are deliberately retarding their acting ability.
As usual, redlettermedia gets all of it so exhaustively that I don't have anything to add, really.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was really fired up to see it, and then all the reviews came out. I am always happy to see a movie about our war heroes, but even more about brave people who knew what patriotism and self sacrifice is about, everything that has come out about the quality of the movie is very disheartening.
Also the remarks about the films vilification of Germans don't make this pale blonde boy excited to see it.
I must say though, after watching your link Jeff the movie sounds like a great comedy.
Posts: 2302 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
TVIRL MEIN MOUSTACHE UNT KILLUN DER AMMERIKANER, HA HA HA HA
I didn't want this movie to suck because, well, they're the tuskegee airmen and they deserve better god damn itPosts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a near-constant somehow just mediocre delivery of dialogue that is itself written pretty goddamn bad sometimes.
The action is great.
The romance was absurd, the little POW vignette was absurd, the scene when the bombers realize the Red Tails are going to stick around was cool-again except for the dialogue.
Watch the old HBO version!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just want to make sure I have this straight after watching that: moviebob is lambasting and mocking overcritical nerd rage on the part of others.
posted
I thought it was a little hilarious that Lucas went around saying that this was the first all black action movie, when that clearly isn't true at all. It sounds like (in the interviews) that he's really playing on that community's desire to show support for something that represents them as a whole. How ironic, then, that the film was basically made by an old fat, rich, white guy.
It should also be noted that Bryan Cranston is in this movie. I think he's some kind of racist commander or something.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
How is Lucas being Lucas related to the merit of the film? Also Lucas I believe may have produced it, but he didn't direct so I again have to ask how is slighting Lucas, or having white people at all involved with the film, reduces the films value to trying to do honor to the Tuskugee Airmen?
Also in fairness in Lucas there aren't all that many movies with all black all star casts, the movie there where they intended to rob a dude who was under house arrest for screwing them out of their pensions was originally pitched to be a Black Ocean's Eleven and you saw what happened there; there is a degree of merit to Lucas's claim if you look at it in terms of big budget mainstream holleywood blockbusters.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I thought it was a little hilarious that Lucas went around saying that this was the first all black action movie, when that clearly isn't true at all. It sounds like (in the interviews) that he's really playing on that community's desire to show support for something that represents them as a whole. How ironic, then, that the film was basically made by an old fat, rich, white guy.
It should also be noted that Bryan Cranston is in this movie. I think he's some kind of racist commander or something.
As RLM indicated in their review, the cloying pandering racial angle was discomfortingly apparent and awkward. Stocklasa commented that the audience at his viewing was mostly black, and he was embarrassed on their behalf.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: How is Lucas being Lucas related to the merit of the film? Also Lucas I believe may have produced it, but he didn't direct
Actually from what I understand, he directed a few parts of it. But regardless, executive producers do a lot more than what you might think. Lucas was on set most of the time, telling the director what he wanted to see happen. He oversaw a great deal of the film. He also worked on the story and was the person who decided that the film would be a throwback to the old 40's action films, which is why it comes across as so cheesy. He was also the guy who pitched the film to all the studios. Make no mistake, this was Lucas' film.
quote:Also in fairness in Lucas there aren't all that many movies with all black all star casts, the movie there where they intended to rob a dude who was under house arrest for screwing them out of their pensions was originally pitched to be a Black Ocean's Eleven and you saw what happened there; there is a degree of merit to Lucas's claim if you look at it in terms of big budget mainstream holleywood blockbusters.
I didn't see any of the Tyler Perry movies on there, but that's another 15 or so you can add if you want. I think there's about 125 in there total, though not all of them are entirely all African American casts. To be fair,though, this movie wasn't either. The bad guys were white people.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Considering Black Americans are12% of the population, and yet comprise 5 of the top 10 highest grossing Hollywood stars, 2 of the most bankable stars, and at least 3 of the highest payed actors in film, I find the idea that blacks are underrepresented in film to be.... For lack of a better word, jive.
While not a perfect measure of black representation in media, these facts are interesting. As a little thought experiment, try naming to yourself all the "a-list" stars you know that are black. Take that number, and multiply by ten. Can you name 10 times that number who are not black? Because that woud be representation proportional to population. I can't manage it.
There are a lot of valid things to be said about *how* black people are portrayed in films and television. But I think it's a well established reality that they are well represented in numbers.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't aware the earnings of individual actors had much to do, necessarily, with the representation of their race in the business as a whole, Orincoro.
As for the thought experiment, unfortunately right now I'm skewed, because I don't normally know many celebrity names at all, but Red Tails is the last film I've seen, and so I can easily name many of it's actors just from the credits.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't watch the entire Red Tails redlettermedia review, but from the half I watched, I really just don't agree with them philosophically.
Lucas' whole point was that all the hyperpatriotic cheesy films of the 40s were whitewashed. You didn't see a black person in any of them. All the movies we have today are grittier, more real, whatever, but Lucas didn't think it was fair that white America got stuff like Midway, Tora! Tora! Tora!, the Longest Day, etc., he wanted that same movie for Af-Ams, and I don't see a problem with that at all. In fact I totally disagree with their problem with it. I mean, the two of them weren't his audience (and how, for that matter, has one of them not seen Glory? For shame!).
I don't know, I sort of see their point about role models and what not, but the same kids they're talking about needing a higher level quality of film are the same kids who actually prefer the prequels to the original Star Wars movies. So I question how in tune those two middle ages white guys are with black male youth.
Also, I think they're being extra douchey because Lucas' name was attached to it, when Lucas didn't really write the script, the dialogue, or direct it, unless you think there's a conspiracy and he really did it all because there's such a rush to assign bad movies to him.
I mean, they acknowledged that they knew what he was doing, but then they went on to attack it for all those things. I just think they were being pretty damned douchey. I haven't seen the movie, and I'd still like to, even if just to see what the hullaballoo is about. But man those two are smug.
Jeff -
I took a peek at your list but I stopped after I saw A Time to Kill. How you call that an all-black movie is absolutely beyond me when the only major black actor in the entire movie is Samuel L. Jackson. Are we just counting movies that have a black person in them that are based around race? That's not the point.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Considering Black Americans are12% of the population, and yet comprise 5 of the top 10 highest grossing Hollywood stars, 2 of the most bankable stars, and at least 3 of the highest payed actors in film, I find the idea that blacks are underrepresented in film to be.... For lack of a better word, jive.
While not a perfect measure of black representation in media, these facts are interesting. As a little thought experiment, try naming to yourself all the "a-list" stars you know that are black. Take that number, and multiply by ten. Can you name 10 times that number who are not black? Because that woud be representation proportional to population. I can't manage it.
There are a lot of valid things to be said about *how* black people are portrayed in films and television. But I think it's a well established reality that they are well represented in numbers.
Thank goodness for the token stars. That makes everything better.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also in fairness in Lucas there aren't all that many movies with all black all star casts, the movie there where they intended to rob a dude who was under house arrest for screwing them out of their pensions was originally pitched to be a Black Ocean's Eleven and you saw what happened there; there is a degree of merit to Lucas's claim if you look at it in terms of big budget mainstream holleywood blockbusters.
I didn't see any of the Tyler Perry movies on there, but that's another 15 or so you can add if you want. I think there's about 125 in there total, though not all of them are entirely all African American casts. To be fair,though, this movie wasn't either. The bad guys were white people.
::snort:: A Time to Kill made the top five. A book written by a white guy about a white lawyer who with the help of a white woman and a white assistant convince a white jury that a black man is innocent.
It's even got Matthew McAryanfeatures in it.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: How is Lucas being Lucas related to the merit of the film? Also Lucas I believe may have produced it, but he didn't direct so I again have to ask how is slighting Lucas, or having white people at all involved with the film, reduces the films value to trying to do honor to the Tuskugee Airmen?
Watch the Half in the Bag review in the original post. They nail it. They even say that they dislike even having to bring up lucas because it's beating a satisfyingly killed horse, but they're right — Lucas doesn't have to be the director at all; his meddling is felt all well and throughout as in Crystal Skull.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I wasn't aware the earnings of individual actors had much to do, necessarily, with the representation of their race in the business as a whole, Orincoro. .
I didn't say business as a whole. I was talking about actors, specifically. Thus, on screen. I don't know how blacks are represented in other aspects of the business.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Considering Black Americans are12% of the population, and yet comprise 5 of the top 10 highest grossing Hollywood stars, 2 of the most bankable stars, and at least 3 of the highest payed actors in film, I find the idea that blacks are underrepresented in film to be.... For lack of a better word, jive.
While not a perfect measure of black representation in media, these facts are interesting. As a little thought experiment, try naming to yourself all the "a-list" stars you know that are black. Take that number, and multiply by ten. Can you name 10 times that number who are not black? Because that woud be representation proportional to population. I can't manage it.
There are a lot of valid things to be said about *how* black people are portrayed in films and television. But I think it's a well established reality that they are well represented in numbers.
Thank goodness for the token stars. That makes everything better.
As I said, how and why black actors appear is a separate question. But they are undeniably common in American film.
And don't give me that token stars bit- several of the highest payed actors in history are black. How are they token anything?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Interesting. I also live in a country where the black population is in the single digit thousands, so black representation in mainstream film is necessarily proportionally very high.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
I took a peek at your list but I stopped after I saw A Time to Kill. How you call that an all-black movie is absolutely beyond me when the only major black actor in the entire movie is Samuel L. Jackson. Are we just counting movies that have a black person in them that are based around race? That's not the point.
I didn't say it was a flawless list, but a lot of the movies on there are mostly black films. There are, however, for some silly reasons, movies like A Time to Kill included.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I said, how and why black actors appear is a separate question. But they are undeniably common in American film.
And don't give me that token stars bit- several of the highest payed actors in history are black. How are they token anything?
The figures you mentioned don't, in fact, demonstrate that they're common in film. Unless we're to judge the entire business (and by that I meant actors in movies and TV) by it's uppermost famous members, which seems a poor way of doing so.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:As I said, how and why black actors appear is a separate question. But they are undeniably common in American film.
And don't give me that token stars bit- several of the highest payed actors in history are black. How are they token anything?
The figures you mentioned don't, in fact, demonstrate that they're common in film. Unless we're to judge the entire business (and by that I meant actors in movies and TV) by it's uppermost famous members, which seems a poor way of doing so.
Granted. I haven't seen any reliable figures for judging representation. It is only my instinct to say that black Americans are well represented numerically. That could easily be a function of my viewing choices: The Wire, for example.
It is a subtler calculus needed to account for period depictions dealing with certain segments of society, or wars in which the military was segregated, and also for modern dramas or sitcoms that very obviously cater to white upper middle class audiences. When buying power is still most heavily concentrated in the white upper middle class, I take it for granted that less serious, more consumer oriented tv and films will still be catered to white audiences. But from where I sit, the picture in more serious tv and film has changed drastically in recent years. Let us say, at least in the programs and films I choose to watch, I see plenty of black actors represented. And so Lucas' comments about the studios not being willing to back a primarily black cast rang false to me.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to know why it is acceptable to have an entirely black cast of characters in a film, but when others choose to do the same thing with white people, people like Spike Lee choose to fixate on it, claiming it isn't fair. Isn't that reverse racism? I've always wondered about that.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Spike Lee is an idiot. At least, he was an idiot about that particular film.
I'm not a fan of the all- black production for the sake of being n all black production thing. Ive seen one or two of those films. They suffer for the ideology.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I'd like to know why it is acceptable to have an entirely black cast of characters in a film, but when others choose to do the same thing with white people, people like Spike Lee choose to fixate on it, claiming it isn't fair. Isn't that reverse racism? I've always wondered about that.
First off, there's no such thing as "reverse" racism. Racism is racism, it's not intrinsically one way.
Second, black film makers, and black people in general I'd imagine, would argue that the vast majority of television (take a look at your average sitcom) and most of movies is the White America show. It's the status quo, it's pervasive, it's inescapable, and wanting a dedicated teeny tiny carved out section of media just for black people to see other black people on screen in more than singular roles is both fair and appealing.
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Considering Black Americans are12% of the population, and yet comprise 5 of the top 10 highest grossing Hollywood stars, 2 of the most bankable stars, and at least 3 of the highest payed actors in film, I find the idea that blacks are underrepresented in film to be.... For lack of a better word, jive.
While not a perfect measure of black representation in media, these facts are interesting. As a little thought experiment, try naming to yourself all the "a-list" stars you know that are black. Take that number, and multiply by ten. Can you name 10 times that number who are not black? Because that woud be representation proportional to population. I can't manage it.
There are a lot of valid things to be said about *how* black people are portrayed in films and television. But I think it's a well established reality that they are well represented in numbers.
Thank goodness for the token stars. That makes everything better.
As I said, how and why black actors appear is a separate question. But they are undeniably common in American film.
And don't give me that token stars bit- several of the highest payed actors in history are black. How are they token anything?
As far as I'm concerned, the how and the why is the drastically more important question than how much money five or six blockbuster film stars make in their careers. And I'm not entirely sure if you're familiar with how the idea of the "token" black person works. The whole point is that you take a few highly successful people and use that as an excuse to brush aside all the criticisms about the roles they play, and the general lack of anyone outside those few having any measure of success. You're making the token argument for me.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, I'm annoyed that you call several talented and very successful actors, "token," and diminish their very real success, because according to you, their accomplishments aren't meaningful in this discussion. I don't think that's true. I don't think their success *negates* any issue of underrepresentation, but I also don't think their success is *immaterial* to the discussion. You are treating it as if it is. But go back to film in the 1950s and tell me how many black actors were bankable hollywood movie stars? The answer is zero. That has changed. That change has some degree of meaning.
I agree that the how and why *are* far more important. But I don't think it is in the least bit fair to call billion dollar box-office earners "token," anythings.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I didn't watch the entire Red Tails redlettermedia review, but from the half I watched, I really just don't agree with them philosophically.
I have now watched the entirety of both the red tails redlettermedia review and the entirety of red tails. They're right. They .. urgh, they really are, and I didn't want them to be (I wanted this movie to be good, really), but they're right. I really also don't want this to be a Yet Another Lucas Referendum, but his style guidelines (for what we all knew to be his legacy dream pet project) and executive production oversight just feels smeared all over this movie. "He's not the director" mattered about as much here as it did for Crystal Skull.
As Jeff said, make no mistake whose film this is.
Oh well.
quote: I just think they were being pretty damned douchey. I haven't seen the movie, and I'd still like to, even if just to see what the hullaballoo is about.
Please do. If you think jay and mike were just being needlessly smug, then the experience — even if prebiased — should be, ah, illuminating.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I'd like to know why it is acceptable to have an entirely black cast of characters in a film, but when others choose to do the same thing with white people, people like Spike Lee choose to fixate on it, claiming it isn't fair. Isn't that reverse racism? I've always wondered about that.
First off, there's no such thing as "reverse" racism.
You're right, of course, racism is racism, but this term does exist and is widely used. An example of this term that I found on Urban Dictionary was this:
"That black kid started a fight with that white kid but we're only going to suspend the white kid because we don't want to be racist against black people." -principal
This example is the kind of thing that seems to be generally associated with the term.
Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
My point is that it's stupid and not particularly helpful at all.
Edit to add (since you edited): That might be where the rub between reverse discrimination and reverse racism comes into play...but 1. That's not how I often hear it used. Most of the usage I hear is just talking about black people being racist against white people in the same way that whites are racist against blacks, but that somehow it's only a one-way conduit, and to reverse it is against the natural order. That's insulting as well as counterproductive.
2. The context you're describing looks like something completely different than racism, at least, the kind of serious, overt racism we're more familiar with. There's a difference between "I don't like black people" and "I don't want to be perceived as not liking black people."
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: No, I'm annoyed that you call several talented and very successful actors, "token," and diminish their very real success, because according to you, their accomplishments aren't meaningful in this discussion. I don't think that's true. I don't think their success *negates* any issue of underrepresentation, but I also don't think their success is *immaterial* to the discussion. You are treating it as if it is. But go back to film in the 1950s and tell me how many black actors were bankable hollywood movie stars? The answer is zero. That has changed. That change has some degree of meaning.
I agree that the how and why *are* far more important. But I don't think it is in the least bit fair to call billion dollar box-office earners "token," anythings.
Your argumentative use of them to imply some sort of parity or fairness in the film industry is what I was objecting to. Intentionally or not, YOU were invoking tokenist language in your argument.
I also think you're reading a lot more into what I said than is actually there if you're really that hot and bothered by it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You invoked "tokenism" as a means of defeating a point that has actual validity. As if pointing out individual successes, where there had been none in the past, is only an attempt to justify the status quo. Hell, I hate Will Smith as an actor, and I think he panders to white audiences with his faked p "urban charm," but I can also acknowledge that there were no such actors 50 years ago. Much less none earning billions of dollars at the box-office. Sorry if that is being tokenist. I think it speaks to a trend. You've seen my take on a lot of cinema, you know I don't have much love for the status quo. Nowhere in this have I said I found black people to be fairly or accurately or lovingly or equally represented in media. They aren't. They just *are* represented. And they are *more* represented now than in the past.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just because you don't say what a thing is actually called doesn't mean you aren't doing it.
And as for your claim that you never made a claim, I point you to this:
quote:Considering Black Americans are12% of the population, and yet comprise 5 of the top 10 highest grossing Hollywood stars, 2 of the most bankable stars, and at least 3 of the highest payed actors in film, I find the idea that blacks are underrepresented in film to be.... For lack of a better word, jive.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Just because you don't say what a thing is actually called doesn't mean you aren't doing it.
And as for your claim that you never made a claim, I point you to this:
quote:Considering Black Americans are12% of the population, and yet comprise 5 of the top 10 highest grossing Hollywood stars, 2 of the most bankable stars, and at least 3 of the highest payed actors in film, I find the idea that blacks are underrepresented in film to be.... For lack of a better word, jive.
I think it *is* jive to make that claim. At least it's an arguable point, and my point in bringing this up was that I didn't think Lucas had much of a right to claim that the movie was not well received by studios because it was an all black movie. For one, the script was apparently not very good. I understand it plays very well into a certain narrative- I just don't buy the narrative.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Just because you don't say what a thing is actually called doesn't mean you aren't doing it.
And as for your claim that you never made a claim, I point you to this:
quote:Considering Black Americans are12% of the population, and yet comprise 5 of the top 10 highest grossing Hollywood stars, 2 of the most bankable stars, and at least 3 of the highest payed actors in film, I find the idea that blacks are underrepresented in film to be.... For lack of a better word, jive.
I think it *is* jive to make that claim. At least it's an arguable point, and my point in bringing this up was that I didn't think Lucas had much of a right to claim that the movie was not well received by studios because it was an all black movie. For one, the script was apparently not very good. I understand it plays very well into a certain narrative- I just don't buy the narrative.
You don't see the connection?
Part of it depends entirely on how you define representation.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It does. And it's sadly telling of Lucas that a movie about black fighter pilots has to be *this* kind of movie, instead of one where the gimmick is, you know, a good movie. Not that he knows what that looks like. I do understand, very well, that black actors are hemmed in by the writing and marketing decisions made long before they are ever considered for parts, in ways that white actors are often not. But I suppose I don't see this film as being anything different from that. Worse even- its a movie in which every casting decision was made based on race, to a degree that there was obviously little attention payed to creating actual characters for the actors to play.
If you want to talk about casting black people more, I agree with movie bob on this: adapt roles for black actors, don't write "black roles", if only because they so often suck so badly, or are so self-consciously written as to be laughable.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
