okay... i get that. as i bought up with the asexual Guinan and the virgin life of Geordi LaForge, i even concur. Spike Lee opened up his flick Jungle Fever with a very "vocal" sex scene. he once said he did this only because he wanted to scare white folks by showing them their secret fear/desire--black people having sex.
but again, why did Hancock set off this controversey? i know the hollywood greenlighters didn't "go there" for the simple reason it wouldn't capture the coveted white male audience; but why did hancock make that such an issue? of all things i'm jes dying to see in a black super hero flick, it ain't sex with charlize theron (not that she's hard on the eyes mind u). if anything, what many of these films display is a lack of black women to play opposite many of these black male leads. if producers are reluctant to play up white women with black male actors, then let's see more black actresses. but then we run into the hollywood problem of more than two black leads in a film makes it a "black movie," and whole blocs of the white viewing public avoid it. plus according to Hollywood the only viable black actress is Halle Berry, who is now a box office draw when paired with a whitle male. i think perhaps those are the larger dynamics Barnes is "sorta" touching on; but I don't know if that translates to the anger being directed at Will Smith or Denzel Washington. "this is bigger than Nino Brown" mho Sin --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, "B. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't think it's about about Hancock in particular. It's about the > continuing practice of not allowing black male characters to be > normal, sexual beings. Hancock was just one of the latest targets. > > One of his posts about a conversation with Samuel L. Jackson on how > Shaft went from the sex machine to being practically chaste is pretty > funny. > > --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, "sincere1906" <sincere1906@> wrote: > > > > So I finally sat down and read *all* of Steven Barnes criticisms of > > Hancock. And all I can say is...wow. Dude, tell me how you really > > feel! > > > > I never been one to shy away for looking at themes of racism or > > sexism, etc in books or movies. From Tolkien's "slant eyed orcs" and > > evil Southrons to even the very progressive Matrix's use of Morpheus > > as second fiddle/wise sage to the "Ameri-asian but perceived as > > white" Keanu Reeves, I've waded into that side of the pool more than > > once. Give me a soapbox, and I'll drone on about everything from > > swarthy noble savage Klingons to Storm's ridiculous blue eyes. In > > fact, I've personally ranted about just that: > > > > http://www.playahata.com/pages/morpheus/xmen.htm > > > > And Frank Miller's 300, set to film, I gleefully ripped to shreds: > > > > http://morpheusrevolutions.blogspot.com/2007/04/300-spartans-1- > > million-persians.html > > > > But I must be getting soft in my 30-somethingness, cuz I'm jes not as > > up in arms about Hancock as some are. No one beat me, but I > > actually...umm...enjoyed it. Racial undertones in there? Sure, I > > guess. One could see that--or not. Some of the points made by Barnes, > > and many others, are interesting and I think deserve discussion. > > Others kind of venture into as much over-reach as Martin Lawrence's > > Boomerang character talking about the "fear of black balls." I jes > > keep reminding myself that the comic book world--especially beyond > > marvel and dc--are filled with shady characters, even anti- heroes. I > > saw Will Smith's role as just that...and kinda liked he wasn't a > > boyscout like Supes, or the typical rich playboy like Wayne or > > Starks. > > > > Was the jail scene questionable? Sure. Did I slightly roll my eyes as > > he sacrificed himself for the blonde chick? Yep. Did I find it > > suspect that they only "inferred" racism with the attack Hancock > > suffered in Florida's past, rather than addressed it fully? Sure. But > > those offenses, imho, are almost minor...and hardly so cut and dry > > for me to become overly adamant about. I don't even know how to > > approach the bit about "why can't Will have sex--especially with his > > white female co-stars." Not sure where exactly that's supposed to be > > going... I'm still waitin for Geordi Laforge and the sexless mammy > > figure of Guinan to get some! > > > > Not saying that the comic book world doesn't have its share of > > playing to common stereotypes. For too many if they're not from some > > slum or the other (X-Men's Bishop even comes from a future slum), > > they're either stuck protecting it (i.e., Spawn), or will eventually > > be forced to sully their hands in it (Storm with a mohawk in the > > Morlock tunnels) at some point. Either that or they're quickly driven > > to rage by racism or turned into angry killing machines (Martha > > Washington, Deathlok, etc). And Hollywood, well...they're just the > > gift that keeps on giving as Barnes points out. > > > > But that of all films--Hancock--would create all this backlash, I > > just don't get it. Oh well, one man's suspicious seeming "dread > > locked" alien hunter is another man's uber-cool Predator...so who am > > I to tell others to not be offended. I welcome Barne's criticisms, > > even if I don't fully agree, or fully understand, some of it. > > > > Sin > > > > > > --- In scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com, "Tracey de Morsella" <tdlists@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > On Behalf Of Chris Hayden > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 8:57 AM > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: [SciFiNoir Lit] Steve Barnes on Hancock > > > > > > > > > > > > http://darkush.blogspot.com/2008/07/hancock-2008.html > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > >
