- Share This Post
- Pin It
- 2
- 13
-
Sparkle (2)
A couple of days ago, I was talking to a co-worker who has a friend (young, upper middle-class and white) who is a writer at a large national newspaper in Toronto. Her friend had recently gotten a promotion, which meant that he was moved from the Arts section to News. While the promotion meant more money, he was upset because he loved what he was doing and because they opened the Arts department to “minorities.” In his opinion, she said, he felt that the newspaper wanted to promote a more “diverse” set of cultural events and laud their “minority” writers. “And the fact that one of the writers is gay and South Asian means that they kill two birds with one stone,” she joked.
I knew who she was talking about, a well-regarded journalist with several years of experience. I kept my mouth shut.
“Well, I don’t see anything wrong with that,” I remarked.
“He says that the section has gone downhill since he left. He doesn’t think that anyone is going to be interested in what they write, and the reporting is crappy."
“So what he means is that he knows what people want to read and because of their color, these writers automatically don’t?” I questioned her. She went silent. “I think that he is being very subjective with his thinking.”
Call it being a tad sensitive because of the recent reviews by non-Black (and male) reviewers who have written about For Colored Girls, the movie that was based on the legendary play by Ntozake Shange, or call it simply being sick and of subjective thinking presented as fact:If y’all don’t agree with me there is something wrong with you.
Here is an example of a movie review by a non-Black male writer from Comingsoon.net:
Maybe Perry's efforts could be taken more seriously if he made even the slightest effort to include a wider variety of races in his movie because the women's issues expressed by Shange aren't ones that only black women have to contend with; Perry could easily have brought in a Latina or Asian actress to show they have the same problems. In fact, there are only two white people in the entire movie, token background actors that you'll miss if you happen to blink during their appearances. It's fairly insulting that an Atlanta filmmaker would come to New York City to film a movie and not bother to show even an inkling of the racial diversity of the city, even in Harlem.
But that is integral to the movie, you fool! The play was written by a Black women about Black women and experiences that have happened to Black women! However, a "Black"-oriented movie is seen as segregational, and the reviewer conveniently forgets how the majority of mainstream movies are dominated by White, Anglo men and women. I highly doubt that if a Black reviewer chose to ponder about the lack of diversity in a movie or a TV show, their concerns would be taken seriously (Sex and the City, anyone?)
The reviewer not only has not read the original play, but also has not done any research as to the "theme" of not only the original play, but also the meaning behind the poetry and the characters. While this was posted online and some have dismissed online writing as the rants of people who can’t get a job in a print publication, because of the number of commenters, it’s obvious that people are not only reading the review, but they have been compelled to respond. Here is a response to the above:
I think it’s cute and quite comical actually, to read this critique of For Colored Girls. What seems to have been forgotten, which Lynn described so nicely, is that this film displays as best can be, the play. Instead, we’ve got a critic who has clearly spent more time counting the color and hues of those featured in the movie, that the messages in the film were completely missed ... Watch the movie again or read the book, but please don’t display your ignorance to the degree that you have for everyone to see without proof reading and having full understanding of the art form you’re attempting to criticize. I’m embarrassed for you.
As a working journalist and someone who writes
