Photo Source: The Birth of a Nation (1915), dir. D.W. Griffith
Throughout the month of February, many people are inspired to delve deep into researching and analyzing black history. One of the most popular discourses surrounding blackness is representation in entertainment, both the flattering and unflattering aspects of it. For centuries, African-Americans and other minorities have been subject to false exaggerations when it comes to representation in the mass media. Whether they were producing harmful stereotypes or creating black characters to serve in the background with no dimension. People in the entertainment industry continuously directed, wrote, and produced media that achieved very little for the advancement of integration. Even in modern times, many creative figures still have a difficult time portraying how people within the black community view blackness. In attempts to seem progressive, more and more creators fall victim into reverting back into racist tones; or, at the very least, standing completely still in the fight for equality for minorities.
This idea isn’t completely surprising, considering the long and explicit history of racism depicted in entertainment in America. Going all the way back to the early 1800s, minstrel shows became the most popular form of entertainment for Americans. These plays showcased numerous skits and dance numbers that were meant to laugh at the “foreign lifestyles” of African-Americans. These shows were created by white people for white people. Most of the actors were European immigrants, who would put on blackface to portray the black people in the show and mock their struggles. Other actors were actually African-Americans, who had to put up with the discrimination and abuse in order to put food on the table. These shows were the first insights on how blacks lived for many white Americans. Of course, these portrayals were not at all accurate, but how were the masses supposed to know; and even then, why would they even care? As long as the entertainment value was there, many white Americans could care less if the shows were being realistic, it was realistic enough for them. Many experts argue that these shows helped further justify racism against African-Americans, and it is arguably one of the first examples of entertainment having an influence on people’s real-life perceptions. This can be furthered argued when looking at the film The Birth of a Nation.
In this 1915 film, director D.W. Griffith wanted to showcase what he believed America would look like after the Reconstruction Era. Griffith decided to use his film to justify why black people are inferior and portray them as dangerous predators. Just like the minstrel shows, The Birth of a Nation also featured white actors in blackface. The highly racist representation in this film came from the ideas and fears of black people that were developing in this country pre-and post-Civil War. This is a clear case of art imitating life; however, again like the minstrel shows, this film is also an example of entertainment influencing real life.
The second wave of the Klu Klux Klan rose during the 20th century after this film featured them as the heroes “triumphantly” scare away black people. Griffith’s film also embodied the fear and anxieties the country had around racial mixing, with Mulatto women being portrayed as promiscuous and maniacal.
Mixed women have always had a difficult relationship with representation in Hollywood. Being light-skinned has stonewalled many mixed actresses into choosing specific roles that match their facial features. Dorothy Dandridge, Thandie Newton, Halle Berry, and Rashida Jones are all light-skinned black women who have helped push boundaries in how black women are viewed as performers; however, their journey in doing so has proved difficult as their light skin has limited their range in the roles they have been cast in.
In the film Carmen Jones, Dandridge plays a taboo seductress, designed to be sexually tempting to the audience, who causes the downfall of a soldier’s life. In Monster’s Ball, Berry becomes the tragic mulatto who has to rely on her sexuality in order to survive. These kinds of portrayals of black women have lasting effects on how we treat women of color in real life, believing that they are constantly sexually available and that they deserve the sexual abuse they may get because of their exoticness.
Fredi Washington is another mixed actress who became heavily involved in identity politics. Washington was a Black actress who could pass as White, although she apparently didn’t want to. In the film Imitation of Life, Washington plays Peola, a mixed woman who passed as white, and she wanted to reject her black side completely in order to succeed in life. In Cheryl Black’s “Looking White, Acting Black: Cast(e)ing Fredi Washington” analysis, she writes “whether ‘passing’ constituted progressive or regressive action remains debatable, but in recent years critical race and gender theorists have usefully investigated passing performances in life and art to interrogate identity categories and their construction.” She argues that these ideas of passing (in real life and in entertainment) creates numerous problems in the way we understand race and racism. We view art as reality, and it causes issues in the search for answers to fixing racial tensions.
Looking at the history of representation in mass media gives us a better understanding of how we view race in entertainment today. If we examine the reception to these select films, shows, and actresses, we can see how they shaped viewpoints for Americans for centuries. Many may argue that representation is not supposed to portray reality in a completely realistic and accurate way; however, because many people either look to representation for their introduction to another reality or they look to it for their own self-worth, it is important that we address how media tends to interpret what it means to be Black. So that the next time we see a film like Monster’s Ball, Carmen Jones, or even Green Book, we can praise it for being enjoyable movies, but we should also ask the questions: does this really move the pole in any way in regards to race relations and racism, and what do these images of representation say about blackness? For those three films specifically, it can be argued that it does very little to move the pole and that they are responsible for giving people false ideas of blackness and hope that racism can easily be exterminated. More and more filmmakers are realizing just how much power they hold when it comes to shifting identity or political views for the masses. Whether that is a good or bad thing, who am I to say, but I believe that more people should be aware of how they’re viewed on-screen by others.
