Whitewashin' the Civil Rights Movement for Feel-Good Entertainment

I was going to post about this in the "This Movie is Going to Suck" thread, but then decided it deserved its own thread. Opening to mixed reviews,
The Help (warning: site plays "inspirational" music) brands itself as "a timeless and universal story about the ability to create change" ...Except the only one who even tries to create change is the plucky white protagonist, who saves all dem negroes from themselves, or something. The movie production is shitty enough in its own right to merit a post here, but what it does to the real history of the Civil Rights movement is disgusting.




The entire plot is spurred by some white woman's idea for "the help" to use separate bathrooms in their white employers' homes. No lie, institutional racism is turned into a comical fight over bathrooms. And clearly no depiction of black folk could be complete without sassy black women going "MMM HMMM" because black people 50 years ago were exactly the same as black people today! The trailer even includes the line "these women raise white children, and we love them and they love us..." Sure, your black mammy who feeds you because she can't get any other job means she "loves" you. While I admit I have not seen the entirety of this movie, I think it's safe to say even from the trailer that all of the black characters in this film are turned into scenery for the sake of the young white protagonist who can feel better about herself because she opened her fucking eyes while completely missing the intricacies of institutional racism.

The Association of Black Women Historians has a full statement on their website which is better than anything I can say.

This is why it's so fucking hard for people to grasp what is and is not racism these days, because of comic portrayals of racism, and even supposedly "progressive" narratives like this are more concerned with uplifting white people than acknowledging the painful reality.

Wait, you didn't see the whole movie?

So, you didn't see that the black maids actually had full screen time? The movie is about their stories. The white girl, Skeeter, asks them to tell them to her because the civil rights movement is going on and she thinks it will help people better understand just how bad it is in the South.

The women she interviews are given a bigger chunk of screen time, since Skeeter is just the vessel. We see how frightened they are of everything going on (One woman, Aibileen. is older, one, Minny, has children she needs to support), and we see the good and the bad of their lives. Aibileen loves children, and is employed as mainly a nanny. But Minny points out to her that just because the children love her when they are children, doesn't mean they don't turn out to be just as bad as their parents when they get older. Aibileen has a hard time accepting this, especially since she has lost her only child. Minny gets employment as a cook, but her mouth, which is less "sassy" and more her getting angry at being treated as less than human. She is just as frightened as Aibileen, more so because of her children, but she is younger and less willing to be walked on.

What we see from Skeeter's point of view is the result of children raised by women that they love, but are then told are lesser than them. Her nanny, Constantine, raised her, and she loves the woman. But she is told over and over to let it go, that she needs to now listen to her mother, the woman who mostly ignored her as a child. Skeeter's perspective does have a point to the story.

If anything, Aibileen and Minny are interesting characters. They are frightened of the violence, frightened they are going to be randomly targeted, and that if they get caught talking to Skeeter about their lives, they and their loved ones will get hurt, a very real fear. But they keep talking, because they want things to change. Not everyone was a fearless crusader. Some were just people scared for their children, for their lives.

The movie wasn't very funny at all actually. There were some very interesting moments, but overall, the subject matter was treated pretty seriously. These were people's lives, every day. It was frightening.

It has flaws, yes. But I don't think it's so godawful it deserves a place here.

I liked it. Seriously, a person needs to actually see the movie instead of just the trailer before complaining about it.

It had some funny moments, yes, but the majority of the film was serious, and I did not find it to be a "feel good" movie. If anything, it brought home just how hard African-Americans (especially women) had it in the South at that time.

Lapin wrote:

Wait, you didn't see the whole movie?

No I did not, and I'll admit it right up front and acknowledge that it's very valid point. I won't be seeing it because I've got other things to spend money on (besides $12 for a movie ticket) so I can't counter your opinion that I need to appreciate the entirety.

That said, I think most of my criticism of the trailer is still valid. The "sassiness" I mentioned happens at 0:53 in the trailer, with the stereotypical black woman roll. Unless the characterization differs significantly in the rest of the movie, it's also a valid point that the movie projects at least a bit of today's black female stereotypes back into the 60s.

Lapin wrote:

If anything, Aibileen and Minny are interesting characters. They are frightened of the violence, frightened they are going to be randomly targeted, and that if they get caught talking to Skeeter about their lives, they and their loved ones will get hurt, a very real fear. But they keep talking, because they want things to change. Not everyone was a fearless crusader. Some were just people scared for their children, for their lives.

I want to respond to this, because you have a very valid point here, that not everyone was a crusader. That's very true and important to acknowledge, but at the same time, why does there have to be a white protagonist to lead them along? Why can't the full range of participation be acknowledged without having to interject that white people helped out too?

I also don't think it's a coincidence that this movie is coming out now, the way race relations currently are in the US. Again, why couldn't Skeeter have been black herself? (Yes, I know the movie is based on a book but that's not what I'm talking about). Having a black protagonist probably would have drastically changed the film, but is that necessarily a bad thing? I think it says something when a film about the Civil Rights movement has to have a white protagonist to be palatable to mainstream audiences.

Also, there are plenty of critics who have seen the entire film.

Owlish wrote:

I won't be seeing it because I've got other things to spend money on (besides $12 for a movie ticket) so I can't counter your opinion that I need to appreciate the entirety.

$12 for a movie ticket? Where do you go to see movies? I paid $5.50.

Quote :

That said, I think most of my criticism of the trailer is still valid. The "sassiness" I mentioned happens at 0:53 in the trailer, with the stereotypical black woman roll. Unless the characterization differs significantly in the rest of the movie, it's also a valid point that the movie projects at least a bit of today's black female stereotypes back into the 60s.

I didn't notice much sassiness, except for where

Spoiler:

Quote :

I want to respond to this, because you have a very valid point here, that not everyone was a crusader. That's very true and important to acknowledge, but at the same time, why does there have to be a white protagonist to lead them along?

I have to question who was leading who. Yes, the idea was Skeeter's, though she comes up with it after watching the way the black maids are treated while trying to get advice for the housekeeping column she's writing for the newspaper. On the other hand, she has a terrible time convincing most of the maids to talk to her, since they were indeed putting themselves in danger by speaking out, and also because the Jim Crow laws forbade anyone to promote equality between black and white (this is emphasized at one point in the film). It isn't until

Spoiler:

that most of the women are willing to talk to Skeeter. Without the cooperation of the women she was writing about, her book would never have been written.

Quote :

Why can't the full range of participation be acknowledged without having to interject that white people helped out too?

Um...because the civil rights movement wouldn't have happened without many people of all races working together towards a common goal? Yes, I know that some groups split off by race, but that isn't what this movie is about. Black people and white people did, in fact, work together during the civil rights movement (I know some people who were involved, including one white man who knew Martin Luther King Jr. when they were both in seminary and admired him even then). I see nothing wrong with acknowledging this fact, even if it isn't regarded as politically correct by some people.

No fart jokes? No fast cars? No explosions?

It had better be a porno or I'm not going to like it.

Honestly, I saw the trailer and thought "Oh holy shit, this is going to be SO FUCKING BAD. Another shitty 'feel good' movie with the added bonus of certainly inciting a race war."

Why do people make "feel good" movies? They all suck. All of them, without equal (well, maybe Belladonna can equal them). If I wanted to feel good, I'd drink or compare myself to a Canadian.

Quote :

The Association of Black Women Historians

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Why do people make "feel good" movies? They all suck. All of them, without equal

I loved this movie, and no, I did not feel good after watching it. I almost cried when Skeeter's mother was talking about what happened to Constantine. I wanted to beat Hilly for being so horridly vain, vapid, and racist.

Sure, the plot had to many subplots, some of which I don't think were resolved. It was a tad slow in some places. The humor could be a bit jarring to some people.

It wasn't feel good. It made me angry, and wish that Jim Crow and segregation had never happened.

CaptainMcNeil wrote:

I loved this movie, and no, I did not feel good after watching it. I almost cried when Skeeter's mother was talking about what happened to Constantine. I wanted to beat Hilly for being so horridly vain, vapid, and racist.

Sure, the plot had to many subplots, some of which I don't think were resolved. It was a tad slow in some places. The humor could be a bit jarring to some people.

It wasn't feel good. It made me angry, and wish that Jim Crow and segregation had never happened.

IAWTC.

White people need to shut up about racial issues. Especially about black civil rights movement.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

White people need to shut up about racial issues. Especially about black civil rights movement.

CaptainMcNeil wrote:

I loved this movie, and no, I did not feel good after watching it. I almost cried when Skeeter's mother was talking about what happened to Constantine. I wanted to beat Hilly for being so horridly vain, vapid, and racist.

That's one of the problems I'm getting at. There's a myth that racism is something done purposefully by *awful people* who have no redeeming qualities and are defined by their racism. They're not. Racists are average people who do good and bad things and are usually not intentionally racist. They are, however, unintentionally racist.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

White people need to shut up about racial issues. Especially about black civil rights movement.

Uh, what? So, just because someone is white means they're not allowed to talk about race ever? Skin color does not bar someone from speaking on a certain topic, nor is it a prerequisite for participating in the discussion. I once had a African Studies professor who stumped the class by asking whether it was her black skin that gave her the authority to lecture on blackness, or the years of work she had put in getting her PhD.

Lady Anne wrote:

Yeah don't waste your time contributing to the thread or anything, just keep upping that post count!

Owlish wrote:

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

White people need to shut up about racial issues. Especially about black civil rights movement.

Uh, what? So, just because someone is white means they're not allowed to talk about race ever? Skin color does not bar someone from speaking on a certain topic, nor is it a prerequisite for participating in the discussion. I once had a African Studies professor who stumped the class by asking whether it was her black skin that gave her the authority to lecture on blackness, or the years of work she had put in getting her PhD.

If black people have a problem they're free to speak out. Why is it white people's business? Are they too incompetent to protest these things on their own?

Hahahaha, wow.

Howithurts wrote:

Owlish wrote:

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

White people need to shut up about racial issues. Especially about black civil rights movement.

Uh, what? So, just because someone is white means they're not allowed to talk about race ever? Skin color does not bar someone from speaking on a certain topic, nor is it a prerequisite for participating in the discussion. I once had a African Studies professor who stumped the class by asking whether it was her black skin that gave her the authority to lecture on blackness, or the years of work she had put in getting her PhD.

If black people have a problem they're free to speak out. Why is it white people's business? Are they too incompetent to protest these things on their own?

In the Jim Crow era, a black person who spoke out was liable to wind up six feet under. White people who spoke out about racial issues didn't tend to fare too well either. It took a hell of a lot of courage for anyone to speak out.

Also, why shouldn't white people speak out about black people's problems (and vice versa)? Aren't we all affected by what happens in this country/world/universe? We're all the same fucking species.

Owlish wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

Yeah don't waste your time contributing to the thread or anything, just keep upping that post count!

I guess you missed my first post in this thread.

Sum Dum Ho wrote:

It wasn't feel good. It made me angry, and wish that Jim Crow and segregation had never happened.

. . .

You were okay with these things before you saw the movie?

You actually paid to see this shit?

Howithurts wrote:

If black people have a problem they're free to speak out. Why is it white people's business? Are they too incompetent to protest these things on their own?

Either you have the reading comprehension skills of a four year old, or you're a troll. Though not the worst troll to hang around these parts...

Lady Anne wrote:

Owlish wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

Yeah don't waste your time contributing to the thread or anything, just keep upping that post count!

I guess you missed my first post in this thread.

I saw your first two posts, decided they proved my point re: inability to grasp racism, and didn't have the energy to respond. Your subsequent post count bumping was somewhat amusing.

Lady Anne wrote:

Aren't we all affected by what happens in this country/world/universe? We're all the same fucking species.

Not according to artificially intelligent chimpanzees whose only socialisation having been an adult Draco Malfoy.

Spoiler:

Owlish wrote:

Either you have the reading comprehension skills of a four year old, or you're a troll. Though not the worst troll to hang around these parts...

And who's to say I can't have both?

Owlish wrote:

Howithurts wrote:

If black people have a problem they're free to speak out. Why is it white people's business? Are they too incompetent to protest these things on their own?

Either you have the reading comprehension skills of a four year old, or you're a troll. Though not the worst troll to hang around these parts...

Lady Anne wrote:

Owlish wrote:

Lady Anne wrote:

Yeah don't waste your time contributing to the thread or anything, just keep upping that post count!

I guess you missed my first post in this thread.

I saw your first two posts, decided they proved my point re: inability to grasp racism, and didn't have the energy to respond. Your subsequent post count bumping was somewhat amusing.

Maybe you should try giving your definition of racism, 'cause you're not making sense.

Also, criticizing a movie you haven't seen makes you sound like Mr. Comic Book, bawwing that a movie is going to suck because you saw a preview you didn't like.

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

White people need to shut up about racial issues. Especially about black civil rights movement.

Howithurts wrote:

If black people have a problem they're free to speak out. Why is it white people's business? Are they too incompetent to protest these things on their own?

Yeah, I know, it is not like the white people in this country are richer, better educated, and more politically powerful on average than the black people, and typically have more influence on the economy. I mean, why would a black person ever want or need their help?

And, you know, trying to understand and appreciate cultures other then your own is so totally passe. Why would anyone in a racial majority ever even want to discuss those in a minority? Best to just forget they exist!

In the OP I said

Quote :

This is why it's so fucking hard for people to grasp what is and is not racism these days

because of movies like this, because of its reliance upon old racist tropes which it packages as "enlightening racial dialogue." And like it or not, I don't have to watch the movie to see that it's yet another instance of white people telling black people's stories. Not only is it a white person telling black people's stories, it's a white person telling the stories of the "black mammy," the dumpy dark-skinned maid who "loves" the white children she cares for, as it says in the trailer--a very old trope historically used to justify black servitude. Anyone who cares/needs an explanation of it can read about it here. (And I recommend you do so before you try to say that Minny and Aibileen aren't mammies.)

Lady Anne wrote:

Owlish wrote:

That said, I think most of my criticism of the trailer is still valid. The "sassiness" I mentioned happens at 0:53 in the trailer, with the stereotypical black woman roll. Unless the characterization differs significantly in the rest of the movie, it's also a valid point that the movie projects at least a bit of today's black female stereotypes back into the 60s.

I didn't notice much sassiness,

Then you didn't look very closely.

Lady Anne wrote:

I have to question who was leading who. Yes, the idea was Skeeter's, though she comes up with it after watching the way the black maids are treated while trying to get advice for the housekeeping column she's writing for the newspaper. On the other hand, she has a terrible time convincing most of the maids to talk to her, since they were indeed putting themselves in danger by speaking out, and also because the Jim Crow laws forbade anyone to promote equality between black and white (this is emphasized at one point in the film).

So, a young white southern girl's only experience of black people is through watching how her family treats their maid? Really? I think it stretches credulity that a character like Skeeter doesn't notice that black people are treated unequally, and doesn't have a problem with it, until it affects her personally. Why does it have to be the loss of her cherished old maid that makes her open her eyes? (Hint: see the mammy trope above.)

Also, the fact that they acknowledged Jim Crow and its brutality means nothing, other than that the movie is not a piece of revisionist crap. When I said "feel good movie" I didn't mean that it airbrushes over all violence--I mean that it allows people an escape, an excuse, or a justification for that violence.

Lady Anne wrote:

Without the cooperation of the women she was writing about, her book would never have been written.

So they cooperated, while Skeeter gets the glory of actually writing the book, is that it? We like to forget that many, many black people did speak out, under all manner of threats and violence, through various media. They did so during slavery, before and after segregation, and they continue to do so. White people don't need to write the stories for them, because many black people write and speak their own stories themselves. That Skeeter's story is the only one worth dramatizing through film is yet another example of white privilege.

Quote :

Um...because the civil rights movement wouldn't have happened without many people of all races working together towards a common goal? Yes, I know that some groups split off by race, but that isn't what this movie is about. Black people and white people did, in fact, work together during the civil rights movement (I know some people who were involved, including one white man who knew Martin Luther King Jr. when they were both in seminary and admired him even then). I see nothing wrong with acknowledging this fact, even if it isn't regarded as politically correct by some people.

My comment was in reference to portraying the range of responses by blacks to civil rights activism, but if you insist on making that about white people too, ok then. The fact is that many more white people opposed the Civil Rights movement than supported it. I don't mean to belittle the efforts of white people who did support it, but the movement for black civil rights was led by black leaders and largely supported by black people. Is it really necessary to praise white people for being involved too?

This is what I meant by the thread subtitle "the Civil Rights movement as told by white people." It was not some fairy tale "all races coming together for a common effort" bs, and trying to paint it that way distorts history and fails to acknowledge the myth of race itself--like it's surprising and worthy of praise for someone of one skin color to acknowledge the inequality suffered by someone of a different skin color. I'm sorry, but your comment is a prime example of white privilege: constantly needing whiteness acknowledged.

Also, protip: If you feel compelled to acknowledge that your comment is not "politically correct," there's a good chance that comment is racist.

Owlish wrote:

Not only is it a white person telling black people's stories

Honestly, that's how I read this post:

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

White people need to shut up about racial issues. Especially about black civil rights movement.

- that's what it seems to be referring to.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Owlish wrote:

Not only is it a white person telling black people's stories

Honestly, that's how I read this post:

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

White people need to shut up about racial issues. Especially about black civil rights movement.

Pfff, you are probably right. I mean, we do need to bend over backwards to point out that some white people managed to succeed in not being total dicks about race. I just really dislike the idea of civil equality being a minorities only club.

Reepicheep-chan wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Owlish wrote:

Not only is it a white person telling black people's stories

Honestly, that's how I read this post:

XLT-100852.0 wrote:

White people need to shut up about racial issues. Especially about black civil rights movement.

Pfff, you are probably right. I mean, we do need to bend over backwards to point out that some white people managed to succeed in not being total dicks about race. I just really dislike the idea of civil equality being a minorities only club.

I know what you mean, and we chalkies have our part to play, but in North America, Europe and Australia we're in the majority, and that means shutting up and paying attention to people who are actually affected by racial oppression.