brooksmoses: (Default)
[personal profile] brooksmoses
So The Toast posted an essay on the Black woman character in the new "Ghostbusters" movie as she shows up in the trailer. In particular, an essay about the ways that at least in the trailer she's reflecting all the stereotyped Hollywood (and broader-culture) portrayals of black women.

You could read this for the view on "Ghostbusters" and what to make of it as a social-justice-promoting movie for its having an all-female ghostbusting team, and whether you're likely to like to movie.

You could also read this as a very clearly encapsulated illustration of the ways that "I included a positive character who's not a standard white male, so I'm doing my part for diversity" can fail in ways that are worse than not including them, and exactly why that failure state is possible. There are no doubt all sorts of subtleties and corner issues and ways that well-intentioned writers can unknowingly do this badly -- but this isn't one of those cases. This is a very clear and easily-explained and obvious (at least once explained) example, and the things that lead to the problems are big and easy to see.

This seems like a good antidote for writers who are worried that they will do this sort of thing by accident. Go, read this. Here's what the problem actually looks like, and how it works, and why. This isn't a subtle trap that people run into despite trying not to; it is not at all hard to avoid this instance of this problem. It is not at all hard to do a lot better than this. And, once you've written a thing, you can ask people to beta-read it and tell you if it's doing this in a subtle way -- and, if it is, you now know how the problem works so you can fix it.

As is usual with The Toast, also read the comments. The comments are good, and add extra commentary -- such as one that points out the importance of taking responsibility for why your audience is laughing at your jokes, as well as for making them laugh.

Date: 2016-03-11 06:28 pm (UTC)
rosefox: Green books on library shelves. (Default)
From: [personal profile] rosefox
I'm glad they included info on Jones's history playing those types of roles and her comfort with it. That's an important element that I think has been left out of a lot of the reactions/analyses.

The trailer made me really uncomfortable in its depiction of all the women; Jones's was just the most obviously bad.

Date: 2016-03-11 06:53 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
It really felt to me like a very modern comedy . . . which I do not mean as a complement. There was basically zero verbal wit on display, just the "throw some words and a gross-out moment at the screen" approach that makes so many comedy movies these days unappealing to me. As a result, I couldn't tell you anything about any of the characters other than "one of them is black" -- they all smear together into the same Comedy Woman I've seen in a thousand other trailers.

Right now I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the actual movie is better than its trailer. God knows those things are frequently not representative, sometimes in good ways, sometimes in bad.

Date: 2016-03-16 04:54 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I agree - one of the reasons I'm not as bothered by her character is precisely that they have this actress/comic who can do X really well, so, hey, go give us some X!

But I do wish they'd twisted things. It would be intriguing to have scientifically accurate statements made in a Loud Black Woman's voice.


brooksmoses: (Default)

October 2017

1 234567

Page Summary

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 22nd, 2017 04:48 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios