Kareem: 'La La Land' Is Racist NBA Hall of Famer Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who has been active in race-related issues ever since he was in college at UCLA in the 1960’s, has decided that the film La La Land is racist. Writing in The Hollywood Reporter, As a long-time jazz aficionado, Abdul-Jabbar resents the film for presenting the white jazz musician Sebastian, played by Ryan Gosling, as staying true to traditional jazz while the black character Keith, played by John Legend, sells out as he “corrupted jazz into a diluted pop pablum.” The white guy wants to preserve the black roots of jazz while the black guy is the sellout? This could be a deliberate ironic twist, but if it is, it's a distasteful one for African-Americans. One legitimate complaint that marginalized people (women, people of color, Muslims, the LGBT community, etc.) have had about Hollywood in the past is that when they were portrayed, it was done in a negative way. The ditzy blonde, the Muslim terrorist, the gay predator are all familiar stereotypes from years of TV and movies.
So much has been done in recent years to overcome those debasing images, but we still have to be careful. It's not that a black man can't be the sellout or the drug dealer; it's just that they shouldn't be if they're the only prominent black character in the story. Whether it's intentional or unintentional, that sends a bigoted message rippling through our society. It could be noted that Sebastian’s idea of artistic purity is his own issue; different people have different ideas of what purity in art represents. It would be just as arguable that Keith’s perspective represents an evolution of the art form rather than a bastardization of it, and that Sebastian is the misguided soul who wants to restrain the art of jazz from a natural organic growth. The rest of the review, which is also quite articulate if less emotionally-driven, illuminates the dangers of the film espousing career over personal relationships, which is certainly a legitimate criticism. Abdul Jabbar quotes Mr. Antolini from The Catcher in the Rye asserting, "The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of the mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one."
Abdul Jabbar also stated after the ambush-murder of two Brooklyn police officers by a black man in late 2014, “Police are not under attack, institutionalized racism is.” If he believes ‘institutionalized racism” exists, it’s not surprising he would view La La Land though jaundiced eyes.It’s hard to believe that a film which advocates slavery and demeans black people could have a 100% critical rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and yet this is a fact. Since its release in 1915, The Birth of a Nation has been lauded both as a work of genius, and as the epitome of bigotry. How can it be both? Cinelinx takes a look back at the highly controversial film, The Birth of a Nation on its 100th anniversary. In 1915, D. W. Griffith was one of the hottest up-and-coming directors of the fledgling film industry, with a plan to create the first big budget film epic ever. He did just that, and for decades his magnum opus was considered to be one of the greatest films ever made, and many still believe that.
However, in modern times, it has become more renowned as the most racist film in movie history. Despite the politically incorrect content, most critics still defend the movie for its groundbreaking filmmaking techniques, which helped shape 20 century cinema. (Hence it’s 100% critic rating.) Should this film be vilified because of its racist content or viewed for its influential cinematic achievements? The film industry was still in its infancy in 1915 when Griffith joined with some partners to form Reliance-Majestic Studios in order to create the first genuine large-scale epic in film in history. At a time when most movies were only an hour long or less, D.W. Griffith had the idea to produce a two hour-plus extravaganza. It would take place during the Civil War/Reconstruction period—except that Griffith’s version of history would have a certain personal spin! D.W. Griffith was a highly skilled director who would go on to direct such classics as Intolerance, Broken Blossoms and Orphans of the Storm, but his reputation will forever be tied to this classic of political incorrectness, which is still being debated a century later.
(If that was his goal, then well done!) The film was originally titled The Clansman, but has become better known over the years as the Birth of a Nation. It’s been called one of the most significant films ever and has been preserved by the National Film Registry. It was the first film to be screened at the White House, viewed by US President Woodrow Wilson. It was also the first highly controversial film, since the NAACP (which had recently formed in 1909) protested it and tried to have it banned. The attempts to ban it backfired, causing increased interest in the movie. Some film purists have called this a great masterpiece, and to be fair, in certain respects, this film was a very impressive achievement. It was visually stunning—the sets, the costumes, the North vs. South battle scenes—it was the biggest thing that anyone had ever seen on screen at that time. The amazing battle charge in this film remained unequaled in its deadly realism until Saving Private Ryan. The movie set the trend for the way films would be shot from then on.
Griffith pioneered filming/editing techniques that have become the accepted style of visual narrative ever since. It was hugely successful and is considered the first-ever movie Blockbuster, remaining the highest grossing film for many years. Critics praised it at the time and still do today. However, all these visual accomplishments are ruined by the heinous subject matter and the biased twist on history. The first half of the film depicts the pre-Civil War south as a wonderful place and the last bastion of class and gentility in the world. It also portrays abolitionism as a corrupt liberal plot to ruin the country. And this is actually the less offensive part of the movie! The wheels really come off the wagon in the second half, when it focuses on how freed blacks are ruining the country and portrays the Klu Klux Klan as a group of noble heroes restoring order to the nation. The supposedly ‘uplifting’ ending has the Klansmen forming a barrier to prevent blacks from voting, thus taking any power away from the “savages”.
Most of the black characters in the film are played by white actors in make-up, and are all portrayed as dumb, undisciplined, sexually lustful wildmen. The climax of the film has the evil Lynch (a black character, of course) kidnapping pretty, white Elise (Lillian Gish) and planning to rape her, while at the same time, a white family is trapped in a cabin surrounded by black attackers. Everyone is rescued by the Klansmen, of course The message Griffith intended for his film was that black people could never be integrated into proper society and would always revert to their primal nature, ruining everything. This movie argues that the Klan kept order in the post-war period and saved the country. The film also ignores the fact that the South made the first aggressive actions during the Civil War (at Fort Sumter) and depicts the south as the victims, while President Abraham Lincoln is seen as a warlike dictator. Roger Ebert had an interesting view on this film. He said, “The Birth of a Nation is not a bad film because it argues for evil.
It is a great film that argues for evil. To understand how it does so is to learn a great deal about filmmaking, and even something about evil.” He’s not alone in his praise. Some critics make the claim that The Birth of a Nation is the film that first made people take movies seriously as a medium. Birth of a Nation has even been called the birth of Film as an Artform. On the other hand, it set civil rights back by decades and was credited with the second wave rebirth of the Klan. It would be easy to pretend this exercise in prejudice doesn’t exist, but it does. As Roger Ebert pointed out, “The film is an unavoidable fact of American movie history and must be dealt with.” Supporters of the film can make the argument that The Birth of a Nation is important because it promotes discussion and puts a spotlight on the issue of prejudice. Recently, it’s been shown to college audiences as a lesson on American attitudes towards blacks in the early 20 century. The film’s director is an interesting example of a very racist man who didn’t think himself to be prejudice at all.