Movies about race are highly detailed and intended to get the viewer to be moved. Common sense would say, "A movie about African Americans had to have been made by an African Director". That is not true.
For example, let's look at the movie Glory by Edward Zwick. Zwick is white and the movie is about an all black army regiment, the 54th Massachusetts. The colonel of the regiment is white and it is told through his point of view. The movie touched well on the treatment of blacks in the army and how well of fighters they turned out to be. But would it be a better story if told by a black director?
In my opinion, it would be different, to an extent. The central focus would likely change depending on the directors ethnicity but the general idea would be the same. It's all about why the movie is being made that sets up how the movie will play out. If you look at Spike Lee's film Do the Right Thing, It looks at the life of a Brooklyn street corner and the people living there. There are racial issues, culture aspects, the lifestyle of the lower class and many other things in the movie. Would it be the same if done by a white director? Possibly, if that director was from Brooklyn. Lee is from Brooklyn and I think that is what made the movie so powerful, not race.
Race isn't the only thing that determines how a movie can turn out. Where they are from, how were they raised, political views, even gender can play a role on how a movie turns out.
Anyway the point is this, race can play a role in this area and so can other little details. But, as long as the director has good intentions and motivation to get things right, then the movie will be greatly accurate and just as good at representing whatever it is that is being represented if the other guy had made it.
Sadly that isn't the case with most Hollywood directors because things end up twisted and inaccurate just for the sake of $money$. I hate people sometimes...
No comments:
Post a Comment