Has black representation changed referring to movies such as Man on Fire and Glory

Over time there has been a significant shift in the way in which black people have been represented by the Hollywood film industry. Man on Fire (Dir. Tony Scott, 2004) can be used to illustrate this shift, but can also show the way in which black representations are still used to convey mythic messages that support the dominant ideologies and concerns that affect American life. Similarly, whilst at the surface celebrating, and commemorating, the heroism of black combatants in the American Civil War, Glory (Dir. Edward Zwik, 1989) can also be seen to reinforce primarily white-male-centred American ideological positions. I intend to use these movies, particularly Man on Fire, as the focus of a discussion of how black representation has changed over time within Hollywood movies.

One of the most controversial representations of black people occurs in the seminal early silent Hollywood movie; The Birth of Nation (Dir. D. W. Griffith , 1915). Mark Cousins describes the movie as ‘appallingly racist’ . It’s depiction of the threat of black men to innocent white women, is central to the narrative. It compounds this racial slander by casting white men in make up to play the part of the rapacious blacks. The movie has been the subject of intense critical and social debate since it was first screened. It has also been accused of being the stimulus for the resurgence of the Klu Klux Klan, as not only was its release greeted by ex members of the Klan but ‘by the mid-1920s, KKK membership was four million’ . In Man on Fire, Denzel Washington provides a totally different representation of black men. Here we are given an image of a cultured, intelligent, physically attractive, and heroic, black male. Similarly, in Glory the members of the 54th Massachussets Infantry, including Denzel Washington in his conflicted Oscar winning performance , are positive role models whose courage at the climax of the movie earns them the respect of their previously antagonistic Northern comrades. Obviously, there have been great strides from the early, inauspicious example set by Griffith.

However, Griffith’s movie by using white actors to portray black people also illustrates another feature of black representation within early Hollywood. It is an example of the near invisibility of black actors as rounded lead characters. For decades following this movie black characters were stereotypically subservient or comic or both. This is shown in Gone with the Wind (Dir. Victor Fleming and others, 1939), where, as slaves, they are essentially objects that decorate the set.

Another stereotypical role for black actors can be found in what Robert Ray calls ‘the finest movie ever made’ . Sam (Dooley Wilson) is an iconic part of Casablanca (Dir. Michael Curtiz, 1943). He is the bar musician. He decorates the set and provides atmosphere for the movie. However, he also serves to move the plot forward by commentating, through his music, on the love between Rick (Humphrey Bogart) and Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman). His performance of As Time Goes By , has been immortalised in the often misquoted ‘play it again Sam’. However, because he is a friend of Rick and has a part ownership in the club, there are critics who argue that Casablanca is more enlightened than other movies of its time .

Even by comparison with Dooley Wilson’s role, Creasy (Denzel Washington), represents a significant advance in black representation within Hollywood movies. Creasy is the focal point, the subject, of the movie. As a representation of black men within society he is also a development from earlier blacksploitation movies; perhaps best typified by the Shaft films of the early 70s [Shaft (Dir. Gordon Parks, 1971), Shaft’s Big Score (Dir. Gordon Parks, 1972), and Shaft In Africa (Dir. John Guillermin, 1973)], ‘Shaft DEFINED the genre, man. Who else could rule it?’ . . The movies are based on crime, sex and the potency of Shaft in both spheres of action. Significantly and in direct opposition to the portrayal of black men as rapists in Birth of a Nation there is no sexual involvement by Creasy within the movie. His love interest is purely paternal in nature. These 70s commercial movies were designed to build on the growing earning power of popular black culture and especially popular black music which is one of the defining characteristics of black people within the media. In contrast, one telling sequence in Man on Fire is where Pita (Dakota Fanning) asks Creasy what his favourite music is. That Creasy does not know can be taken as an admission that he does not know who he is. No black person represented in early 70s movies would be thrown by such a question; they would have a firm cultural grounding. By this simple device Creasy is shown to be displaced from his roots.

This adds to the sense of disquiet that is created by his excessive drinking and by his troubled sleep and hazy flashbacks. We learn that he has been a very effective member of an American counter intelligence group. He is a trained killer who, according to his friend and one time colleague Paul Rayburn (Christopher Walken), is the ‘artist of death’; he ‘will deliver more justice in a weekend’ than all the legal agencies of Mexico City . In some way Creasy is both the Wild Bunch , and the Magnificent Seven rolled up into one person as he cleans up the corruption of Mexico City . Equally, he is a Rambo revenge figure , a parallel brought out in the scene where he chooses his immense arsenal.

Both Rayburn and Creasy have tried to put their past actions as trained killers in Thailand, Pakistan, and Libya behind them. Rayburn has found a wife and a job, Creasy seeks to run from his past in Jack Daniels whisky and an attempted suicide. This suggests he is more psychologically damaged than his white colleague. Several factors combine to reassure the audience that Creasy will come good. The first is his star stature, knowledge of which we bring to the movie. This is a star noted for sympathetically representing black people who, whilst difficult, are ultimately dependable; as is exemplified in Glory. The second is his paternal relationship with Pita. This angelic, half American by blood, but totally American angelic looking blond tells us through her desire to make him a friend that Creasy is innately good. It reinforces Lisa’s (Radha Mitchell) instant acceptance of Creasy, who as an American must be good. Pita literally becomes his redemptive angel; she brings him back to god; she gives him a reason for living.

The religious theme is a return to familiar ground for audiences used to seeing black people portrayed as gospel-loving, god-fearing people. This is exemplified in Glory when the men of the 54th meet under the tree for Gospel singing and to express their feeling, beliefs, and thoughts on the forthcoming carnage. It is believable, even by secular audience members, because it is part of the recurring image of black people that has been presented by the media. We do not experience any surprise, therefore, on discovering Creasy reads the bible, even to the extent that he can reference the headmistress’s quote from Romans Chapter 12 verse 21. In fact we would probably be surprised to discover a black person who is not religious, so prevalent is the myth propagated by Hollywood. This religious theme takes on almost mystical significance when Creasy tries to kill himself. Bullets rarely misfire in modern weapons, in a movie they do so for a purpose, therefore, he must be being saved for something. As he stands in the rain, following his abortive suicide attempt, he sees Pita in the window. The meaning is clear; she is why he has not been allowed to die. God is pre-sanctioning his excesses later in the movie. Her American goodness and her role as the agent of his redemption are sufficient dramatic motive for the orgy of killing and torture that is to follow. As Guy Westwell says, it is impossible to consider this movie without taking into account the parallels between Creasy’s actions and the actions of America in places such as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay . The kidapping and killing of Pita takes on the moral equivalence of the 9/11 attack on the Twin Towers in New York. Creasy may be, as Pita is open and honest enough to point out, black, but he is a black American and this empowers him to take retribution into his own hands.

Creasy is, therefore a different character from the anti-hero of the Shaft movies; he can be considered, together with Pita, as a metaphor for a new multiracial tolerant America. He is shown to be damaged by his work for America as it seeks to impose American values and the new world order. However when America, personified virtuously by Pita, is attacked he returns to himself and uses his power to revenge the wrong. Man on Fire is one of several recent ‘revenge’ movies identified by Guy Westwell . These movies could be seen to represent a reflection of the American psyche following the 9/11 attack, or they could be the product of a particular Hollywood trend. Probably they are both, as Westwell correctly identifies that both the writer and the director have dealt with this theme before . The complexities surrounding the theme of revenge are mirrored in the complex character of Creasy. It is this complex characterisation that typifies how black representations are becoming more nuanced with less emphasis on black people being either stereotypically bad or good.

It is possible to identify a number of movies during the last two decades in which black people have been depicted as almost too good as if to compensate in some way for earlier representations. They may be totally positive as Morgan Freeman’s portrayal of Sgt. Major John Rawlins in Glory, or good but flawed as in Freeman’s portrayal of Ellis Boyd (Red) Redding in The Shawshank Redemption (Dir. Frank Darabont. 1994). None, however, have been shown having the capacity for obscene violence in the cause of revenge as Creasy. From the viewpoint of black representations this can be welcomed as a deepening of the functions and meanings that can be portrayed by a black actor. However, it does raise the question of how such an actor might be being manipulated to maintain the myths that underpin American cultural and political dominance. An interesting parallel can perhaps be drawn between Creasy, as an undercover soldier of the USA, and black soldiers of the Second World War. It could be argued that Man on Fire, as well as being a modern Western, is a thinly disguised war movie. The war is on terrorism and crime and Creasy, the soldier, exhibits manly courage and certainty in his actions following the report of Pita’s death. Courage and certainty are highly desirable in Hollywood movies and documentaries about the war, but they leave no room for doubt even for black people who might, given their history of oppression, have different views about coercive involvement in the Third World. The dominant view prevails in Man on Fire, as well as in documentaries about black involvement in the war. Yet in focussing on these male, power-related attributes, Man on Fire and the documentaries seek to achieve closure of meanings and not allow for doubt:

In relying on the dominant culture's notions of manly courage, the documentary overlooks the possibility of black cowardice and the uncertainty that some blacks harbored (sic) over the propriety of fighting to defend a European colonial power .

The movie does not allow the audience much room to condemn Creasy even when we discover that, like Weapons of Mass Destruction, Pita’s death is an illusion. However, it is open to the individual audience member to create his or her own meaning from Man on Fire. Audience members have to decide for themselves if his being a black man provides an adequate psychological reason for Creasy being more dramatically affected by what he has done in third world countries than is Paul Rayburn. Does the racial memory of slavery provide a greater sense of guilt? Or, is it not a racial but a personal issue?

At first sight Glory does not present such a complex clash of meanings within one black character. It does, however validate the ideal of manly courage, only suggesting fear or cowardice obliquely in the actions and the words of Robert Gould Shaw (Matthew Broderick). For example, does Shaw remain lying slightly wounded on the battle field at the start of the movie because he is afraid? It is an open question but it turns him into one of the most rounded characters in a movie that can be considered an epic rather than a classical Hollywood vehicle for individualist exploits. The movie is described accurately as a ‘moving, if somewhat sanitised, account of the stirrings of black freedom .’ It serves to tell the audience that black people were part of the movement to emancipate themselves. It also tells the audience that black soldiers played a part in maintaining the Union; ‘President Lincoln credited these men of colour with helping turn the tide of war.’ . Private Trip (Denzel Washington) is central to this didactic theme. In a role somewhat similar to that of Creasy he develops from an outsider to a fully integrated American. In the climactic battle he overcomes his feelings of alienation from the Union. Denying his earlier declaration that he fights the war for his own reasons, he takes up the flag sacrificing himself for the most potent symbol of the United States. This is a highly emotional moment in a movie full of such moments and in which the peaks are enhanced and manipulated by James Horner’s music.

Symbolism also plays a part in Man on Fire. Creasy’s mode of dress is symbolic. Towards the end, he sheds his casual clothes and walks the streets as an avenging angel dressed in a grey suit and dark glasses; the uniform of an American secret service agent. At a practical level in the medium range shots the suit also allows the audience to pick him out more easily from the surround Mexicans. Symbolically also the good cop Manzano (Giancario Giannini) and the good reporter Mariana (Rachel Ticotin), representatives of the Mexican people, support Creasy even to the point where in the final moments of the movie Manzano copies Creasy’s methods; Daniel Sanchez, ‘The Voice’ ( Gustavo Sánchez Parra) is gunned down at his arrest. In the context of the movie being read as a metaphor for American involvement in the Third World and the war against terrorism, should we read this as condoning America’s use of puppet regimes through which to maintain dominance?

Whilst they share a tendency towards symbolism the movies do differ in some of the techniques used to convey their messages. The shots in Glory are longer than in Man on Fire. They allow more time for absorbing the meaning of the actions. They are more elegiac. The times when the black soldiers are seen in repose or in play are lovingly shot with high production values. They rely on techniques such as the traditional shot reverse shot which is a major feature of most Hollywood movies. This technique is perhaps best used in the searing scene where Private Trip is whipped. The dramatic irony of a black Union soldier being whipped like a slave on the orders of a man who is repulsed by the idea of slavery is movingly portrayed. As we see the shots of Trip and then the reverse shots of Colonel Robert Gould Shaw we see the pain of both which is magnified by the cameras lingering and zooming in on the tears of indignation of Trip. Their shared pain in some way creates the illusion of their representing equal human beings.

Man on Fire uses a much more frenetic pace to drive its narrative. Shorter scenes, out of focus shots, fast editing and hand held camera shots all combine to mirror and further the action. Other techniques also enhance the disorientation and distancing effect of the movie. Many shots are made into mirrors which seem to become a metaphor for the distortion of reality. Shots are overexposed or have bright flashes of light that seem to break them up. Action within takes is speeded up. Shots into cars are obscured by reflections of the outside. Even the scenes between Creasy and Pita where we see a fatherly protective relationship develop are comprised of short takes, and once the mayhem starts the movie proceeds at a breakneck pace. All this serves to ensure that the viewer does not have time to reflect on what is being presented. We have to take it and become involved with the frenetic frenzy of it all. The frenzy is only quieted at death of Creasy. A death which we know he has sought and now can find because he has fulfilled his function of saving Pita. He no longer needs St Jude. He is no longer a lost cause. We can only believe that, contrary to his earlier conversation with Rayburn in which neither believes they will be forgiven, he finds the peace of The Lord.

It is apparent that the representation of black men in Man on Fire, and to a lesser extent Glory, is significant in that it differs from movies that have featured black men in the past. Creasy is a quantum leap from the bigoted representations of blacks in the earliest Hollywood movies and particularly Birth of Nation. He is also much more nuanced than characters such as Shaft in the 70s. The one stereotype that he does bring to the movie is that of the god-fearing black. But set against this he also brings a level of amoral violence that is shocking in the extreme. The black men in the 54th Massachutess Infantry are all good in their ways, even Trip as he sees the worth of following his white leader Shaw, none are allowed to be as violent and amoral as Creasy. The blacks who are not good in that movie are those corrupted by bad white leadership. Creasy is a far more complex character who recognises the evil he has done but cannot prevent himself from using what he has learned for revenge. The result is that arguably he emulates the strategies of the USA in his own private revenge drama. It is a complex portrayal of a complex theme. That it provides a template for black actors to take on such extreme roles is probably a positive development for them. However, it has to be asked if such movies are justified as entertainment and should we be encouraged to invest our time in depictions of obscene violence, especially when such movies can be interpreted as conveying American ideological messages for consumption and profit. We should also be asking if Creasy represents a worthwhile role model for black men, or does the violent generic sources on which these movies draw limit the way in which protagonists have to be portrayed. What this movie, and Glory, are missing, paradoxically, is any meaningful representation of black women. Time constraints prevent an examination of this theme, however it would be interesting to investigate if the representation of black women by Hollywood has changed in any significant ways.

Bibiliography

Chambers II, J. W., and Culbert, D., eds., World War II, Film, and History, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 123-135 (p. 127)

Cousins, Mark, The Story of Film (London: Pavilion Books, 2004).

Cripps, Thomas, Casablanca, Tennessee Johnson and The Negro Soldier - Hollywood Liberals and World War II, in Feature Films as History, ed. by R. M. Short (London: Croom Helm Ltd, 1981)

McCarty, Clifford, Bogey, The Films of Humphrey Bogart, 2nd edn. (New York: Citadel Press, 1970)

Price, Glanville, and others, The MHRA Style Book, 5th edn. ( Leeds: W.S. Maney and Son Ltd., 1996)

Ray, Robert, A Certain Tendency of the Hollywood Cinema, 1930-1980 (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1985)

Schneider, Steven J., ed., 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, (London: Quointet Publishin Limited, 2004)

Walker, John , ed., Halliwell’s Film and Video Guide 200, 16th edn. (London: Harper Collins Entertainment, 200)

Magazines

Westwell, Guy, ‘Man on Fire’, Sight and Sound, November 2004