Tag Archives: race

Rebirth of Tragedy

25 Nov

My admiration of Emma Thompson helped me to overcome my reluctance to watch the movie Stranger than Fiction. Watching the movie was a small triumph over my fear that Queen Latifa would settle for yet another roll that might call into question her royal designation.

Last week, my friend John and I were discussing the movie at a favorite local restaurant, whose kitchen, by the way, is lovingly managed by my friend, the culinary genius Chef Jen. The restaurant sits across the street from Madison’s Barrymore Theater, whose marquee is more likely to advertise a sold-out John Prine or Moe show than something I’d be more likely to attend. (For the record, I’ve seen a few amazing shows there during my time in Madison: I’ll never forget dancing to Moby’s “Go,” after which he commented on the appropriateness of the faint, twinkling light’s on the theater’s ceiling, nor could I ever forget Cibo Mato’s sexily slogging hard-core cover of “Welcome to the Jungle” — if anyone is able to find a clip of them playing that song, please send it my way.)

Anyway, the movie includes a few scenes where Dustin Hoffman’s character gives us a lesson on narrative, and John and I were discussing one of the main (and self-referential) themes of the film: does this particular screenplay (and the fictional novel whose writing the screenplay examines) have to be a tragedy — this kind of tragedy, not this — for the story to have any value?

Staring across the street at The Barrymore, I remembered how Michael Franti had recently performed there. I missed the show, and the accounts of my many friends who attended suggest I missed a good time. I’ve never listened to much of Franti’s music, in part, I suppose, because what I’ve heard is a little too overtly political lyrically for my ear to nuance it in a way that can make the music enjoyable for me. (Franti’s audience might’ve been an issue for me some years ago, but these are different times, and I’d like to think I’m over my old hang-ups.)

Drawing on our respective fields of study, John and I discussed a few plots and heroes before I suggested that our mutual distaste for the “Hollywood ending” was arguably rooted more in a distaste for predictability than a belief that a character has to die.

I thought about the first time I’d heard “We Don’t Stop,” which was one of only a few Franti songs I’d heard when it came out in 2003, a year by which many of us had come to internalize the sense of depression and futility with which the Bush regime was weighing us down. No one seemed to listen to our complaints, and the few heroic voices we could seek out were so faint they didn’t need to be silenced. They just were ignored.

“We Don’t Stop” struck me as different. Its message was political, critical, and even artistically expressed. The music demanded we remember we could still dance, and not simply to escape the reality that we’d somehow allowed W to not only come to power, but to take away our own. I won’t entirely dismiss Franti’s neo-neo-Adornian critics (of the non-academic world — I admit they might not call themselves that), that his music is so polished, poppy, and over-produced that the lyrics are rendered trite, or somehow inauthentic. Still, the song is a good opening for a discussion of contemporary artistic responses to tragedy. Do heroes have to die? Is it wrong to experience joy if we seek to accept responsibility for our political sins?

“We Don’t Stop,” like Stranger then Fiction, makes a good case for preserving the life of the hero. Who could possibly wish harm upon this guy, who was inspired by the song to do, um, whatever this is:

Compare “We Don’t Stop” to “Positive,” a Franti song he recorded (when his band made music under the name “Spearhead”) nearly a decade earlier. I liked it then and I like it now, even though it’s one of those songs it’s hard to lose yourself in, on account of its direct (even if smooth) commentary on another globally shared personal and traumatic cultural experience.
Props to Franti for directly confronting AIDS at one of those recurring moments where society begins to ignore it, and for doing so in a style that self-consciously reached out to a demographic that was beginning to realize it was disproportinately afflicted by AIDS, and needed to fight back. We certainly don’t want the protagonist of “Positive” to die, but I struggle to hear anything in the music that tells us he won’t.

The funky beats of “We Don’t Stop” give us permission to accept that there really is hope.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Jeremiah Wright’s Music Lesson

28 Apr

Jeremiah Wright spoke to an estimated 12,000 people at yesterday’s NAACP dinner in Detroit. I watched on CNN. Here’s part of it:
I wasn’t surprised to hear a talented, engaging speaker. I admit to having avoided the notorious youtube clips whose out-of-context media saturation goaded the Clintons and the media corps into a feeding frenzy, but I was (and remain) pretty sure the whole thing was an example of white people wanting another chance to play victim.

Yesterday’s speech was given to a general (not exclusively religious) audience, and so I wasn’t dreading the eventual onset of offensiveness that inevitably spills from the mouths of most other famous preachers. In fact, I quite enjoyed the romp. It was funny (check out the part beginning @ 3:05 in the above clip).

What got me most, though, was the music lesson (beginning @ 5:40). Sure, a musicologist would want to nuance Wright’s words a bit more, in an effort to be critical of the race-based generalities he discusses as if they were absolute truths. Still, it’s not often we get the chance to hear (ethno)musicology mentioned in the mainstream media, let alone the chance to hear time signatures discussed and solfege performed as if both were shared components of American cultural practices.

Wright’s pretty much right on this one, doncha think? I know James Brown liked to think he shifted the beat of his band to “the one,” but that doesn’t jive with where we clap, does it?

This Week in Comparative Victimologies

8 Apr

This video has been making the rounds.

The apparently pro-Hillary Talk Left blogs about it here.

I can’t mention enough that I’m not a Hillary Hater. If she had won the primary fair-and-square, I would’ve spent the next seven months explaining out of one side of my mouth to my Madison friends how Hillary’s not Joe Lieberman in drag, and how while comparing her to Lieberman might in some ways be appropriate, calling her a man in drag is something that should only be laughed at privately, in pro-drag, pro-fem circles. Meanwhile, out of the other side of my mouth, I’d have to make the argument to friends back in Ohio that she’s not not the liberal demon their hate-spam makes her out to be. My profound respect for Hillary Clinton only began to erode during her race-based campaign leading up to the South Carolina primary, and with subsequent reminders of her campaign’s continuing acceptance of that sort of thinking.I’m with Althouse on this one. Although where she seems to say “fair is fair” –

Yes, of course, some of that stuff is awful, but political fighting is harsh, and if women are going to be in it — really in it, as Hillary is — they’ll have to get knocked around. I’m not going to wring my hands over this. It’s part of progress. Males are savaged too. It means they’re taken seriously.

– I’m inclined to say “unfair is unfair.” In the Hillary video, the editors intersperse “MSM” clips with reactionary, redneck, and indisputably misogynistic non-mainstream propaganda that’s much more offensive than anything from the mainstream media. I’m thinking, for example, about 3:15-3:25 in the Youtube clip, which includes the very non-mainstream dropping of the “c-bomb.” MSM? I don’t think so. (Well, maybe there was this one time.)
No one can argue Barack hasn’t been effectively slandered by the ignorant, hateful, racist, bigoted, intolerant non-MSM, and to a similarly chilling extent. Hasn’t just about everyone been subjected to this email?
It’s clear to me we need to start pulling together. If, as seems likely, our pro-Clinton friends want to drag this out longer, I hope we can all remember that most haters out there aren’t fans of Hillary or Barack. In fact, they’re counting on us to win the election for McCain.Obama is wise, I think, to always try to be “very cautious about getting into comparisons of victimology.”

Obama opens a national seminar

19 Mar

Lot’s to talk about here. After all, it’s a 37-minute speech. But it’s sunny out 45 degrees outside, so I’ll save the commentary for later. It wasn’t quite perfect, but far better than anything anyone else running for president ever (did I say “ever”?) has ever said on the issue(s) of race in America. The speech pretty much spins itself.
Added 3/29/08: I never did get back to this, did I? I was entertaining–rather, being entertained by, an out-of-town visitor. What still strikes me is how on the mark he was, and how directly he made his case. This doesn’t surprise me in itself; what shocks me is all this was said by a major U.S. Presidential candidate. He didn’t even dumb it down for us. Does this mean we’re, like, grown-ups now?

Another shot at “news.”

15 Mar

I’m obviously by no means the first to criticize modern news media. Moreover, when I do get my feathers ruffled by it, it’s not because of corporate ownership and the like, which many of my friends are much quicker to criticize. I don’t mind editorializing; in fact, I love it. What I do mind is editorializing disguised as reporting. A friend from the UK once pointed out to me how “you Americans” can’t even report on a natural disaster without editorializing. “Tragic Events Unfolded.” “Terrifying Hurricane.” In other words, proper news should report that the events unfolded, and that the hurricane hit shore; but it should leave the assigning of adjectives to the reader.

Of course, now we’re wired to let them get away with much more. Election headlines disguise even the least rigorous editorializing as news. Take this article. Admittedly, this sort of article exists precisely to keep agents of change at war with themselves, and thus maintain the status quo. Apart from that, I have no journalistic qualm with reporting that X percentage of Y demographic voted for Z. Unfortunately, it always goes further. Once they tell us “why” certain people voted a certain way, they’ve usually gone too far. If 20% of the electorate in a given State claims “race” mattered in choosing a candidate, the article shouldn’t imply 20% of Democrats equals “Democrats divided by race.” And “black voters voted for the black candidate”? The obvious implication is that they voted for him because he’s black. How does this “significant minority” of 20% so easily morph into this blanket statement? It’s more than a little condescending to think “we” know why blacks or anyone else voted for whom they did. Did gays in California and New York vote for Hillary because she’s a lesbian? No, they voted for her because they thought–and for the record I clearly disagree–she’d be best on the issues that mattered to them. We might also wonder what forces motivate the news media to track the “gay vote” in those two states but not others. How does the vote differ from the general population? Christ, people. Logic classes, anyone?