Black Faces, White Messages : Doctor Who

With Season 9 of BBC slated to start in a month, season 8 of DOCTOR WHO finally makes its way onto Netflix. I’ve watched more DOCTOR WHO than the vast majority of you reading this. My compulsive personality at work, I’ve seen all of the current reboot, and all of the classic existing series.

And I’ve seen the series go from great to mediocre and back again. One thing the series has suffered from, at times, in both its classic and modern incarnations is its depictions of people not WASPish.

Russell T. Davies was the visionary largely responsible for the rebirth of Dr. Who after an absence of over a decade; bringing a 20th century creation successfully into the 21st century. In terms of effects, and scope of story-lines Davies reboot was a massive win both artistically and commercially. That said one of the few failings of Russell T. Davies tenure, especially early on, was his use of characters of Color.

His Mickey character, played by the Shakespearean trained Noel Clarke (And I hold both creator and actor complicit for such a portrayal) from the first was a neutered, constantly emasculated character of color much in the vein of Step and Fetchit Hollywood, not just an offensive character, but worse a detriment to otherwise watchable story-lines, of which the Russell T. Davies run, had many.

I would rather creators avoid using characters of color, than use them offensively or ignorantly, as nothing more than tokens or stereotypes or outlets for their biases, which I think unfortunately is how Russell t. Davies approached such characters, particularly early in his run.

However by the Tenant years, Davies had a far better grasp on utilizing characters of color, as his Martha Jones character, brilliantly played by Freema Agyeman and her extended family were from the most part brilliantly written.

The post Tenant years, starring the youngest Doctor Matt Smith, and helmed by new Show Runner Steven Moffatt, I felt were pretty uneven, as the character was saddled with companions for most of his run that I found almost as annoying as the Mickey character.

That brings us finally to the new incarnation of the Doctor played by Peter Capaldi in Season 8, which definitely had me intrigued.

However, initially, the introduction of a Black character (love interest for the companion Clara), named Mr. Pink had me groaning audibly. I saw another Mickey in the making. A Black character called Mr, Pink? Really? Why not just call him snowball. But thankfully, the series, six episodes in is smarter, better written, and the character of Mr. Pink, stronger and more compelling and likably written and performed, than initial episodes and the unfortunate name… would imply. As well as other characters of color in far more humanistic and enjoyable and non-stereotypical roles than most stateside shows.

Add to that Peter Capaldi as the new Doctor and Jenna Coleman as Clara are fantastic. Capaldi brings a less manic, measured performance and is a welcome touchstone to the Doctor as teacher and mentor and father. And Jenna Coleman’s Clara an excellent companion.

Episode 6 CARETAKER is my favorite of the season so far and season 8 as a whole my favorite season since the Tenant/Agyeman series. Let’s hope the writing continues to transcend the easy crutches of stereotype that sometime marred earlier seasons, and continues to broaden and enrich the history and mythology of Dr. Who.

Final Word:

On the accusation of Black Faces/White Message we find Season 8 of Doctor Who… NOT GUILTY. It is TV done right, as Showrunner, Stars, and stories combine to make addictive, fun, ethnically diverse, and smart television.

PODCAST OF THE DAY: APM The Story… YOUTUBE vs You?!!!

American Public Radio produces a public radio program (available via podcast, which is the way I listen to it) called THE STORY, and it’s just that, stories of interesting lives and incidents.

From their description:

“The Story with Dick Gordon brings the news home – through passionate points of view and personal experiences. The program brings together ordinary and extraordinary people to provide perspective on the issues which affect us all. Our goal is to inspire conversation, thinking and understanding. Produced at North Carolina Public Radio – WUNC.”

The stories are hit and miss, but today’s lead story, covering Stacy Arnout Smith and Facebook is definitely a hit. A must listen tale, a cautionary tale of the pitfalls and perils of companies that are not held accountable for the content of their site, and the crushing potential for both defamation and privacy invasion that it opens up you, the individual, to.

It discusses how Facebook’s lack of checks and balances, and oversight nearly destroyed one successful woman’s career and life

Compelling and thought-provoking listening.

To my mind the medium is the message. FCC used to fine radio stations for inappropriate language, and the last time I checked they still do. I think social media requires the same type of checks and balances. More so, because the ease of entry is lower. So FaceBook or YouTube, etc should be held liable if their site is used to post pornographic pictures, or libelous, or hate filled rhetoric. Just as I would be liable if I sold space on the outside of my house, for anyone to put up posters or advertising.

Under the rules granted to Facebook or Youtube etc, I could just say “I ‘m not responsible for the content!”, and if you don’t like the naked pics on the outside of my house, or curse words, etc… I just say, “too bad. I just rent the space. You have to talk to the posters. Or better yet just tell your kids not to look when they walk past my house! What are you trying to do? Censor me!? What are you unamerican?!”

Of course me trying that argument as an individual, is idiotic, and not going to fly with neighbors, police, neighborhood associations, schools, or the courts.

I try that crap, that CL, YOUTUBE, FACEBOOK defense, and I (or You) as an individual would be under the jail.

And I say rightly so, because as soon as you create a medium, a vehicle for the public to view that content, then yes that is definitely your responsibility, if anything you post violates reasonable standards of decency. Who is more criminal… the man who creates the deadly drug in his basement, or the organization that allows the distribution of that deadly drug to millions of basements?

The medium is the message.

So if it is a right, and moral, and legal stance to impose on each other and our neighbors, these limitations to keep personal and private boundaries, to maintain this tenuous thing called civilization and culture, how is it that corporations/social media sites may eschew any such recognition of local mores and laws? How is it social media sites get away with, in essence, the erosion of civility and civilization.

Companies such as Facebook, Craigslist, Youtube, Google, Wikipedia, “insert social media site here”, get away with doing EXACTLY this… overriding local, regional, even national mores and standards… with no oversight or controls or potential liability.

It’s insane, it’s dangerous, and worse, the current lawless nature of social media… threatens to damage social interaction more than it seemingly invigorates it by, in ways subtle and gross, imposing on all cultures a singular culture… the culture of the lowest common denominator.

My final take on today’s podcast program is– Social Media sites not only should be held liable for the content that they become a worldwide vehicle for, the defamation, the pornography, the violence, the hate, the identity theft, but they MUST BE held liable if anything close to locally determined culture is to survive.

If privacy, personal boundaries, and the very concept of the value of the individual… is to survive as true and viable concepts in this still new century, companies and social media sites must be held liable.

With simple checks and balances imposed on Social Media sites, the arduous path that Susan Arnout Smith, wife, author, and mother, had to endure, and increasing numbers of people have to endure… would have been a non-issue.

What checks and balances?

Glad you asked. Well…

1/a filtering system to keep objectionable material from being posted in the first place- how simple is that?

2/Every site created should within 72 hours or so, have a pair of eyes, actual people (imagine that), that just look at the site very quickly to see if it may be a malware or phishing site or otherwise violate listing rules

3/A real customer service department that users can actually reach a real person by email/phone and report offensive or problematic sites or sites that violate standards. And an easy way to get sites pulled or shutdown.

4/ The above said, you also have to be aware of frivolous attempts by spammers to remove legitimate sites. The easiest way to resolve that is to offer different levels of social media pages. Example, a “free” facebook page, easily setup and easily removed if any violations comes in or are reported and a “paid” facebook or social media page, backed up by actual contact/credit card info, that will have an assigned customer service rep to assist with conflicts/inquiries.

The above are four very simple steps, that social media sites, that are raking in the dough with very little overhead, could afford to enforce, put in affect, to the improvement, both financial and qualitative, of both themselves and their users. Whether they will enforce it, depends on you, and how much you cry about your neighbor putting up offensive material on the outside of his house.

Do to these companies, what you would do to your neighbor if they put this offensive material on the outside of their house.

Hold them accountable. Report them. file criminal complaints. File civil complaints. Sue them. Make them accountable.

Make them… civil.

Listen to the episode here and I’ll think you’ll be made… aware of the need for change with all Social Media sites :

http://thestory.org/archive/the_story_052611_full_show.mp3/view

DISTRICT 9 film, SHELL GAS, NEILL BLOMKAMP, PETER JACKSON and crimes made clean by cash

I found DISTRICT 9 a well structured film, in terms of pacing, and the germ of its story. I mean there is a lot to like about DISTRICT 9. Its fast frenetic pace, strong performances, a short snappy running time, and really amazing special effects and impressive action, all grafted on to what is essentially a chase pic.

So there was a lot to like about DISTRICT 9, unfortunately the few things… not to like, I found to be significant things, and really kinda central to the heart of the film. And the heart was… corrupt.

Where DISTRICT 9 immediately fails for me is in its fairly unsubtle tone and its use of Black faces to deliver and reinforce White messages. A well worn Hollywood trope going back to the BIRTH OF A NATION.

What do I mean? DISTRICT 9 is a thinly veiled allegory to Apartheid South Africa, replacing the Kafirs with Prawns. The fact that in reality it is the aliens, the Dutch who came in and relocated the rightful occcupants into slums is kind of lost in this translation however. Instead we get Black actors (faces, as I’m sure most of them were non-actors) to in essense regurgitate lines that not too long ago the Dutch would have said about them. It is an irony not lost on me, but is without a doubt lost on the Black faces, thrust into a movie that is all about delivering white messages.

The most aggregious of which? The Nigerians. In one stroke they called them smugglers, drug and weapon dealers, sexual deviants, and cannibals. Wow. Who paid for this movie, Shell Gas?

I know a bit about Nigeria and I found that portrayal racist and maligning and calculated to reinforce stereotypes, on an almost unbelievable level. (I mean you can do a pic with Triad gangs, or Yakuza because you typically have positive asian elements in the same film, as well as tons of positive Asian films. However when a people are as underrepresented on the world stage as the Nigerians, it’s important that their only images aren’t negative images. Otherwise it becomes the engine of Stereotype. So I’m not saying “Do not use Nigerians in film”, but let’s try painting them as hereoes as well as villians, or perhaps even just as people)

It’s well known to everyone except the terminally stupid, which includes unfortunately most of America, that for six decades the Dutch-British company that is SHELL gasoline, this survivor of the mad dreams of Reichdom, has made their fortune by stealing and raping the land and resources of the native Nigerian people… the Ogoni (If you saw AVATAR you have seen a fictionalization of that Ogoni saga played out. With the exception being no one has yet come to the Ogoni’s aid). And the Nigerian email scams, are not Nigerian inventions but British/Dutch inventions (Noise to cover the real signal/emails that activists were trying to get out about the attrocities being perpetrated in Nigeria, against the native Nigerians).

So unfortunuately all the masses, who get their news from obviously bigoted sources such as FOX NEWS, know of Nigeria is little to nothing. All the masses know is the noise.

The noise and now DISTRICT 9.

A movie like Neill Blomkamp’s DISTRICT 9, that makes you care for the fictional oppresed Alien race (and want to say “no this is wrong” to what is happening on screen), does so at the expense of real people, The Nigerians, who have been and continue to be victims of staggering colonialism and oppression.

This juxtapositon with the illusion of caring, with the reality of “this filmmaker eithers doesn’t care enough to offer a non-jingoistic view of Nigerians”, ultimately drowns, what otherwise is a tight, faced-paced, stylish thriller of a movie, that I wanted very much to like.

But I see clearly that the films message of misrepresentation will ultimately only serve… to continue the crimes of mass-theft and mass-murder that continue to occur in Nigeria.

DISTRICT 9, has become a very stylish Nigerian spam email, Noise to hide the faint signal… of people who need your help.

So I view the broad license this movie takes, to paint an already deeply attacked and violated people, with such a broad brush of villany, the only way I can… with utter disgust.

Neill Blomkamp with this film proves himself an effective filmmaker, and perhaps he actually had the best of intentions for his film. But honestly I have to doubt it, the commentary against Nigerians was too pointed, and the use of Blacks/South Africans to espouse Apartheid era lines as subtle as a brick to the face. It comes across as the movie of an apologist for Apartheid at best, and a racist at worst. There’s no other way to say it.

Or perhaps Neill Blomkamp, a very young man, is as much a victim of programming as those Black actors in his film, mouthing white messages that can ultimately only harm them and theirs. Perhaps both him and his actors, raised on this cinema and culture of lies, it has become their truth, and all they can do is regurgitate it. All we can be is our father’s failings.

I’d like to believe that’s not true. I’d like to believe that we can all escape slums, both physical and mental. I would like to believe we can all escape our District 9s. Time will tell.

Recommendation: As long as you could go in and not take this picture’s definition of Nigerians as an encompassing definition, take a look. Otherwise read a bit on Shell Gas, and how your car these days runs as much on blood as oil. (For the record I boycott Shell Gas and recommend that all people do the same).

Here endeth the lesson.

Till next time… be well.