Graphics by Sunny Wei’23
By Woodlief McCabe ’23
Staff Writer
At the first meeting of Mount Holyoke’s Film Society, we discussed our plan for the semester’s screenings. I created a screening schedule featuring Black-centered films in February to honor Black History Month. It was also important that the club continue to show films led by people of color throughout the semester. The world of film criticism disproportionately recognizes white-centric cinema as the pinnacle of quality, even though filmmakers of color consistently produce remarkable work.
If you were only paying passive attention to the film world, you might be under the impression that there is a dearth of high-quality film made by and/or centering people of color. “Drive My Car” and “King Richard” are both nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars this year, but it is important to note that neither are original stories. “Drive My Car” is based on Haruki Murakami’s short story of the same name, and “King Richard” is a nonfiction drama about Serena and Venus Williams’ journey to tennis stardom. Ryusuke Hamaguchi, the Japanese director of “Drive My Car” is the only non-white Best Director nominee. “Passing,” “Nine Days” and “The Disciple” were all led by casts and/or directors of color this season. Despite public praise, the films weren’t nominated. Previous years have seen similar trends. In 2015, lawyer April Reign started #OscarsSoWhite when all best actor nominees were white.
The next year also saw a deficit of Black recognition at the Academy Awards, which was a shock considering the impressive slate of Black-led films that had hit the cinemas that year. “Moonlight,” “Hidden Figures,” “Loving” and “Race” had no nominated lead actors. Moonlight memorably won best picture, but the film was carried by its lead actors. It follows the main character Chiron as he grows up and comes to terms with queerness and his place in community, guided by father figure Juan. The three actors who depicted Chiron throughout his life portrayed incomparable depth of emotion and tenderness. The ability to tell a story even in silence captivated me, as did the use of color and light. I remember thinking that this was the first movie that I had ever considered perfect.
White film criticism, when directed at Black films, also does not often consider diversity of genre and subject matter. Instead, it tends to frequently celebrate a specific type of Black-led film. Films like “Django Unchained” and “12 Years a Slave” cater to white audiences’ desire to watch Black suffering and manufacture sympathy for a curated version of Black people. These films, both of which feature slavery as a central plot and character element, do not provide genuine insight to the lives of Black people today. They distill Blackness to pain and suffering for one-dimensional characters. Racism is presented as a challenge to a few sympathetic individuals rather than an integral construction of our society. Critics of “12 Years a Slave,” such as Peter Malamud Smith, pointed out that the film overemphasizes the protagonist’s “exceptionalism” and special talents, failing to convey the magnitude of injustice that enslavement presented, as explained in Smith’s article for Vox.
Films like “Moonlight” and “Us” have rich narratives and complex characters that challenge the image of people of color curated by white critique. Though characters struggle, the conflict is not exclusive to Black identity. Neither do these films pretend that their main characters exist in a colorblind and non-racialized world. Rather, these films are about the stories and the characters. The actors embody their roles, and their race informs those roles. These are films written by and about Black people, which is part of the reason they are so good. Choosing to show and distribute films where people of color are in creative control means showing better, more honest, and more well-rounded films.
Sci-fi, fantasy and nontraditional narrative films by people of color are also often looked down upon or outright ignored. Film Society’s poll last week was between “Us,” “Sorry to Bother You” and “An Oversimplification of Her Beauty.” All three are reality-bending in different ways. “An Oversimplification of her Beauty” is a movie made within another movie, interrupting and altering the audience’s perception of the story. “Sorry to Bother You” is corporate fiction within an alternative reality. “Us” is a kill-your-doubles horror by Jordan Peele, who also directed “Get Out.” Boots Reilly, director of “Sorry to Bother You,” said publicly that the film got no Oscar nominations because there was no real campaign for it. Various reasons could be cited for the others’ snubs. It has become increasingly clear that “good cinema” is not a title bestowed by the Academy.
The lack of racially diverse films in spaces of critique and academic film discussion are not the result of a lack of racially diverse films. When putting together the Film Society schedule, I found myself leaving out films from the screening polls more often than I was struggling to find them. My choices came down to whether they would fit in a thematic category. Every few days, I think of another incredible movie I wasn’t able to fit in. I dropped “The Farewell” and “Last Black Man in San Francisco” because the Film Society had screened them in recent years. Neither of these films were even nominated for Oscars, but both are excellent movies I would be eager to watch again.
Thursday at 7:30, the Film Society will meet in Art 220 to watch a film made by and with Black people. When Black History Month ends, we will continue to do so. It won’t be a revolutionary screening, and it won’t be a special occasion. It will be a group of students watching great films made by great filmmakers.