A Sweetback, A Shaft, and A Priest

Comes from an Academic Exchange between me and a classmate--

First, Let me start that I love the Blaxploitation period in African American cinema. In fact I have Shaft 70 and Superfly 71 movie posters in my office at home. I am going to attempt a rather difficult task by making a case for the rise and need for a hypersexualized hero such as John Shaft, Sweet Sweetback and of course Priest aka Superfly. Again, contextualizing the time period in the late 60s early 70s we have to determine the political commonalities within black motion picture stars of the day. You had Sidney Potier who was the cross over performer supreme. Other than that -- there were few and far in between. As Potier's work was and still is quintessential to the further development of African America pop-culture, Potier represented the establishment. He was widely accepted by mainstream box office consumers and producers. There were few and far in between black box office draws let alone directors, producers and or writers. Enter Melvin Van Peebles, a composer and filmmaker who had been at the game of film production since 1957. The characters that were created prior to rise of Black consciousness were typical; subservient, able to pass through various social and political circles with their sans their race being a factor and most importantly, in my opinion, completely emasculated--genderless, objectified. If we look at Sidney Potier's role in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner vs his characterization of Walter Lee in the movie production of "Raisin in the Sun" in both movies the character is in both roles is emasculated - in case by weak character development (GWICTD) and by strong character development -maybe too strong in Raisin. In Raisin, life has the character by the --lls where as in Guess... the writer strips the character of his genitals. In short-- Potier plays this everyman who's manhood is in question by the newly emerging black youth culture of the day. We come back to Van Peebles who under contract by Columbia Pictures produces a rather interesting satirical comedy on race called "Watermelon Man." In it a white man suddenly wakes up black and has to navigate through his lilly white world. -- Bottom line for Columbia is we have a filmmaker who is black that can make us money who doesn't appear to be too threatening -- very much like Will Smith today. Meanwhile Metro Goldyn Mayer were in the midst of establishing their own non threatening black filmmaker with Gordon Parks and his bio pic "The Learning Tree." Cinematically, this film rivaled it's contemporaries and pretty much established Parks as a filmmaker in the eyes of Hollywood. Suddenly, there is a collision of sorts where the filmmaker becomes radical and enters a period of introspection and self discovery. Melvin Peebles has an epiphany that strikes an internal revolution within himself to where he recognizes the lack of strong sexual heroes within the black community, hence the genesis of the hypersexualized black man on film. What is interesting is the backstoy in which how this movie was made in the first place. Van Peebles needed money that would finance this truly independent film, ergo he couched it as a porn flick. Mainstream Hollywood would not dare interferer with a film that was pornographic, they would just say's it's a "blue film" call it a day. To make the long story short, the essence of Sweetback is truly an emancipatory film introducing a black character with a strong sense of agency. The character owned virtually every aspect of himself including his sexual and racial identity minus the mainstream influence of Hollywood. As this film made loads cash at the box office, Hollywood discovered a formula, Black Studly Hero + Black Movie Audiences = Green profits, exponentially. If we take a look at the Shaft movies, the 70s trilogy as well as the 21st century re-incarnation, we see that character, John Shaft is born out of white novelist Ernest Tidyman. Basically, Shaft in the books is a little harder, a little meaner and a bit more sexually powered than all the films put together. Of course MGM saw this as an opportunity to cash in on a new novel only ergo the production of Shaft the movie in 71. "Hotter than Bond, Cooler then Bullit," Shaft at best was to break even, however, still looking for characters that were anti establishment, Shaft exceeded every expectation and in essence provided a hero, a black superhero under the back drop of a racalized politically charged canvas. At the helm of this production was tried and true director, Gordon Parks. Now the question of can lightening strike three times is answered by Warner Brothers when we find their entry into the black superhero mold with Super Fly. Where Sweetback was a nymphomaniac/fugitive/pimp and John Shaft was a nymphomaniac/private cop, Priest was a nymphomaniac/drug fence looking to get out the game. Again we see the conventions of mainstream Hollywood at work with the hypersexualization of black masculinity but I think it's equally important that we examine the emancipatory element of this film as well as the previous two. This film is directed by Gordon Parks Jr. who died immediately afterwards in a helicopter accident. There is a healthy mix editorial content by director and actor in the portrayal of this character who is so enigmatic and charismatic to the point where to underestimate Priest could be potentially lethal. The Priest character is a multidimensional one in that he transcends sexual feats beyond those of mortal men and by the end of the journey can be seen as a philosophical being who is well versed in The Art of War. The character is beyond Shaft in the sense, that he makes a statement political economy by the fact he knows when to get out of life and recognizes that he may never own the means of production i.e. wealth except through his acceptance of his own mortality. When he learns the art of death, i.e. no fear of death, Priest in turn is emancipated and creates a plan to stick it to the man. I think the author makes a well established connection of blackxploitation masculinity to hip hop in the sense that hip hop was a response to the nihilism that existed during the Reganomics era. We have characters who to some degree who use their sexuality as a means of agency in spite of the external context. It is a means of maintaining that sense of existence and in cases using that existence to for further establishment of presence. Hip Hop does the same thing. Now saying that, I qualify that by mentioning I take no side of what is morally right or wrong being that I am not in a position judge but merely to observe.
Sorry so sloppy.

-----Original Message-----
From: MCMS755@yahoogroups.com [mailto:MCMS755@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of tiamatthews101
Sent: Sunday, October 09, 2005 9:09 PM
To: MCMS755@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [MCMS755] I've Been Shafted

I really don't know where to begin with this article. There were so many omissions, contradictions and unsupported ideas that I actually questioned how this article could have actually made it into a journal, especially with only 12 sources. To make this easier, I've decided to really skip going into much detail about my issues with the article. If I didn't, I'd probably need my own Yahoo page.
Instead, I will just make a quick list.

1) How could the author not focus on the fact that Gordon Parks and John Singleton are both African American, and all that this brings to the table in terms of creative freedom/bondage, authorship and vision?

2) How can you realistically blame the "violent" Black masculine character portrayed in the mass media on "hip hop culture." How unfortunate that hip hop gets the blame for everything. Later, the author contradicts this very statement by stating it is neither "unique to hip hop culture nor particularly new." Well, than, why mention it at all? Black men have been portrayed as gangsters, criminals and violent humans since the dawn of American history.

3) Race, race, race. Race played a role in both Shaft movies. It is just important to note the historical context in which both were produced. In the first film, Shaft had sex with a White girl, very taboo. In the second, Shaft is seen trying to avenge the killing of a man who also loved/liked a White woman, still a taboo. Have times changed much? In the first film, Shaft cannot be equal in the eyes of White society or the police force, so he exerts some sort of power by being an oversexed man. This at least places him in a power position over someone - women. In the second film, Shaft is frustrated that he cannot be "Black and blue," which means he still has trouble fitting into the White police force. Therefore, he strikes out on his own to seek revenge, which on the surface gave him some freedom or power to act on his own. Have times changed much? In the first film, Shaft fielded racial slurs and gave witty racial retorts. In the second film, Shaft fielded racial slurs and gave witty racial retorts. Have times change much?

4) Finally, the author notes: "I think there has been a slight misrepresentation of the original Shaft as a "blaxploitation" film.
Huh? How do you make such a incredible statement such as this and only offer one source to back this up? For some, Shaft embodies the ideal of "blaxploitation" films. You need an entire essay to substantiate this point, not a paragraph.

I could go on, but I won't.