Why Representation Matters

Lately there have been a number of casting choices for movie adaptations that have been met with some level of controversy and obstinance. I started to notice it in full force around the time that Idris Elba was cast as Roland the last Gunslinger in the adaptation of Stephen King's The Dark Tower and it came to a head with things like The Ghostbusters' all-female cast.

Since then it seems to be a pretty regular occurrence for a casting choice like Michael B. Jordan as Superman - or even something more innocuous like having a black alternate reality comic book version of Reed Richards be met with a derisive comment like, "...Because no one can actually create a new character that is black..."

This is a point of view that completely misunderstands what representation really means to people of color, and why it is so important.

Having read many Marvel and DC books across multiple eras, I will agree that, yes there are plenty of black characters like T'Challa, or one of the several incarnations of Goliath - an accomplished scientist on par with Hank Pym (Ant-Man) that could be utilized for film adaptations. John Stewart is a black character who is one of the finest Green Lanterns to carry the mantle. Spawn was black before he was killed in action and became an agent of Malbolgia. It is absolutely correct that there are lots of black characters out there that can - and should - be utilized for movie adaptations, or expanded upon in their original print universes.

And perhaps at some level there are changes made with a more cynical approach, that executives believe being more PC and changing traditionally white characters to black (or other races altogether like in Birds of Prey) will get more asses in the seats and increase Box Office takes.

People who take this stance, however, tend to miss a very important factor in all this while presenting an argument that - whether purposely deceptive or just misguided - is nevertheless based on false equivalence. Namely, the idea that replacing a white character with a black actor or alt-universe analog is just as bad as replacing a black character with a white/Euro-centric analog.

Given that, historically speaking until the last 50 years or so, the central power structure has been (and continues to be, if Critical Race Theory holds true) based on white, euro-centric control over socio-economic and other systems - in spite of efforts to adjust and change laws to be more accommodating to all walks of life - a change from a black character to white is a slap in the face to viewers (regardless of background) invested in those characters.

But a change from white/Euro-centric to another race is often simply a reflection of society, representation, and shifting priorities. It's a signal that creators are reaching out to a broader base of viewers or readers, embracing them, and welcoming them into the community.

In other words: No, Virginia, it is absolutely not the same thing to change a character's race from white to black as if you changed from black to white.

T'Challa, John Stewart, and Spawn all have distinct back stories wherein the socio-economic landscape shapes their characters. Two of the above-mentioned characters come from a background where they joined the armed forces in order to try to rise above their circumstances, and the other is a ruler of an African nation. It makes no sense whatsoever to their stories if they are white because it completely obliterates the underlying meaning, themes, and messages of their backgrounds.

Kal-El, on the other hand, is an alien who comes from another planet. Reed Richards is a genius who created an advanced research spaceship and decided to test it himself. Roland of Gilead is the last of his kind in a world that has moved on. In what way do these characters being white or Euro-centric shape their backgrounds? Long answer short, they don't.

I'll even concede that certain characters like Victor Von Doom, as the monarch of a European country has a background where whiteness/Euro-centrism is important to his worldview so it wouldn't make sense to change him to a black actor.

This is the lynchpin of the race or gender swaps, and where I feel that arguments are being made in bad faith time and time again.

I am white. I personally don't care if Captain America, Superman, Tony Stark, or other A list characters are portrayed by black (or Hispanic or Asian) actors in their movie versions, or if an alternate reality comic book portrays them as a different race, particularly if it doesn't change the original comic book's prime continuity. It is, however, extremely important for people like my partner, who is black and who has relayed to me multiple times how when she turned on the TV growing up, that when she did see people like her they were thuggish, nappy, or side characters, never the leads.

Here, then, is what is so important about an iconic, larger than life character like Superman or Captain America or Batman being portrayed by a person of color.

Certainly new characters can be created, and certainly they can become major sensations and Box Office draws. Writers, directors, producers and creative talent absolutely should continue to create and develop new characters that reflect the world around us and invite inclusivity of all walks of life.

But all that takes time, talent, and effort. Effort which executives may not wish to expend developing an unestablished property. It's not enough to have an on-screen portrayal of Goliath or Spawn or any of the multiple sidekicks or lower tier characters who are black. General audiences are not familiar with these characters and as important as it is to get them onto movie screens as well, it is so much more important to have an iconic character, a long-standing character, a front line character like Batman or Reed Richards played by a black actor, or to have alternate reality print versions that are black, Hispanic, Asian or other POCs. To send that signal to say yes a black man can be Superman - that's as important if not moreso than the success of a film like Blade or a Black Panther.

It's not lazy writing to provide people of color with hope that they too can be at the level of an Iron Man or a Batman. It is, however, lazy thought to think that changing white characters to black is somehow the same as changing black characters to white.

Tsukamoto Takes the Ring: Tokyo Fist

First reaction: What...was that...?

Tsukamoto movies are endlessly engrossing yet incomprehensible. Visceral yet cerbral. Gritty yet polished and glossy. Personal yet with a strange formality and distance to them.

A bundle of contradictions.

In Tokyo Fist, story and plot do not coalesce. The more immediate concern seems to be the images and the feelings they evoke.

The same sound design and editing - kinetic and lightning-paced - utilized in the Tetsuo films seems to fit here, as boxing is also a bundle of contradictions - a formal, even balletic fighting form that emphasizes timing, posture and blocking a foe's advances, yet is also equally brutal and primal.

Tsukamoto's gaze seems aimed squarely at Japanese society which also has a very contradictory nature.

Unlike Tetsuo in which the social commentary was more subtle and subtextual, Tokyo Fist's commentary is more text than subtext. In fact it pretty much socks you in the face like a boxing glove.

The final act is...difficult to understand, at best and will likely require multiple viewings. For this first watch I'm going purely based on my emotional response: a mixture of disgust, bewilderment, but also somehow feeling uplifted.

The trio of characters presents a bizarre love triangle with salaryman-turned-boxer Tsuda vying for the affection of lover Hizuru, who tempted (sort of?) by pro boxer Kojima. Kojima and Tsuda were high school friends who made a pact to become boxers in the wake of a shared tragedy. Tsuda suppressed his rage and became a salaryman while Kojima, despite his training has become impotent and afraid to actually enter the ring.

The two friends are built up very well with Tsuda avoiding conflict and becoming a gentle soul because he seems to be somewhat aware of what could happen if he allows the beast inside him to be let loose.

Hizuru seems to represent the balance that neither Tsuda or Kojima can attain. But her balance is thrown off by being the center of the struggle between these two men.

So they both attempt to possess her, but fail to realize that she is her own person. Oftentimes Hizuru is seen watching the two men from the shadows, or peeking at their training bouts through a clouded window. Her view of the friends and their rivalry is always obscured, which seems to signify that her own ideas about the two men are not fully formed, nor can they be because she never gets the full picture.

And neither of the men are completely clear with her either, as they cannot be truthful to themselves or even with each other.

The finale then, crazy and over-the-top as it is, reflects the inability of Japanese society to address issues such as mental illness or anguish over the loss of a loved one. These things are pushed to the background as each of the characters attempts to push through rather than deal with it in a meaningful way.

Best Picture Series: Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)

Mutiny on the Bounty

1935

Release date: 11/8/1935 (N.Y. Premiere)

132 minutes

Director: Frank Lloyd

Screenplay: Talbot Jennings & Jules Furthman and Carey Wilson

Based on the Novel by: Charles Nordhoff and James Norman Hall

Producers: Frank Lloyd, Irving Thalberg

Associate Producer: Albert Lewin

Cinematography: Arthur Edeson, Charles G. Clarke (Uncredited), Sidney Wagner (Uncredited)

1.37:1 Aspect Ratio

Nomination Year: 1936 - 8th Academy Awards Ceremony

Won: Best Picture

Nominations: Best Director - Frank Lloyd; Best Actor - Clark Gable, Charles Laughton, Franchot Tone; Best Writing, Screenplay - Jules Furthman, Talbot Jennings, and Carey Wilson; Best Film Editing - Margaret Booth; Best Music, Scoring - Nat W. Finston and Herbert Stothart ("Love Song of Tahiti" written by Walter Jurmann, uncredited)

Writer's note: In this series I will watch a Best Picture-winning film each week and go a little deeper than my usual reviews. I hope you enjoy my thoughts and perspective. I will, of course, attempt to be sensitive to spoilers for newer films but for these early films I will be writing without regard to spoilers so be forewarned. I suggest you see the films I am discussing before reading.

Director Frank Lloyd produced both this film and 1933's Best Picture win, Cavalcade. Prior to seeing the latter I was not familiar with the works of Lloyd, and a review of his filmography illustrates why. The vast majority of his movies are 1) silent pictures, many of them shorts produced as a contract director and 2) many of the post-sound era films are generally unrecognizable. The director often takes a technical and workmanlike approach and as such most of his movies are not standout or notable productions, with only these two films nominated for any awards or merits.

It is also worth noting that Lloyd was president of the Motion Picture Association of America for 1934-1935, just happening to coincide with his film winning Best Picture. I'll not draw any conclusions from this fact, just wanted to point this out.

It is surely the acting talent that sells Mutiny on the Bounty more than anything else, seeing as how Clark Gable starred in at least three of the decade's Best Picture winners. The powerhouse trio also includes Charles Laughton as the brutal Captain Bligh and Franchot Tone as Roger Byam, an officer caught between loyalty to his captain and friendship with Gable's Fletcher Christian.

I do not wish to belabor the following points, but I feel it important to mention here that Cavalcade was a rather dull and stuffy affair. It purported to reflect the march of time, similar to Cimarron, another early Best Picture winner. Like Cimarron, Cavalcade casts its eye towards a family and how the events of the late 19th and early 20th Century shaped them - often focusing on how characters are changed by major events of the time rather than showing those events. Unlike Cimarron, however, Cavalcade is pretty limp, lifeless, and boring. I did have criticisms of Cimarron in that the main character would often ride off to "tame the West" for years at a time, and Cavalcade also has most of its important events occur off-screen. The major difference is that the characters in Cimarron were infinitely more interesting, even if Sabra Cravat's development also occurred mostly off-screen.

Mutiny on the Bounty establishes itself immediately as much more interesting, dynamic, engaging, lively, and enjoyable than Cavalcade. The opening scenes - including Christian rounding up ship-jumpers with a press gang and the crew partying on the deck of the titular ship - do an excellent job of introducing multiple characters and building up tension and excitement to the moment when Bligh comes aboard, which effectively ends the launch party.

The cinematography during the ship launching sequence is stunning, one might even say majestic. Robert Wise must have taken notes when filming the Enterprise porn for Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

Speaking of Trek, I have a sneaking suspicion that Ryker's character from The Next Generation was based in large part upon Gable's portrayal of Fletcher Cristian. Christian has a charming air about him and easily creates camaraderie with a trio of cadets on a training stint aboard-ship. There is a nice moment when he takes one of the cadets aside. At first we think it will be to chide him for pranking one of the other youthful recruits who has been putting on airs and lording previous experience over them. Christian warmly smiles, puts a hand on the student's shoulder, and says, "Good." I could almost see an exchange like this occurring between Ryker and a fresh ensign.

This film exerts influence over other pop culture tropes as well: A map overlaid with a solid line charting the ship's path of travel is a device that will eventually be utilized famously in the Indiana Jones movies.

There are a number of rather graphic make-up effects which for the day are quite surprising to see. A crewman whipped as punishment for a relatively minor infraction has some unusually gory effects for the time: although shown in a long shot, we can see the wounds seeping blood and ragged strips of skin hanging from the lash marks. Later in the film as the - spoiler - mutiny occurs, a deck hand has one of his palms bayoneted, run through and stuck to a bulkhead. Quite effective and shocking.

Laughton's turn as Bligh has incredible chemistry playing off of Gable's Christian. Bligh is a tyrannical captain, having deck hands whipped, as pointed out earlier, for relatively minor infractions. At one point food stores are reported as being short of two 50-lb cheese wheels. A crewman states they were ordered by Bligh to set the cheese aside before shoving off - apparently amongst Bligh's own personal belongings. Bligh has the crewman tied to a mast for a liar.

The punishments Bligh metes out are brutal and unnecessary, with gruesome results. A single word comes to mind as I witness the iniquities of Bligh's obstinance and gaslighting: Trump.

Filmed on-location in Polynesia and Tahiti, using a host of islanders as extras, Mutiny on the Bounty boasts a number of beautiful shots and stunning oceanic photography. Its strengths do reside in the first two acts where the story is propelled by frequent examples of Bligh's strict rule, as juxtaposed against the tranquility and beauty of the Tahitian locale and its people. The H.M.S. Bounty's purpose is to transplant breadfruit trees to the West Indies so that they have a cheap source of food for natives pressed into service there, thus supporting an exploitative system that will probably eventually also exploit the people of Tahiti as well.

The leader of the native people has a previously established friendship with Bligh and exerts influence over the captain to soften his stance and allow Byam to stay on the island while he creates a dictionary of the Tahitian language. This influence extends to such gestures as allowing Christian shore leave in spite of some disagreements he has had with Bligh, and allowing the men on the island to have a little bit of rest and relaxation in addition to the work of digging and transplanting the trees.

Bligh decides that the best thing to do is to overstuff their storage space with the breadfruit trees and limit the crew's liquid rations in order to have enough water to keep the trees alive for the journey to the Indies. This, along with Bligh's early recall of Christian's shore leave, leads to a further rift with Fletcher and when a young man recruited before the Bounty pushed off is subjected to a keel-haul, Fletcher is left in a position where he has to either stand between the crew members pushed to a mutinous frenzy, or engage in the mutiny as well and limit the damage. He chooses the latter option and sets Bligh and several crew members loyal to him off in a launch with rations enough to last them until they can reach a port of call.

The last act of the film revolves around a court martial in which three crew members, who remained loyal to Bligh but could not leave in the launch, are persecuted rather than commended for staying true to their loyalties. In many ways it is somewhat the inverse of Cavalcade. Where the former film starts out dull and finally gets interesting during the final act, Mutiny starts out excellent and engaging, then does begin to drag a little near the end.

Even with a final act that trails off into dull denouement, Mutiny on the Bounty is all-in-all an excellent example of early filmmaking, with plentiful acting talent on display.