You will be redirected back to your article in seconds

Black Film Theory: Fighting the Illusions of White Supremacy in Cinematic Narration – Part Two

Black Film Theory: Fighting the Illusions of White Supremacy in Cinematic Narration - Part Two

Read Part One here.

Before moving on to the second part of this article I’d like to address some observations concerning the analysis of the film SPRINGBREAKERS from part one.  It has been brought to my attention that the actress Vanessa Hudgens who played the role of Candy and was one of the two White female killers at the end of film is bi-racial in real life.  Knowing that the actress Vanessa Hudgens is of mixed-race heritage, does not detract from the fact that her character is acting as an agent of White power in the revenge/racial extermination/fantasy sequence that ends the film. Her bi-raciality makes her character even more dangerous in that she willingly aids and abets the extermination of Black males at the end of the film for the continuation of the illusion of White power that drives the story.

I may have been too presumptuous in calling her character “White” but under the circumstances one could say that the actress and her masked character are “passing” for White by dint of the fact that she continues to participate in the extermination of Black males that ends the film.   Yet, this real life racial fact opens up yet another story gap concerning the ending of the film.  We must consider that after the killing of the character of Alien (James Francos) and his assailant- the girls only motivation to continue to carry out the Black male exterminations was as a naked act of White power.  They could have easily turned back and taken everything that the character of Alien owned if it was money, guns and vehicles that they really wanted.  Instead they chose to carry out the mission of Black male extermination incited by the power struggle between Alien and Big Arch (Gucci Mane) and it is in this way that actress Vanessa Hudgens bi-raciality could be considered a moot point.

In part one, we discussed that the story in every narrative film has a gap in its logic because fictional time and narrative time do not always have to match.  The gap or series of gaps must be filled in by the assumptions of the spectator for the continuation of pleasure and the comprehension of the tale being told.  Building on the work of film scholar David Bordwell and his explanation of Cognitive Theory and cinematic narration we learned that these assumptions by the spectator are a process of elaboration and hypothesizing about what will likely happen next that we summarized as: story cognition.  We noted that the best filmmakers use these gaps to elicit the intelligence of the spectator and others use these gaps to conceal prejudices and racial stereotypes while eliciting the ignorance and presumptions of the spectator.

We identified two general types of story cognition while acknowledging that there could be others:

1) White story cognition which is particular to White films and the audiences to which such films appeal.

2) Black story cognition which is particular to Black films and the audiences to which such films appeal.

Concomitantly, we put forth the hypothesis of the master assumption: that behind each type of story cognition there is a master assumption that guides all our subsequent assumptions, inferences, and hypotheses when we as spectators fill in the gaps of a White film or a Black film.

The master assumption of White story cognition can be summarized as: We shall always prevail, which I asserted often supports the illusion of White supremacy in cinematic narration.  We briefly examined a particular story gap within three films, SKYFALL, SPRINGBREAKERS, and WORLD WAR Z that qualify as White films under our narrow and concise definition.


Now we shall examine a particular story gap in three Black films through the master assumption of Black story cognition which can be summarized as: We shall overcome- someday.   The three films to be discussed are, 12 YEARS A SLAVE (Steve McQueen- 2013), THE BUTLER (Lee Daniels -2013), and MANDELA: A LONG WALK TO FREEDOM (Justin Chadwick -2013).  I would also like to reiterate here that the examination of the three Black films that follows will not be based solely on how specific characters are represented (e.g. Whether or not the depiction of Cecil Gaines in THE BUTLER represents an Uncle Tom character archetype) but instead we will be examining how the formal construction of the film (i.e. story gaps) impact the assumptions many Black spectators are obliged to make regarding the overall presentation of the circumstances within the film.    

The master assumption “We shall overcome-someday,” of Black story cognition is much more complex and problematic than the straightforward,” We shall always prevail” master assumption of White story cognition.

For starters,” We shall overcome-someday,” is at once an acknowledgment of oppression and a quasi-religious expression of the faith that one day these oppressive circumstances will be overcome.  Drawn from the deep Christian roots of the Civil Rights Movement, the phrase itself condenses a metaphor of the waters of change eroding the rock of injustice, prejudice and inequity over time.  The master assumption of Black story cognition defers the dream of a self-determined revolutionary and violent act of total liberation in exchange for the small gains towards liberation that come intermittently while holding in abeyance the promise of total liberation until someday in the future.

If the master assumption of White story cognition is a foregone conclusion no matter what the circumstances, then the master assumption of Black story cognition is a promise in the future whose faith is a belief in things unseen in the present circumstances.  Another more revealing contrast is that if the master assumption of White story cognition conceals the prejudices, injustices, stereotypes and fixed racial hierarchies implied by certain story gaps, then the master assumption of Black story cognition often leaves unresolved and/or diminishes the urgency for reparation concerning the injustices, prejudices, stereotypes and fixed racial hierarchies of the past in exchange for the liberation of one “exceptional” Black character or an elite group of Black characters in the future.  

To make it plain, I intend to demonstrate that Black story cognition is a process of pacification that implicitly supports the illusion of White supremacy in cinematic narration.

No Black film better demonstrates the non-resolution of injustice in Black story cognition in exchange for the liberation of one “exceptional” character than Steve McQueen’s 12 YEARS A SLAVE.            

The horrific odyssey of Solomon Northup (Chiwetel Ejiofor) a talented violinist, carpenter, and Free Black man who is married with two children and living in Saratoga Springs New York, begins when he is drugged, kidnapped in Washington D.C. and then sold into slavery in the south by two cunning White con men.  Although Northup suffers a wide variety of punishments and indignities his exceptional qualities as a carpenter, engineer and a violinist are always recognized by his White captors and owners.  He is a cut above the average nigger and thus his extra value is seen through the lens of White privilege via the White controlled arts and abilities he was allowed to acquire as a free Negro.  

Even though Northup suffers he retains his faith that one day he will gain his liberation and have his legal satisfaction against those Whites who have taken his Freedom and wronged him.

As an African-American spectator and critic it is often difficult for me to see the story gaps in Black films because the seductive power of Black story cognition as a non-conscious activity makes filling in story gaps an almost automatic function.  But with the aid of another Shadow & Act contributor we find that the story gaps in 12 YEARS A SLAVE center almost exclusively upon the Black female characters and their often horrific and tragic circumstances.  In the article, Patsey’s Plea: Black Women’s Survival in 12 Years a Slave, which you can access here, author Nijla Mumin comments upon the story gaps that concern the character of Patsey (Lupita Nyong’o) when she writes,” Patsey and other Black female characters in 12 Years a Slave become human because they cannot be saved…  There is a tendency in cinema to frame historical events from a patriarchal lens, connecting them with a man’s journey to fight or survive injustice.” (1)  

Indeed the story gaps in 12 YEARS A SLAVE concern nearly every Black female character beginning with Solomon’s wife, Anne Northup (Kelsey Scott) whose life without Solomon is left a mystery; the kidnapped Black female, Eliza (Adepero Oduye) who loses her children and is carried off the plantation shouting Solomon’s name; Patsey, whose powerful story of abject degradation is left unresolved as she stands on the road watching as Solomon is liberated from slavery through the benevolence of a White carpenter named, Samuel Bass (Brad Pitt); a White savior.

Although it could be argued that 12 YEARS A SLAVE is based upon the actual autobiographical book by the real Solomon Northup and thus the story gaps in the film concerning the destiny of several minor characters was beyond the scope and theme of the film.  In our inquiry, the story gaps seem to reveal how Black story cognition pacifies the collective outrage at the suffering, punishment and injustice of a variety of Black characters in exchange for the liberation of one “exceptional” Black character who is the hero of the tale.  To continue the pleasure and comprehension of the story in some Black films, Black story cognition diminishes the need for the reparation/liberation or ascension of others for the small gains of one character and the promise of overcoming these circumstances someday in the future.             

Moreover, I speculate that the real life Solomon Northup’s liberation was short lived and misconstrued.  Given the fact that no one knows the date, location and cause of Northup’s death coupled with the fact that his legal actions against his kidnappers and his Masters ended in failure because a Black man could not testify against a White man- one can surmise outside of Black story cognition and the narrative frame of the film that Northup might have been murdered by the very same people who kidnapped and enslaved him.  It would appear that no one, Anne, Eliza, Patsey nor Solomon overcame the circumstances of their oppression.  

All this is not to say that the film 12 YEARS A SLAVE is flawed.  It could also be argued that McQueen constructed the film in such a way that he intended to draw our attention to both the castrated plight of Solomon Northup as a Free Black man in a country divided by the institution of slavery, as well as, underscore how White male privilege and White power abused the labor, body and vagina of the Black female during slavery.  Yet the seductive power of Black story cognition enables many of us ignore the unresolved suffering of a group of Black female characters in exchange for the liberation of one Free Black male character and the closure of the story.

Moving on to Lee Daniels’ THE BUTLER, Daniels presents us with the trans-historical character of Cecil Gaines (Forest Whitaker) as a common man rhetorical figure in the cinematic tradition of Woody Allen’s ZELIG (1983) and Robert Zemeckis’ FORREST GUMP (1994).  These trans-historic characters have a tangential connection to important people and/or events throughout history and act as an “impartial” lens through which these events and people can be interpreted.  

THE BUTLER centers on the interactions between Cecil Gaines and the presidents he served for 34 years at the White House.  These interactions reflect upon the larger social events that took place and shaped both the Civil Rights Movement and the trials and tribulations of African-Americans in American society.  As Cecil rises to bourgeois prominence as a White House servant many of the presidents he serves are confronted by violent racial changes and social upheavals.  Each president finds an informal moment to confer with Cecil –as a common Black man- before they engage in controversial decisions that shape history: from Eisenhower and school desegregation, John F. Kennedy and the Freedom Riders, to Lyndon Johnson and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

These interactions between Cecil and the various presidents are juxtaposed with the advances in the Civil Rights Movement and serve the film well from a structural and dramatic standpoint, but there is a troubling gap in the story that obliges the spectator to use Black story cognition to fill in the gap and continue to enjoy the rest of the film.  Of the 30 plus years and multiple administrations covered there are two presidents that are not characterized and have no interaction with Cecil: President Ford (1974-1977) and President Carter (1977-1981) and these omissions form a serious story gap.

While Daniels is especially adroit at intercutting the growing significance of The Black Panther Party and Nixon’s paranoid plans to twist the notion of Black Power into his own agenda for Black “business” Power- the omission of the administrations of Ford and Carter does not allow him to intercut the dismantling of The Black Panther Party and the ravages of poverty that were carried forward against the Black community during these administrations.  Daniels omits images and dramatizations of the concerted backlash against the advances of the Civil Rights Movement.  As Michelle Alexander documents in her book, THE NEW JIM CROW: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, “ And while it is generally believed that the backlash against the Civil Rights Movement is defined primarily by the rollback of affirmative action and the undermining of federal civil rights legislation by a hostile judiciary, the seeds of the new system of control –mass incarceration- were planted during the Civil Rights Movement itself, when it became clear that the old caste system was crumbling and a new one would have to take its place.”(2)           

In short, by omitting the interaction between Cecil and these two presidents (Ford and Carter) THE BUTLER exchanges the horrifying details of the government’s assault on the Black Panther Party and other Black Power factions (i.e. SLA and Patty Hearst) for the bourgeois ascension of Cecil’s son, Louis Gaines (David Oyelowo) as he leaves the Black Panther Party, earns a Master’s Degree and runs for Congress.  By focusing on the ascension (liberation) of one Black character, the assaults, injustice and inequities that plague the group are diminished as that single character ascends and becomes a symbol of Black Story cognition: We shall overcome- someday.

Now it could be argued that these Presidents and their administrations were omitted because of time constraints, but such omissions create the story gaps that oblige us as spectators to shift our attention from the larger portrait of social injustice to the smaller picture of “small gains” made by a single individual as representative of larger socio-political gains that were in fact not occurring on a mass scale.  The story gaps within THE BUTLER, eclipses the resentments and retrenchments against the Civil Rights Movement in exchange for the ascension of one Black character beyond those circumstances.  It is Black story cognition that fills in the gap between the reconciliation between Cecil Gaines and his son Louis Gaines during the American protests for the freedom of Nelson Mandela in the 1980’s to the election of Barack Obama.  We are encouraged to witness the overcoming of our people without experiencing the full weight of the struggle because Black story cognition conceals the struggle of the group for the acceptance of the exceptional Black individual as a symbol of progress.

It is under these contingent and pragmatic circumstances that the real life unjust murders of Blacks like George Stiney Jr. in South Carolina,  Oscar Grant III in California, Trayvon Martin in Florida, Renisha McBride in Michigan and Jonathan Ferrell in North Carolina and many, many others constantly remind us that that ‘someday’ has not come soon enough for all of us.

Our final Black film for examination is Justin Chadwick’s MANDELA: Long Walk To Freedom that was based upon the 1994 autobiography of Nelson Mandela a leader of the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa, President of the African National Congress, Political prisoner, and South Africa’s first Black president.  Nelson Mandela’s real life story as detailed in his autobiography and filmed is a complete exercise in Black story cognition in that many of the story gaps encourage the spectator to make assumptions that assess the “small gains” of one exceptional character’s ascension from the victim of racial oppression to the democratically elected leader of a racially polarized country.

In the film, once Mandela (Idris Elba) and other ANC members are imprisoned on Robben Island, they are all issued short pants as a racially motivated insult to their manhood.  As Mandela states in his autobiography,” From the first day, I had protested about being forced to wear short trousers.  I demanded to see the head of the prison and made a list of complaints.”(3)   In the film, Mandela protests to the warden, who in turn, assures Mandela of how little he cares about such a protest by his prisoners because he is well off financially, owns several properties and has a life outside of the prison walls.  

Later, when the warden announces to Mandela that he is retiring, he is shocked that Mandela remembered all of the details of his wealth and properties he owns beyond the prison walls.  In the following scene, all of the ANC prisoners receive long trousers.  This story gap obliges the spectator to use the master assumption of Black story cognition to accept an exceptional individual Black character winning small gains for an elite group.  It must be assumed that the Warden was so touched by Mandela’s exceptional humility and memory in the face of daunting oppression and indignity that as a last official act before retiring he granted the long trousers.

Also like 12 YEARS A SLAVE, the most noticeable story gaps in MANDELA, center upon the unresolved circumstances facing the female character of Winnie Mandela (Naomi Harris) and how the White South African government’s unmitigated atrocities committed against its Black South African citizenry must be “looked over” as Mandela attempts to unify the country via a democratic election that would have him elected as the country’s first Black president.

There are many other omissions including,” The Secret History of How Cuba Helped End Apartheid In South African,” as detailed by Historian, Piero Gleijeses and others. (4)  That is to say, in the effort to underscore the exceptional qualities of Nelson Mandela, as an individual Black leader, the gaps within the film’s story obliges the spectator to gloss over larger group details and focus on the accumulation of small gains by the exceptional Black hero of the tale.  The short trousers incident is one example of how Mandela’s narrative accommodates the master assumption of Black story cognition: We Shall Overcome- someday.

Such story gaps can and indeed must be looked over so that the events on screen can be blended into the smaller portrait of the rise of an exceptional individual (and/or elite group) in exchange for the diminished dramatic attention upon the suffering and the struggles of the racial group as a whole.

All of this is not to say that 12 YEARS A SLAVE, THE BUTLER, or MANDELA: Long Walk to Freedom are not great films; they are powerful works but we have looked at these Black films to reveal how Black story cognition operates in the context of Black cinema.  Yet Black story cognition is much more complex and malleable than White story cognition in part because the American Entertainment Complex sustains an artificial segregation between White films and Black films which often obliges Black spectators to accept the master assumption of White story cognition to continue to comprehend and gain pleasure from White films.  

For example, Black spectators are often obliged to shift from Black story cognition and accept White story cognition when one or more Black co-lead and/or supporting characters are killed off or rendered ineffectual in White films.  Such unceremonious killings or dramatic neutering of Black characters usually take place in the middle of film or just before the final act so that Black spectators are often confronted with the choice of having to shift from Black story cognition and accept White story cognition to continue to comprehend and enjoy the telling of the tale.  In a film like Coppola’s APOCALYSPE NOW (1979) once the last remaining Black character, Chief (Albert Hall) is killed, Black spectators are obliged to choose to shift and accept White story cognition if any more pleasure is to be gained from the film’s narrative.  

The Cognition Switch Point

Shrewd, savvy and calculating White filmmakers and producers know that the Black characters within a White film are dramatically expendable and that the ratio of Black audience ticket sales is directly correlated to whether or not the Black character(s) who are performed by recognizable Black stars stay alive until the middle of the film or until just before the final act.  I would suggest that there is a discernible narrative point in any White film that has Black co-lead or supporting characters where these characters can be killed off or rendered ineffectual and the audience (Blacks or other minorities) will continue to gain pleasure from the telling of the tale by switching to White story cognition.  We will call this point where a Black character can be killed or rendered ineffectual within a story and the Black audience is obliged to switch to White story cognition to continue to enjoy the film: The Cognition Switch Point.

Many Black spectators willingly switch from the master assumption of “We Shall Overcome- Someday” to “They [Whites] shall always prevail” if both the remaining hero of the film is White and there is less than one third of the film left to watch before the ending.

We can apprehend these cognition switch points in films as varied as, OBLIVION (2013) where Morgan Freeman shared top billing with Tom Cruise but his character doesn’t appear until near the middle of the film and is killed before the ending of the film or the abrupt and unexplained disappearance of Laurence Fishburne’s character of Detective Sergeant Whity Powers in Clint Eastwood’s film, MYSTIC RIVER (2003).  Another example of a White film that demonstrates a cognition switch point for Black spectators is Ridley Scott’s PROMETHEUS (2012) where Idris Elba’s character of the ship’s captain, Janek must sacrifice himself so that the White characters prevail and the story can continue in subsequent films.

In fact, the cognition switch point is often most noticeable in science-fiction and horror films where many Black spectators and critics have noted that Black characters rarely survive until the end.  Yet the cognition switch point exists in many White films of different genres where Blacks are in co-lead or supporting roles because the definition of a White film instructs that the narrative resolves itself by giving more dramatic attention to the emotions and circumstances of the White character(s).      

If the master assumption of White story cognition supports an illusion of White supremacy in cinematic narration, what illusion does the master assumption of Black story cognition support?  I would suggest that the master assumption of Black story cognition implicitly supports the illusion of White supremacy in that it acknowledges the truth of racial oppression but tempers the passion of a violent overthrow with the promise of “small gains” made towards future liberation- someday.  Indeed, it may well be that the pacification effect in Black story cognition is why it is so easy for many Blacks to switch to White story cognition when they are watching White films.  

If Androcles Were a Rebel

The purpose of detailing White story cognition in part one and Black story cognition in part two is so that in the third part of this article we can suggest ways to fulfill the mandate of Black Film Theory which is to contaminate the “Whiteness” of the dominate cinema, destroy its foundations and build a new racially inclusive cinema that contests and/or exposes all inequities (race, class, gender etc) at every opportunity in the pleasurable context of filmed entertainment.  For the maverick filmmaker, the independent thinker, and whosoever would be the thorn in the paw of the Lion, the first step involved to fulfill such a mandate of Black Film Theory must begin by subverting the master assumptions of White story cognition and Black story cognition.

This radical operation must be a pre-filmic activity that modifies the master assumption of White story cognition from,” We shall always prevail” to “Sometimes we fail” (please check the rhyme).  It must also modify the master assumption of Black story cognition from,” We shall overcome- someday,” to “We have overcome”.   Because as film scholar Gladstone Yearwood asserted,” An Afrocentric-based filmmaking practice effectively questions the cultural imperialism of Hollywood cinema and shifts concerns from minor superficial changes to the underlying structure of the narration itself.” (5)  Part of this underlying structure is found in story cognition and its impact upon our perception of the circumstances represented in a film.            

Luckily, there have been a few brilliant filmmakers whose work can serve as formal models for the subversion of the master assumption of White story cognition and highlight a few paths to consider for the subversion of the master assumption of Black story cognition.  In part three of this series we will examine a few films from the oeuvre of Stanley Kubrick and Jim Jarmusch as peculiar models for the subversion of White and Black story cognition.

Fiction tells lies to get to the truth.



(2) Pg. 22, The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander, The New Press: New York, 2012.

(3) Pg. 387, MANDELA: Long Walk To Freedom by Nelson Mandela, Back Bay Books: New York.  1994.


(5) Pg. 46, Black Film as a Signifying Practice: Cinema, Narration and the African-American Aesthetic Tradition by Gladstone L. Yearwood, African World Press, Inc: Trenton. 2000

Andre Seewood is the author of SLAVE CINEMA: The Crisis of the African-American in Film. Pick up a copy of the book via HERE.

This Article is related to: News



I can understand the calls for "action" in this thread. Of course, movies need to be made and scripts need to be written. But, to undermine the overwhelming influence of White Supremacy in the entertainment industry, we must also analyze and and publish works like this article. Smart people need to write sh*t down so that people in the future will know what the struggle is about.

This research, thinking, writing is DOING SOMETHING. This is one piece of the necessary ACTION, and all the pieces matter. Imagine if MLK had only held marches, and sit-ins and protests. What if he never wrote a speech? What if he never wrote a letter or referred to his studies of Ghandi and Jesus? His legacy would be even more diluted than it is now.

Scholarship sets precedents. A quick way to win any argument is to ask your opponent to give you an "example" of what their beef is. By the time you get to the in-your-face stage of the fight, most people have forgotten the specifics of the issue. Writing things down in this way gives us something concrete to attach to when someone says "So what about White Supremacy in film, who cares?" You don't have to be caught flatfooted because all you wanted was ACTION. You can't answer that question with "But I made a movie, I wrote a script." We have to produce ideas in addition to producing art.

Kijuan Ward

Great insights! Eye-opening for ANY writer/thinker of cinema!


What is a racially inclusive film? This is an honest question. Is it a film where all the Black characters live and the White characters die? According your standard if a Black character dies in the beginning, middle or ending of a film it is White Supremacy.

So therefore there are only two options. For film directors. One, never allow Black characters to die on screen again, which is inconceivable, because writers create their characters around distinct personalities, backgrounds, upbringings . That is what good writers do, they craft a back-story for a character even if its never written or filmed. The second option for White film makers is to never include different ethnic casts, and return to the 1940s. That however cannot be done because then screams from the radical left, the hand wringing will be the lack "representation", "diversity" and "exclusion".

So literally White film makers are in a double bind. There is no right choice to make, either action is racist. I suppose there is a third option, use the Government, i.e the State an immoral unethical, engine of concentrated violence, to break White mandate and force every script, any current or future director on the verge of graduation to design scripts with an all Black cast, disregarding their autonomy and freedom to create material unhindered.


Mr. Seewood, this is an excellent, well-written, well-thought piece, and I thank you for it. However, I'm also left wondering what I am supposed to do with this knowledge and how to apply to my future moviegoing experience as it relates to heavily-themed, historic black films. I feel depressed after having read this….Although, I would posit that I, and others, did wonder about Solomon's wife and family, following his capture, and about what happened to Patsey and Eliza, and all of the other enslaved people who were left behind. I did think about that for days, after I left the theater. And I suppose a television mini-series, which of course, could never do this masterful narrative justice, might have been the only way to further explore what women endured during slavery.

But, again, you present a powerful, important piece. It gives us all a lot to think about with regard to the framing of our images in cinema.


Jmac and other I fully understand what Andre Seawood is saying. I didn't say he didn't have any points, actually I agree with most of what he says. I'm saying we need action, that's black filmmakers telling their own stories freely and not being conditioned to tell their stories through white supremacy lenses. If enough black filmmakers do this and are not discouraged eventually this market will build itself because black people will have a chance then to see themselves in different images and stories. Example look at the Nigerian film industry, they made films on what they had, shooting on low budget camcorders, because they wanted to tell their stories themselves, now that they built a market to support their films, the films are getting better and you are going to see great films coming from them. Black filmmakers here should adopt that model, the more films the better. I would rather see a 1000 black filmmakers telling their own stories freely generating revenues of 30 million dollar in vod and limited release at the theaters instead of one sterotypical wide theatrical release hollywood black film fed to us generating 30 million keeping the good ole boy network going. That's why I say instead of these articles we should concentrate on making our own films and doing articles on our films being made. A critical article on black filmmakers believing in sterotypes and doing the same films white hollywood doing would be more helpful than analyzing white hollywood on how they feel about black people, they have shown time and time they don't respect and like us, how much more proof do we need to realize this. Making films with what you got and telling your own story is what's going to create a real black film market with films that we control our own images.


Thanks, Andre, this was extremely helpful.
When I started reading the first installment, I initially thought your words would amount to a 'we need Hollywood to understand this'-type of lament. Hence, I actually hesitated reading on, because I'm tired of such prose. The comment section of part 1 convinced me to give it a try anyhow. And I am so glad I did.
Your text is not a lament at all. It provides a lens through which we can improve OUR OWN creations, regardless of the type of audience we are writing/producing for.
As a novelist working on a story featuring a slave revolt in the Caribbean, I feel strengthened and encouraged by your analysis. I had already subconsciously applied your 'key elements' for the subversion of White and Black story cognition, and felt my story was different because of it (that is: different from the dominant Hollywood perception of African peoples), but never understood why I felt so. You've lifted the veil. Thank you.
I'm actually going back to my manuscript right now, to correct the storylines for a few minor characters whom I, contrary to the major characters, still subjected to the White and/or Black story cognition. Interestingly, the resolutions for these characters never sat well with me in the first place. Their fates seemed cliche and unfair. Now I know why.
Keep it coming, Andre.
Looking forward to part 3!


The only thing I have to say is the White Savior from 12 years is almost word for word from Solomon's memoir.


Interesting read but I have to say Joseph Campbell is about as deep as these industry cats get.


Considering the fact that EVERYONE is affected by white supremacy, including black filmmakers, I absolutely appreciate articles like these. We need more of them. Analyze the dominant culture that we are force-fed, so that we can write more liberatory works. I like that.


"[I]n the third part of this article we can suggest ways to fulfill the mandate of Black Film Theory which is to contaminate the “Whiteness” of the dominate cinema, destroy its foundations and build a new racially inclusive cinema that contests and/or exposes all inequities (race, class, gender etc) at every opportunity in the pleasurable context of filmed entertainment."

Like Daryl said, you can analyze all all day long, but unless we're creating content all is lost. Like seriously, how many times do people on this site have to tell you theorists, whites don't want to sit with us and you're wasting (yes wasting) your time trying to change their minds. And don't say whites don't matter because they do. If they didn't you would be trying to appeal to their concious right? I laugh and weep for you theorists that insist on encouraching a system that has consistantly shown you they don't care. Ya'll can sit here an wait all day/year/decade if y'all want too, but I'm tired authors like you that feel the need to reform/revolutionize systems instead of creating our own. What is it? Lack of self-esteem or something? Don't you think we can do it? Like, I really don't see the obsession some of these authors have with working with a hateful ass group of people hell bent of dehumanizing blacks because they themselves are dehumanized. I don't subscribe to the ideology that the oppressed must help the oppressor see the errors of their ways. Let them figure out by themselves how they oppress blacks. We need to be building. We need to be organizing. We need to create.

I look forward to the next installment on your revolution. Not because I agree with you (clearly I don't) but because I look forward to the good laugh that you will provide because I doubt you have ANY PROOF that your suggestions will actually work. Or how long they will take. Meanwhile, the belief that we should stop asking for permission has been proving effective (look at all the filmes, webseries, and documentaries that are being produced and distributed thanks to the internet). LOL If we listen to theorists like yourself that say we should reform/revolutionize these biased systems we wouldn't have shit. Shoot, I know I ain't waiting on some mythical revolution to create my two webseries. All that damn energy anaylzing and creating a reformation/revolution when we could be getting our own. Sir, with all due respect, you seem to be the definition of "hustling backwards." And it's sad.


The only way to solve these problems you are deomonstrating in these articles is to make our own films and tell our own stories based on how we feel meaning the filmmaker taste and not by believing in sterotypes to just get paid. It's that simple. It's about having diversity of the black experience in america and having a variety of stories about black people. No matter how much you analyze white sumpremacy in articles like this, it's not going to change because the white people that greenlight films don't give a damn about it. You may say so what if they don't give a damn, you are not writing it for them but I say if they are the ones you are trying to call out to start greenlighting black films it does matter if they don't give a damn. The black people that you are trying to reach to make a difference need to see action and images of them in a different light or them getting things done not articles, that's what MLK undertood with the civil rights movement. It was the images and the actions that created change not just words. You called me a black elitists because I said these articles were going to go over most black people head on why they should care, I'm dealing with reality not theory, white supremacy only works if you enslave enough black people mentally and physically to control them, if this wasn't true we wouldn't be having this same conversation year after year. example slavery worked by keeping the masses of black people uneducated and physcially abused.This concepts gooes on today but just in a different way by education, economics, and images. It's time for words with actions getting things done.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *