MICHAEL DAVIS WORLD

You can't make this stuff up, so we don't!

Dark Girls, by Michael Davis – Straight No Chaser #236

September 22, 2011 Michael Davis 14 Comments

From The Hollywood Reporter

What’s not analyzed at all is why the film treats this only as an issue for girls. Do boys not suffer the same prejudices? Or do they play out in ways so different they don’t belong in this doc? Perhaps Dark Girls, which doesn’t seem to have looked too far for interviewees or thought too long about its assertions, will inspire a more thorough filmmaker to expand on the theme.

From Variety

In order to sway audiences, however, they need a hook: A central character would help (as in “America the Beautiful”), or perhaps a charismatic host (as in “Good Hair”).

The above are selected quotes from two of the most influential entertainment publications in the world. They are reviewing the film Dark Girls a documentary that brings to light (no pun intended) the trails and tribulations of dark skinned women within African American communities.

Full discloser-one of the directors on the film is my long time friend Bill Duke.

I actually saw the film at a friends and family screening I was invited to by Bill. I make it a point to never review the work of friends of mine. In fact I’ve only reviewed one other film made by a friend and that was Michael Jai White’s Black Dynamite. I almost had a heart attack I laughed so hard at that movie and because of that I felt compelled to review it.

I’ve never been to a movie in my life where the laughter was so loud I missed a great deal of the follow up dialogue because of it. It was not until I saw the film on DVD that I was able to hear the entire movie and even then I had to rewind it quite a few times.

This will be my second review because the movie Dark Girls moved me so much.

I LOVED this film.

During the film I cried like a little girl and laughed like one also. How do you laugh like a little girl?  Giddy and carefree is how. That’s the kind of laughter that comes with a feeling that despite hardship everything is going to be all right.

When I saw Black Dynamite it was at it’s premier. Afterwards I overheard a white guy telling his girlfriend, “ I didn’t think it was so funny.”

That’s because he did not understand it.

We have a saying in the Black Community; “You better ask somebody.”  That can apply to a great many things but mostly it applies to talking shit about something when you have no idea who or what you are talking to or about.

I’d like to say to the Hollywood Reporter and the Variety reviewers; you better ask somebody, because you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

The Hollywood reporter asked; What’s not analyzed at all is why the film treats this only as an issue for girls. Do boys not suffer the same prejudices?

The film is called DARK GIRLS. What kind of question is that?

I can imagine the same reviewer asking why 101 Dalmatians had to have 101 Dalmatians in it. Could not the story been told better if we followed just one Dalmatian? Also, what about cats?  Where are the cats in the movie?  Don’t cats have a right to be in a movie about dogs?

I have an idea for a film. It called 101 Pussies and no, this film won’t have any cats in it either.

My movie is about critics who don’t care enough about the work to put any effort into reviewing movies that don’t speak to them unless it’s within their limited scope and experiences and by limited scope and experiences I mean Dark Girls features no fucking kid name Harry, no conflicts between Vampires and Werewolves and no singing high school kids.

When it comes to reviewing films about an issue within the black community; they better ask somebody.  Or stick to ‘The Help.’

Variety’s quote; In order to sway audiences, however, they need a hook: A central character would help (as in “America the Beautiful”), or perhaps a charismatic host (as in “Good Hair”).

So, a film about the very real and sometimes horrific stories of dark skinned girls would have been better with a jolly old coon dancing a jig?

Sorry I meant, a charismatic host.

I wonder if a charismatic host for the next Anne Frank documentary would make it a better story?

Dark Girls is a VERY well done movie that tells a simple story about bias based on dark skin color. Many black people refuse to talk about this prejudice and many more white people have no idea the issue exists within the black community.

Maybe a charismatic host who focuses on boys during a film about girls will make it a better film to the Hollywood Reporter and Variety. I doubt if that would make them get the point of the film, which to me was a simple one.

After the screening the audience was asked to ‘speak from the heart’ about what we thought of the film.

I was taken to task because I said I did not care about whatever issues a black woman had if that black woman offended my non-black wife.

I’m a simple guy-when a black man broke into my home and stuck a gun to my head (true story) I could give a shit what his backstory was.

When I was out with my ex-wife and she was insulted by a black woman I was not thinking about what pain that woman who just insulted my wife had gone through.

Who the fuck thinks about the problems of the shooter when they just got shot?

We have a great many issues in the black community. What makes some of these issues even worst is this, within the black community some subjects are just not talked about or in my case last night, just not listened to.

But that’s OK.

Dark Girls is a wonderful way to start a dialogue and even if I did not agree with the point of views of some of the women at the screening we STILL talked about it.

Any dialogue is better than no dialogue especially when the subject is one such as portrayed in Dark Girls.

If you have a chance to see the movie please do so. If by chance you do not understand something, ask somebody. That’s what I did when I saw ‘On Golden Pond’ because I did not get it.

Maybe it needed a charismatic host.

Previous Post

Next Post

Comments

  1. mike weber
    September 23, 2011 - 2:51 am

    Actually, i read the reviewers’ take as “Why is this film so self-restricted?” (by the choice to be only about girls), not “Why does this film about girls’ experiences not talk about boys’ experiences, too?”, as you seem to.

  2. Bill Mulligan
    September 23, 2011 - 4:55 am

    That’s still a dumb way to critique a film. It is what it is, not what the critic thinks it should be. They can go make their own movie if they have such a great idea. It’s easy. Especially documentaries. Get yourself a canon DSLR, a decent microphone, Adobe premier, boom. You’re Michael Moore without the bad hygiene.

    My own experience teaching African American kids clued me in to one social definition I had been unaware of–if a Black kids tells you someone is “light skinned” do NOT, as I did, assume that they are talking about an albino, or Eloi or Nichole Kidman. By “light skinned” they only mean “lighter than me.” It’s entirely relative. They come running ina a tell me “That light skinned boy is about to have a fight.” and I run out looking for Carrot Top and it turns out to be someone who looks like Shaka Zulu. Really unhelpful.

  3. Martha Thomases
    September 23, 2011 - 6:01 am

    There is a long history of Hollywood (and in this case, critics) of making a story palatable to a “mainstream” audience by providing a white man to show the correct reaction. It sounds like, in this case, the critics required any man.

    As an ignorant white person, I didn’t even realize there was an issue here until I saw Spike Lee’s SCHOOL DAZE.

  4. George Haberberger
    September 23, 2011 - 6:39 am

    Come to think of it, I didn’t get On Golden Pond either.

  5. John Tebbel
    September 23, 2011 - 6:51 am

    If you want to push this picture ignore every review that’s not on your point and relentlessly flog those aspects of the picture that you love. This is what will help put it over. This actually seems to direct as much attention to the reviewers (in this case wrong and therefore beneath our mention or contempt) as to the fine film you wish to bring to a wider audience. Tell us why we’ll love it or whatever other benefit we’ll derive. Those dogs will always bark and the caravan driver pays them no mind.

  6. Jeremiah Avery
    September 23, 2011 - 7:45 am

    Some critics will lambast a movie for being “too broad” but then will do what they did for this film, “I don’t understand it, please dumb it down for me and make it more palatable.”

    Don’t worry, MOTU, as much as I enjoyed some of the work of Henry Fonda and Katharine Hepburn, I wasn’t really impressed with “On Golden Pond”. Some of the “problems” the movie was trying to address were banal.

  7. Mike Gold
    September 23, 2011 - 11:08 am

    I’ll be interested to read Roger Ebert’s review. He’s been in an interracial marriage since about the time MOTU was born. His wife is a noted lawyer — I did a bit of work with her on social/political issues decades ago — and she now runs Ebert’s company.

    “Could not the story been told better if we followed just one Dalmatian? Also, what about cats?” If they were to create 101 Dalmatians TODAY, I’d bet dollars to donuts some Disney executive would ask these very questions.

    And, Jeremiah, there are LOTS of Henry Fonda and Katharine Hepburn movies that have impressed me and I’ve pretty much always been impressed by THEIR work, “On Golden Pond? was certainly not one of them. Shit happens.

  8. JosephW
    September 23, 2011 - 12:32 pm

    Anyone who’s looking for some great work from “On Golden Pond” has completely missed its REAL raison d’etre. The film was the first time that the two legends (Henry and Kate) had worked together in a film and it was the first time that the two Fondas had ever worked together on-screen.

    That’s it. No other reason for the film was needed. They had a banal little “family” story and let the three actors do their work. They made some screen magic together with a few charming moments and got Henry that long overdue Best Actor Oscar (not like it was the first time an actor or actress got the statue for a performance that was not really their “best”).

  9. MOTU
    September 23, 2011 - 4:02 pm

    Mike Weber said,

    “Actually, i read the reviewers’ take as “Why is this film so self-restricted?” (by the choice to be only about girls), not “Why does this film about girls’ experiences not talk about boys’ experiences, too?”

    Mike, the film was called Dark Girls and given the theme and the subject matter it was not restricted it was focused.

  10. MOTU
    September 23, 2011 - 4:07 pm

    George Haberberger wrote,

    ‘Come to think of it, I didn’t get On Golden Pond either.’

    George-I hear the remake is going to have a charismatic host.

  11. Steve Atkins
    September 23, 2011 - 11:26 pm

    The remake of ON GOLDEN POND…

    …Directed by Bill Duke….

    …Hosted by Chris Rock…

    …and….FILMED IN CINEMAPHONIC QUADROVISION!

  12. MOTU
    September 24, 2011 - 12:10 am

    Steve,

    Don’t forget to include streams! You can’t do movie about ponds without including streams!

  13. mike weber
    September 24, 2011 - 12:46 am

    “Mike, the film was called Dark Girls and given the theme and the subject matter it was not restricted it was focused.”

    Got that.

    I meant that – however badly he phrased it – he was asking “Why couldn’t this [or another] film have been called ‘Dark Children’?”

    Which is a good point (at least the “or another”); maybe someone needs to make that film.

    And the critic needs to write an essay – taking off from this film, but not taking it to task for not being what it wasn’t meant to be – explaining why he thinks that someone making that film would be a Good Thing.

  14. Mike Gold
    September 24, 2011 - 6:11 am

    JosephW — Yep. I agree 100%. That’s why I was so disappointed. With that cast (Dabney Colman was also in it) and director Mark Rydell (also an actor; loved him in Altman’s Long Goodbye) I expected a lot more.

    Hey, I’ll live.

Comments are closed.