As an armchair film critic, I owe it to myself and to my audience to share some insight on my reaction and response to the recently released film, Dear White People. After seeing it opening weekend (twice), I wasn't sure what new perspective I would be able to offer on the film, especially given the numerous reviews it's received (both prior and after the screenings I attended). Overcoming this apprehensive fairly quickly, I now feel compelled to say something.
In one weekend, I saw Dear White People along with the animated feature-length film, The Book of Life (which played at the larger, mainstream theatre in the area). Dear White People opened nation wide on October 24. The Book of Life opened in theatres on October 17. I saw Dear White People on October 25 while seeing The Book of Life on October 26. I had to travel some distance in order to see The Book of Life because the theatre nearby was only showing it four times that weekend: two in 3D and two in standard digital, and I wasn't available to see it during any of those times. BTW, I want to note that the theatre I ended up seeing it at was only playing it five times that day (3 in XD3D and twice in standard digital). Given what I intend to spend on a ticket and my desired experience, I didn't necessarily need to see it in 3D/XD/40DD/hydrogradeD/lowfat soy, slight foam (added my own emphasis). So, I went to the next theatre several towns over, try about a 30-45 minute drive and a highway, to see The Book of Life. What surprised me was the lack of screenings for a film that just recently opened (please note that Dear White People has been open now around the same amount of time that The Book of Life was open when I saw it and according to the local art house's website playing Dear White People currently, there's about seven screenings Saturday, six yesterday, and five this evening - a Monday no less). Usually, films do not play for very long at our local art house, with the exception of Twelve Years a Slave (which I still, to this day, refuse to see, but for different reasons than one would imagine), a film that felt like it played for an eternity. I have a sense that Dear White People will follow suit. Readership, can you sense the anger that has fallen upon this soul when discovering this disparity?!
Reminiscing on viewing these two films brings me back to the experience of the adventure taken in order to see Gabriel Iglesias' The Fluffy Movies, which was released this summer. The nearest theatre playing it was in Providence, RI, which is about a two hour drive from where I currently reside. And, this was during opening weekend, no less! And, when I went to search for other theatres playing this film, the list was extremely slim. Not sure why, but multiple factors came to mind: one of them being how Iglesias, as a comedian has been billed/marketed. It felt like The Fluffy Movie played not just in metropolitan markets, but those with a substantial number of Latino/Hispanic communities. For those who are familiar with his work, how many times have you heard him talk about the advantages/disadvantages of being billed as a Mexican comedian?! Case, in point. Not to ruin both The Book of Life and The Fluffy Movie, because I really want people to see these films, making the trek for these movies was well worth it, more so than seeing Dear White People twice at a theatre within walking distance from my house.
- This film was marketed as a "satirical drama." To be honest, I found it hard to laugh during this film even at the most obvious jokes that were supposed to reach across the aisle for multiple reasons. It was hard for me to savor those jokes as I felt extremely uncomfortable watching the film because I've experienced similar situations that played out onscreen in real life, most of them taking place where I currently live. A second point but feeding off of the other, It was really hard to watch extremely heightened, one-dimensional characters amongst a realistic environment. Some of the best satires (I'm a little biased because I'm a huge fan of the ones that I'm about to list), i.e., The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Arrested Development, Chappelle Show's, (earlier) Saturday Night Live, render their extremely heightened characters within a world that is heightened at the same level or even in more crazier circumstances. It's not just that the heightened environment lends itself to believing that these characters can exist, it is because of these situations that these characters can thrive. What was most upsetting to me about the characters in Dear White People is that the jokes that they were delivering were not believable because it felt like those would be things that they could say in real life given that everything was so realistic. It just made the characters look like mean jerks. Also, the environment of Dear White People made it hard to believe that any critique was served due to the fact that I think that it was poorly executed satire.
- The biggest question I kept asking myself during both viewings of the film was "who is the intended audience for this film." Almost all of the characters, with the exception of a few, were one-dimensional, incredibly flawed with no redeeming qualities. I even found it hard to align myself with Lionel, someone who I have a lot in common with, because it was so painful watching him struggle as that outsider. It resurfaced, for me, some of the most painful situations that I experienced throughout my undergraduate and graduate education and my current living situation. My impression is that there is 1) always an intended audience for cultural products and 2) all tactics will be followed in order to attract this audience. I believe that the film failed in this arena as well.
- I'm not sure how much this film adds a different perspective on race relations at Predominately White Institutions (PWIs), (a label often bestowed upon colleges and universities, especially in academic/scholarly writing, where the population of white students dominate the respective campus being spoken of) because all of the black characters didn't see a major arc or endure any significant change until they were challenged to do so by some of the white characters (i.e., Sam and Lionel). I believe that this film only reinscribes the issues that are prevalent on these campuses rather than try to resolve them. Sometimes, it is not enough to highlight the problems, especially if these are issues that are covered on a daily basis by other media. I was really hoping for a different perspective on race relations on college campuses via this film but that didn't happen. It felt more like Spike Lee's School Daze - the PWI Edition rather than it's own thing. My apologies for not remembering which critic made the following point (once I find the article, I will post it) but wouldn't it be more revolutionary if filmmakers and other artists rendered people of color and those from other marginalized communities within circumstances where they would thrive?! We know that trials, tributions, and oppression happens but aren't there things when we are happy and living fulfilling and successful lives?! Since these images are few and far between (yes, I know some would say that happiness doesn't make for a great film because it's projected that there will be little to no conflict), I would like to see more artists display these types of situations. Just imagine how many young children will feel more inspired to live if they saw some of these representations! I strongly believe that we treat one another based on how someone like us is rendered in mainstream media and that one change in representation speaks volumes.
- It doesn't surprise me that mainstream newspapers (i.e., New York Times, Washington Post, etc) shout only praises for the film because sometimes, it's just enough for people to glaze over the surface when it comes to these issues. I believe that approaches to delving deeper into issues with regards to race, gender, class, sexuality, marital status (or lack thereof) do not make it through to mainstream avenues. Simien knew what he was doing by making this film because he knew that with how he approached these topics, his project was going to get more airtime.
- (WARNING: this is the only spoiler that I will offer and I have a very political reason for doing so) Lionel is subjected to gay bashing and even a moment where he's beaten up due to his sexuality. After discovering that Simien recently came out of the closet (according to his Wikipedia page, the rendering of this character and his experiences troubled me even more. Though fiction, I believe that Simien owed more to the LGBTQ community and it's allies for we have seen similar outcomes far too often in multiple threads of media. I know some would argue that it is not art's responsibility to demonstrate social consciousness and to render a world that currently doesn't exist; one where members of communities that are marginalized in reality could exist sans slander and potential harm. In this case, Simien could have taken this opportunity to show that a gay character can exist without being treated poorly, especially to the degree Lionel had to experience. This characterization also positioned so many characters within the film as being anti-equality. Please read this post on a response/reaction by a particular audience when it came to this issue. I believe that you'll feel even more enraged by this rendering in the film after reading it.