For Thursday’s class, please blog about your thoughts re: the Still Black film and Awilda and Kortney’s talk. Just write about anything that took your attention and try to relate your thoughts to some of the concepts/ideas we’ve discussed in class. Since our Thursday speaker is unable to come visit our class, I’m taking you all to Millennium Park to see the following event. PLEASE MEET ME AT THE PARK BY 6:30 p.m. Be sure to bring whatever you want to be comfy and enjoy your evening. You can sit either in the seats or in the park, but be sure to find me and check in.
Music Without Borders: The Bachata Roja Concert: Unsung Heroes, Rediscovered Icons/Mayra Andrade
Date: 6/26/2008
Time: 6:30 p.m. – until . . .
Millennium Park brings the best global sounds to Chicago for the critically-acclaimed Music Without Borders series, the City’s ongoing year-round celebration of international music.
Rediscover the early icons from the Dominican Republic who pioneered the romantic, guitar-driven ballads and dance rhythms of the Afro-Carribean beat – singers Ramon Cordero and El Chivo Sin Ley, guitar giant Edilio Paredes – and discover singer-guitarist Joan Soriano, an emerging bachatero star from today’s younger generation. Cape Verdean singer Mayra Andrade opens the night.
Music Without Borders is presented by a grant from the Governor’s International Arts Exchange program of the Illinois Arts Council.
![OMG ! [ Explore #1 ]](http://static.flickr.com/2631/4150305338_5dd4270c04_t.jpg "OMG ! [ Explore #1 ]")
13 responses so far ↓
Michael Miles // June 25, 2008 at 9:03 am |
The Film Snob Fires the Opening Shot….
I’m sure everyone is on pins and needles wondering why I didn’t opine on “Still Black” at all during the class. (Ok, maybe it’s my arrogance to assume anyone cares) I’m not usually quiet, nor do I generally shy away from sharing my opinions. However, I definitely didn’t feel like I was ready yet to express my feelings from what we viewed. I really struggled with my thoughts on “Still Black” tonight.
The fact was, I came in extremely excited for this film and was incredibly interested in the chance to see an independent film made by not just a Chicago filmmaker but an African American lesbian (someone who had an entirely different perspective than my own). To be frank, I was more disappointed by the film than I was excited to see it. I found it to be vapid, over-stylized, and extremely shallow.
To start, I want to talk about the aesthetic qualities of the filmmaking. First of all, the structure of the film was bland and appeared that little thought had gone into it. We have 6 individuals whose conversations are presented one after another with them all answering similar questions. Now, purely from the perspective of structure, what the filmmakers did felt lazy to me. Instead of inter-cutting these transmen’s interviews with each other and attempting to find commonality or juxtaposition between their responses, we have a kind of herky jerky format that literally just feels like I’m watching a series of interviews. In fact, it made the film feel not entirely cohesive, but actually more like 6 mini-films all thrown together. By doing this, the movie has a stop and start quality to it that lends little gravitas to what each individual is actually saying. In fact, it seemed to possibly betray the lack of time spent with each individual by the filmmakers.
Secondly, the actual cinematography of the film I found to be questionable at best. The print that I saw could have had some issues because it was being projected from what appeared to be an online stream. However, I can only judge what I saw. So, on that basis, I found the lighting to be extremely bland and amateurish. I’m not sure how much care was put into lighting each interview, but it felt generally flat and lifeless and often times the picture seemed blown out. Another aspect of the cinematography that greatly bugged me was the decision to frame the people the way they did. Yes, in traditional rules of interviewing there are technically two (possibly three) cameras used; one to shoot a medium shot, one to shoot a close up, and a third to get an alternative angle. The framing of the shots are supposed to follow technical rules called the rule of thirds which dictates the positioning of the subject in the frame. Now, no doubt the filmmakers are aware of these rules and decided to subvert them for a purpose. However, what I saw was that these rules were thrown out for the sake of doing something different. Now, this may not always be bad. However, in my mind, if you would like to take an alternative approach to cinematography (and this goes for much of the editing as well) then do it as a means of opening a window to greater understanding of these people. Use it as a tool to bring me closer into the story and the lives of the individuals. However, in this case, it felt like Ziegler decided to use these different techniques as a point of style for style’s sake. Fine, I get it, but it doesn’t work. It doesn’t help me engage and it doesn’t help show me anything but another angle of the face. For all the talk about catching the uniqueness of each person interviewed and all the talk of avoiding “talking heads” I felt that all she managed to do was show me talking heads with “style.” Really, is that more interesting than talking heads in a still shot where I can begin to read a persons body language uninterrupted or manipulated through over-editing and shaky poorly framed camera work?
Moving on, I’m going to talk about what really frustrated me about this film. (I am of the mind that we as people are able to look past poor aesthetics in the technical aspect of film if the material grabs us and engages us. For example, consider how we may watch an old VHS tape with degradation and sound drop-out but because the story is good we won’t turn the television off even though the presentation is ruining our ability to enjoy the aesthetics of the form.) The part that angered me the most and which really frustrated me with this film was the complete lack of depth with which they treated their interviews. Coming out of watching this, I don’t feel like I truly was shown a window into these men’s lives. I instead received a very shallow snapshot of one small aspect of them, and honestly, from the comments made in the after interview, it sounds like the filmmakers even censored some of the better more interesting aspects of these men. I wasn’t completely sure why at first, but as certain things were said, it became apparent that it really had to do with how the filmmakers wanted to represent black transmen instead of, in some ways, just allowing these men’s words to speak for themselves. Let’s face facts; humans are a mess of contradiction. That’s one of the most basic aspects of our humanity. However, when you search for controversial material and take that out of your documentary you’re robbing your subjects of their own humanity and just using these men to put out your own ideas about them.
I mean, was it necessary to avoid digging into the issues of a transman who pastors a Christian church? You may say “yes” this film wasn’t about the fact that he is a pastor. And I will respond well, what was this film about then? Was this film not about Black Transmen? I want to know much more than that this person is black and Transsexual. I want to know who they are as people. I want to experience and understand the common human things about them. I want to hear more about their daily lives. I want to see how they interact with their families. Where is that footage?
This film failed because the filmmakers pulled their punches. They verbally served up a good tale afterwards. They said this film was ABOUT the men, not the transition or the before and after snapshot, etc. However, look and listen to the content. Most of this film talks about transitioning and how that came about, how the family dealt with that, etc. We get a few brief glimpses of the lives of each of these men. However, I felt like the way they robbed themselves of making a great film was they didn’t get enough footage. There should have been multiple interviews with each subject, there needed to be footage from their daily life. There needed to be so much more material to turn these shallow caricatures into fully formed PEOPLE. Honestly, by the end we get on or two facts about these people, one or two tidbits of their day to day real life, but what we really received from each interview was two things, BLACK and TRANS.
I was begging for this film to go deeper. However, instead of moving to the next level of depth with a subject, the film just moves in this re-boot formula where it’s saying, “ok, next person on the Black Trans assembly line step up, fill out the survey.” I do not understand why you leave out the uniqueness of these people. I do not understand why you leave so much of who they are on the sidelines. Why not let their misogynistic voices come through. How about letting them tell the audience as much as they want. Why cut out the facts that this person was diagnosed as intersexed? Heck your interviewee shared it. It was important to him. However, you cut it out. Why did you do that, because it didn’t fit the idyllic impression that you were choosing to portray the subject in? That’s what it sounds like, and frankly, that’s a mistake. Nothing and no one is idyllic or fits a mold. These people are all individuals and this film did a damn poor job of showing that. Yes, in moments, these men were so frank and honest that in snippets we were allowed a key hole with which to view into their lives and souls. However, I felt robbed and if I was one their interviewees I would have felt downright exploited.
P.S. if you want to avoid “talking heads” there is a much more interesting way to do it than “style for style’s sake,” Shoot a lot of B-Roll. Shoot as much as possible. Cut to those things where appropriate. Shoot interviews walking and moving. Shoot more things and include more footage from the Translaw conference at Harvard. Shoot these people in their elements, include that footage. It would serve two purposes at once, 1) I would know much more about these people and see much more of who they are 2) It would avoid the non-stop talking-heads interviews (which is exactly what this film turned into).
Now, as for why I didn’t feel comfortable stating these opinions in class: I can’t lie; part of it was just cowardice. I felt like the minority. I felt like the grumpy nay-sayer in the class. Also, I was afraid of being judged for coming down on something so many people were getting behind. I felt like there was a two pronged reason for the hugely favorable opinions of the film. 1) The artist was present and that always tends to create a phenomenon where people are willing to give more favorable opinion to the artist in person.(Maybe a little ass kissing going on) 2) The film was attempting to talk about a socially important subject therefore, I think some people mistake their earnestness of wanting the film to be important because its subject is important, rather than actually considering how successful the film is in the execution of its examination of a major subject (For Example, would Brokeback Mountain have been considered as nearly an aesthetic triumph of filmmaking if it was the story between a man and a woman or was it hailed as brilliant more for the subject matter it tackled?). Possibly for me, I was more disappointed with the fact that this film had such an important subject that was, in my opinion, cheated. Finally, I didn’t want to offend the filmmakers in person. My opinions on this film are fairly harsh and negative, and I didn’t want to spoil their premiere. Maybe that is a mistake. However, I’ve never been sure how to tell someone that their work sucked unless they ask me directly to honestly explain my feelings.
Nancy // June 25, 2008 at 3:16 pm |
I’m sitting in my mobile office eating lunch and I, literally, howled with laughter after reading Michael’s blog – hat’s off to you for laying it all out there. Don’t mistake me; I wasn’t laughing AT Michael, but man, who knew all that was going on underneath his calm surface. I have to say, I do see his point in regards to wanting to see more day-to-day snippets of these men’s lives and was even taken back to a question from one of our earlier readings… Ted Cohen had posed the question about an artist making something that they, themselves, didn’t particularly care for just because someone else might like it. When Ziegler said that she made this movie because there hadn’t been one made about black men, I thought of Cohen… It was as if she just chose it – she didn’t know anyone personally or didn’t seem to have a particular drive to tell this story.
Aside from that, I have to say I enjoyed it. I don’t have the technical knowledge that Michael has in regards to the actual production/filming and I’m glad. Ignorance is bliss, yes? I’m pretty sure that had I had more knowledge, I would’ve been more critical because that’s just my nature. I actually LIKED the different film elements, the black and white and camera angles and didn’t mind the “talking heads.” Again, I don’t have much knowledge when it comes to documentaries – on the whole I don’t watch them because I like to watch movies and television as a means to escape. I figure I deal with enough shit in my own life that I don’t want to feel bad about someone else’s. But from a regular Joe Schmo off the street, I thought it was really good and enjoyed this new door that had been opened to me.
When told what we were going to be screening, I had no idea what to expect. When I told friends what I was going to be seeing in class, I got more than one raised eyebrow, as I’m sure you can imagine. The topic is so outside my sphere of reality, that I was truly fascinated with each man’s story. I was left with wanting to know more and being reminded to take care in my judgments of others.
Ashley // June 26, 2008 at 1:03 am |
I will admit I had the lowest of expectations for this film. When I saw that the filmmakers where students I immediately thought great I have to sit through another shitty student film. And then I saw the title Still Black and that feeling of annoyance creeped up on me, see I grew up in a world were talking about being black was just not something you do, I have always tried to blend in with my white environment as much as I could and avoid issues that people may not understand such as what it is to be black. So when reading the title I rolled my eyes and thought great another film where black people rant about their problems in white society. Then the film started and it was in black and white this was just about the finale straw not only is the film by students and about being black but it is also going to try to be some black and white artsy film. Then that first interview started and almost immediately all those negative asshole thoughts left my brain and I began to get engaged in the film and felt a passion for the people in it.
The film needed no color, the characters in it where colorful enough. Even though the film was a bunch of talking heads, these heads had something interesting to say. The words out of the mouths of the interviewees where shocking and the black and white added to this edginess. One huge problem with documentaries that are purely talking heads is that the images begin to get boring but that wasn’t the case in this film. The constant edits and interesting characters kept the film compelling, even in 12 minute segments my mind never wondered I found myself wanting in to know more about these men and with the combination between the close ups, being shot in the personal homes and their revealing stories I myself felt as though maybe just for a moment I was in these men’s lives. That they had not only let the filmmakers into their world but me as well. I think that not having the interviewers voice in the film helped this get across as though these conversations where being said to me and no one else. It was a very personal experience. And as far as the focus on black trans men I found it a necessity that was uniquely informative and not preachy I found myself learning more about my race and what it means to be a black man versus a black woman like me. I loved the film and I hope more people see it then just us.
There is however a but, I am a film student and there were defiantly things about the film I do have problems with, even though my attention was held through the segments I felt it would have been more interesting if some other choices were made like the blending of the interviews or just having more footage of their day to day lives. I also wish the filmmakers would have gotten a little deeper into the lives of these men, I left the film wishing I new more about the men hen what I got. But still even with these flaws I still think it was great and a wonderful starting off point for beginning filmmakers.
As for the discussion afterwards, I thought both filmmakers were every interesting and passionate about their subjects, however I will not lie in saying I began to get distracted because I recognized the both of them and spent the rest of the class trying to figure out where I know them from, I am still trying to figure it out.
April // June 26, 2008 at 12:36 pm |
I had no idea what to expect going into a movie like this. And to prove how somewhat uneducated I am about the whole glbt community… when I was told we were going to be screening a film on Black Transmen, I thought we were going to be learning about some new trade or job that I had never heard of…. wow, now that I just proved my ignorance, let’s get on with the review.
The film was extremely interesting in the way that it opened my eyes to a whole world that I had never thought of before. So props to the filmmakers for choosing an interesting topic. I am a straight, white, female who has never had any questions about my sexuality, and the only way I would have learned about transsexuals is if I researched the topic, or took a class. or watched it in a movie, and since I hadn’t done any of those things (until now) I knew less to nothing about the topic. The fact that there are people out there struggling with their identity the way that these men, and I’m sure a lot of other people are doing, really hit me. I mean I still have no way to know exactly what they are struggling with, but the movie did help a lot in showing me some sides to their life. It might have been more effective actually if they focused on less people, and did a longer interview for those people because at the end we were all getting the names confused and “who said this” and everything.
The aesthetics in the movie were pleasing, and they probably helped me stay interested longer than I would have normally. I loved the small part of the poet with the backdrop behind him. That man really stood out to me, and I don’t know if it was for that reason, or the fact that he mentioned some of my favorite hip hop artists during the beginning of his interview. I mean common, talib kweli, and mos def… it’s like we share the same mind (when it comes to music). So, what I’m getting at is that I enjoyed the film, that I probably wouldn’t have taken a second look at if it wasn’t for our class. The filmmakers themselves seemed so cool. They really had a vision, and they tried to make it all work on a limited budget, which is what so many college artists struggle with. I hope the film does well I really do. I didn’t get to ask where they are showing it, but I would be interested to read about the reactions from the other people that are going to be seeing it.
Toi Neeley // June 26, 2008 at 12:53 pm |
I enjoyed class Tuesday. The camera work and editing was done. I feel that the two young ladies that put the film together shouldn’t stop there because I seen so many other topics that could have been talked and further researched. What about transgender people in other races and cultures. The film broke against the grain and I’m sure there will be people whom liked it or despise it. What I liked about the film was that I didn’t let my personal opinions get in the way of how I viewed the film. The film was set up to educate others on how people whom are trans think and feel. I’m not going to lie overall I felt uncomfortable because they were black and deep inside I know that people come in all shapes, sizes, genders, sex, and preferences but I never had to face this so close to home.
Rachael Harter // June 26, 2008 at 2:19 pm |
Unlike some others I didn’t really have that many expectations, good or bad, about the movie last Tuesday. I like experiencing new things and was open for the experience. I guess I was not sure what to expect, but in that was excited. With this piece as well as in my last blog I didn’t have huge reactions. I think I have wrestled more with myself and the purpose to this new apathy, which is not consciously projected, in what I see. Maybe apathy is the wrong word….just lack. Lack of emotional response and great self-reflection. I do not see this as a reflection of the piece, by no means. The piece was actually done well and was enjoyable. I see this is a reflection of myself and wonder where my ‘voice’ is at…maybe on vacation a bit early? I haven’t figured that one out yet. But I can say that I loved the art inside the art of this film. In other words, I loved the detail to the shots, the backdrops, the use of black and white (which I do agree somehow really helped me focus on the stories and that color would have distracted me in some sense). I liked the men they chose, purposeful, and the information each chose to disclose in the interviews. I liked the slightly raw edge that kept you in the movie despite its ‘documentary’ element. What really stood out to me was the respect and honor that was upheld in the way the movie told the stories and the lives of these men. That goes beyond art ‘skill’ or profession and speaks of the artists themselves. So I guess in a sense there is still some voice there, though I look forward to the swinging of the pendulum again and the grappling’s and wrestling’s my mind used to have.
Samantha H. // June 26, 2008 at 3:33 pm |
Though I thought the film explored an important topic and raised some important questions I have to agree with some of Michael’s criticisms of the aesthetics and overall quality of the film. I tend to put the subject matter above the aesthetics–thus, I can definitely look over poor production value. Also–this is a student film, and I understand the lack of money–so I am willing to overlook it in my judgement of this film. Though I will say, that I found the use of violet black and white fairly distracting, the talking head format somewhat limiting, and the noticeable stylized fad-ins and outs a bit gratuitous.
Overall, however, I think the film is worth seeing. I was intriqued by all of the men’s stories and though at times, I found myself drifting off during their long monologues, ultimately I was left incredibly provoked. To me-the ability to provoke is the most important, in fact essential, quality that art can have.
The one criticism I would have of the way the film dealt with the subject matter is that it did not explore the underlying social conditions, namely the patriarchal system under which we live. I think that in order to understand transsexuality, we have to understand the social context under which it is occurring (this would actually be the same for any type of sexuality, including most definitely modern heterosexuality). The questions this raised in my mind were in regard to that primarily, and included bigger questions that I wish were explored. For example: how is it that we come to realize our identity? What is identity anyway, and how is it formed? Are we just born with a certain sexuality or is is socially conditioned? How do we overcome patriarchy? Is it possible to do anything more than crossing over to the other side of the male/female gender binary? Can we overcome gender altogether? I realize that the intent of the film was to tell the men’s stories, not to make a social commentary on transexuality or society. And in this society, just telling the men’s stories is in itself a subversive and courageous act. In that way, the film makers seem to be making some kind of commentary. But I couldn’t help but thinking while watching Still Black that there was an air of a identity bubble. It was almost as if there were a small unconscious assumption that we can all be on an equal plane if we just understand one another, without questioning the circumstances under which people form their sexual identities and the systems which securely hold oppression in place.
Danny A // June 26, 2008 at 4:26 pm |
Reading a critical review of a documentary about black transmen is like reading a diet book by Dr. Phil. And like Dr. Phil, I will at least try to come across as if I know what I’m talking about.
What I liked:
-I haven’t seen a film before that exclusively covered the experience of black, female to male transgendered people. I wasn’t sold on how narrow the scope was at first, but I began to understand that this select group of people have their own unique struggles and hardships, and I found that interesting.
-The individuals they chose to film showed a good variety within their particular niche of transgendered people. I was happy to see the gamut range from a highly educated lawyer, to a church minister, to a young 22 year old poet, and so on. It allowed for a plethora of experiences and viewpoints to be expressed and helped the overall film’s value as a documentary.
-The aesthetic choice not to show how the people they interviewed looked like before they started their changes. It wouldn’t have bothered me at all if the did, but I find the reasoning that ‘their old bodies were not who they truly were’ a fair artistic choice.
What I didn’t like:
-The style was bland. I understand that it is hard to show six interviews in a row about the same subject and maintain a level of interest and excitement in the viewer. The handful of cutaways to the church group, the tattooing and so on helped, but the stylized editing between different shots of the same interview appeared cheesy. Every time I saw it I felt as though the editor was aware of how dull the presentation was becoming and felt compelled to ’sweeten it’ (which is showbiz talk for ‘add sugar too’*).
-The order of the interviews seemed random, or at least not thought out well. The general way a story is presented is to have a rising action, or momentum, followed by a climax and a quick falling action, or resolution. This is how it’s normally done because it’s the best way to keep an audience interested throughout the film. The rule isn’t set in stone, but if you don’t have a good reason to break it, you probably shouldn’t. Based on my own, and what appeared to be the rest of the class’s reaction, they wasted their most interesting character on the second interview. I forget who the last interviewed person was, and that’s likely because he was the least interesting of the six; and that’s way I was confused by the order that was shown. I hope that they have a few anonymous test screenings because I’m sure this point would be brought up and they’ll hopefully re-edit the film into a more practical order.
Ok, I’m done. I’d like to end with a stupid Dr. Phil quote to bookend this response into a nice package with a pretty bow ; P.
“You need to listen to your body because your body is listening to you.” by the “not licensed to practice psychology in Texas, California, or anywhere else.(wikipedia)” Dr. Phil
*Quote from the great Mitch Hedberg
Jordan // June 26, 2008 at 5:19 pm |
Unfortunately I was unable to see the “Still Black” film. Im kinda sad because looking at others comments on it, it sounded quite interesting. I did view the trailer and website. I did however attend Liz Phair’s concert Tues. night at the Vic. I am a little biased because I am such a fan, but I thought the show KICKED ASS! I had never been to the Vic before and I must say it is a really cool, somewhat intimate venue. It would be really hard to not be able to find a good seat. The only problem was the heat, there was little to no air or even circulation and the show was sold-out, so needless to say I was dripping with sweat by the time the show ended. Phair’s concert was one of 4 concerts in association with the re-release of her debut album “Exile in Guyville.” EIG is a masterpiece and even made Rolling Stones top albums of all time. Phair started out with the song “6′1.” It was a good way to start out since it is a classic and fast paced and rock-n-roll. The whole energy of the place was awesome. Being that Chicago is Phair’s hometown, throughout the show she mentioned little tid bits of her time in Chicago, the Cubs, Northside and Southside, her early days in Wicker Park. Phair had no opener, and she only played songs from Exile in Guyville, which was not a problem with me, since some of the songs from that album had never even been played live before. The most awesome part of the show to me was the encore. After she finished her initial set and left the stage, the lights came on, but people just didnt want to leave. The crowd cheered for an encore, and Phair delivered, playing the classic “Polyester Bride” and “Chopsticks.”
Laura // June 26, 2008 at 5:31 pm |
I waited until today to write this blog in keeping with the “sleep-on-it” theory, and unfortunately, no revelations came up. I fear this is because I happen to agree with Michael on many of the points. Even though the subject matter of the film was independently interesting, and would have been equally as interesting were I watching it live, I found the film itself to be not all together that memorable. While I definitely appreciated the very fact that these girls decided to make such a film, I felt, like Michael, that it could have been done much better and could have been much more effective in that sense.
I completely understood why the filmmakers decided to set up each shot the way they did, but I did not find this reasoning to be all that innovative or original, unfortunately. The fact that the film was in black and white surely contributed to it’s “edgy” factor (though sometimes its very easy to fall into making something with the intention of being edgy, and that edginess becoming gratuitous), but I feel like the choice may have accidentally taken emphasis off of the fact that this film was specifically about black transmen, as black and white filming always takes my focus off the importance of colors.
I also agree that the men in the film were not quite as individualized as I would have liked them to be. As unique as their lives have been from, say, some hetero white female like myself, the mode of story telling in each interview became so linear that I began to be able to expect the experiences that were then shared on film. If the purpose of the film was to emphasize unifying qualities and experiences among African American transmen, then this effect served it’s purpose (however I don’t feel like that was the intention). I felt as if the editing could have been much more interesting based on the knowledge that there were 3 cameras set up at any given time. I found myself exhausted with some of the very interesting narratives being told, because of the far-too-long shots and content. This is my main issue with this film, with subject matter as captivating and original as this, it seems like it would actually take effort to try and make it seem uninteresting, but I found myself at times zoning out, or journaling in attempt to understand the importance of the film-or the purpose for that matter. While the men being interviewed did a wonderful job at elaborating on every subject they were prompted with, I felt as if the questions being asked and the footage taken really did not do them and their incredible experiences justice.
Isabel // June 26, 2008 at 5:49 pm |
I enjoyed the film. I agree with some of the technical criticisms of the format etc., but it didn’t bother me nearly enough to interfere with my immersion in the content. There were many scene compositions I really admired too, like the one someone pointed out with the preacher on the wide winged couch.
I recently saw the 1990 documentary “Paris is Burning” directed by Jennie Livingston. It’s about ball culture which involves these really ostentatious competitions between Houses (groups composed mostly of gay men and transgendered people—the majority of which are Black or Latino). When Still Black was being introduced in class and they said that there had never been a movie about black transmen—only movies with token black characters—Paris is Burning immediately came to my mind as an exception. But after seeing Still Black there were such obvious differences in motive and focus, I realized that there were all sorts of questions that Paris is Burning didn’t have time to delve into.
I was impressed at how thought-provoking and multi-layered Still Black is. There were all sorts of things brought up that I had never thought about before, about transgenders as well as my own sexual identity. But aside from that one of the things that I’ve been left thinking about the past few days is the role of the documentarian. Some people thought it was wrong that Kortney and Awilda decided not to tackle some issues (like Christianity and misogyny among transmen). Personally, I was convinced by their argument that they had a specific focus that they needed to stick with. And it explains why Paris is Burning is not enough on its own to give us an understanding of the lives of black transmen. The subject merits its own film. It seems like a documentary should try to investigate its subject as thoroughly as possible and record for us everything that is discovered. But I think one of the major roles of a documentarian, or any artist for that matter, is choosing where to stop—defining the borders of your piece. A critic for the New Yorker, Terrence Rafferty, said of Paris is Burning director “she does her subjects the honor of allowing them to retain some of their mystery”. I think the same can be said of Kortney and Awilda, their survey of the subject was brave and intelligent but they also had a clear concept of where to set their limits.
Saraphina // July 1, 2008 at 9:26 am |
I have postponed writing my opinion about the film “Still Black.” because this is the only art piece that I am having difficulties landing on my opinion. I still don’t know if I can establish whether “I liked it” or “I did not like it.” During the discussion I feel it was somewhat a one stemmed flower. That because the artist was there, it is harder to establish ones opinion without obviously pushing it towards “liking” the film. I enjoyed the premiss. I felt it captured the lives and situations of the men as it was supposed to. It was very raw and real attaching itself to the reality of the persons situation and how they overcame the obvious obstacle of being transmen. I felt the stories were captivating enough to hold there own oppose to jumping from one interview to the other. They were a little lengthy and I did feel at times the men being interviewed repeated themselves. It was definitely in my opinion a piece about struggle and the formality of how it was to be attached to two different lives. I found that there personal vendettas with there families was the most intriguing. I felt that most of them had respect for there families respecting them or trying to come to terms with the situation. I feel that relaying into the deeper part of there lives was very important and helped the film makers capture the men not only just as transmen, but also as family men.
The stories were heartfelt and meaningful. I appreciated the message that there are people that are struggling with gender issues. But in all honesty I still cant grasp my hand around what turned me off. It was an important display of the colorful world we live in and the struggle they have within themselves. As I’m writing this and almost embarrassed that I cant grasp a formal opinion I feel that our society has and always will be people critics. That we are I believe, people who aware or unaware are constantly judging each other. Just as people see me at first and because of my age and physical appearance will assume I am ignorant or stupid. in fact I’ve traveled the world and seen things only people would dream and hate to see and speak three languages. Or my uncle Jim, one might assume by his physical appearance or high pitched voice he is flamboyant and feminist, however he is actually very masculine and a fire fighter. I feel that this film was able to prove the age old rule of not judging a book by its cover. That it is important to not only push past physical appearances but to open oneself to the human emotion. That people are similar in the sense we all crave to be accepted by society. That even for a transmen, he wants and needs acceptance just as harshly as a straight man, but on different levels obviously. I am under the impression that possibly part of the reason the film turned me off is because, yes, as any minority group in society it is hard to be accepted in america. However my opinion is that “white america” is being expanded to more so multicultural and second generation persons are starting to not even acknowledge issues that were more evident. Again, foot in mouth possibility , however, it is my opinion that in this day and age, that the possibilities and equality are matched in our society. My Uncle who has been an out of the closet gay since middle school has never once told me that his homosexuality ever restricted his capabilities. My best friend who is an African American female, is going to John Hopkins to be an oncologist. I don’t believe that our society restricts people I believe people restrict themselves. I gathered from this film that the men in the movie were demonstrating that they go on living there lives as the men they intended to be. My problem with the film was I feel in conclusion it was portraying them as victims of society when they in fact were not. They were victim to there parents raising them as a certain sex and therefor society perceiving them a certain way. But the end all result was that they came out the victors, not the victims.
Torreyanna // July 3, 2008 at 7:50 pm |
Still Black was a possible beginning to a major discussion. I moved to Chicago from San Francisco, my best friend is a gay man, my ex-boyfriend a transvestite and many of my friends are transsexual. Hell, I consider myself queer for sure. Thing is, I’m kinda tired of it being such a big deal. I don’t really care what you got “down there” and I try to suspend judgment about people who feel the need to change their bodies to fit the mold in society that they want to “fit into”. I can’t help but feel that these people have been robbed of an essential right to just be who you are, no matter what you “got”.
The movie seemed amateur, but I was glad it employed stylistic tricks to keep my attention. The subject matter was possible interesting enough to keep it interesting, but I agree that we could’ve gone much deeper into these men’s lives, but I think they could’ve gone deeper into their own lives too. I sensed fear, posturing, play-acting and ways of talking that seemed to me to be in-authentic. Of course a camera being present can cause people to start acting rather than just being. The subject of this film is huge and barely being talked about in mainstream culture. I’m glad it is bringing awareness to people some of us might not have know existed previously, but I don’t think 6 months was long enough to devote to such a loaded subject. I do think it was brave though.