While watching Murder in Harlem, I couldn't help but remember the great Harlem Renaissance poet Langston Hughes. Hughes was the anti-Micheaux, detailing daily life and culture in Harlem without pretension in his poetry and plays. His work was met with criticism from many black critics who claimed his attempts to portray daily black life as it was did nothing to alleviate the problems of black America, instead allowing ghettos to identify positively with their surroundings and grow prideful of their situations.
I can almost hear Micheaux's voice among these critics. While Hughes valued truth and beauty in the ghetto, I have no doubt that Micheaux saw nothing but failure. Take the character of Henry Glory for example - while he is from a humble background, he does what is necessary to get out into the real world (or white world), even writing a novel in his spare time to pay his way through law school. This is the kind of man Micheaux valued, a black man willing to block out the unfairness of the world and do what is needed to assimilate and get up to the next step of the social ladder.
As you know, Micheaux faced criticism as well. Many saw him as elitist, and his portrayal of lower class blacks was questionable at best. Nevertheless, you have to admit Micheaux wanted the best for black America. While his views may have been misguided, they were certainly pragmatic. By assimilating to white culture, black America could certainly live more comfortable lives in America; or so Micheaux and many black critics thought. What Micheaux failed to realize that Hughes did was that the culture of black America was valued nearly as much as class status and wealth. It would have been more tragic to many if black America were forced to sacrifice its heritage for the sake of appeasing the white majority and attempting to create peace.
There is a modern equivalent to this situation. Remember when the N.W.A. became a nationally popular rap group? They claimed to be presenting the mindset and surroundings of Compton without restraint. Though extreme, this is also what Hughes was doing. (Though undoubtedly, Hughes was more humanistic.) The voices of black critics again cried out that rap groups such as N.W.A. hurt the black public and helped many to identify positively with detrimental mindsets and attitudes. Many other critics saw N.W.A. as a valuable piece of raw emotion that provided insight into an important segment of the American landscape. Though in different times and extremes, the same arguments that were used against the poetry of Hughes were used in this situation.
Who is right? Was Hughes right to glorify the Harlem ghetto or was Micheaux's mindset of progress and assimilation more reasonable? While I do not think it is wrong for people to identify with a lower class culture, can popular artists compound the problem by creating a sense of pride in the wrong aspects of those cultures? (Furthermore, will people generalize writings like that of Hughes across the board and rejoice in all aspects of the culture, whether they are negative or positive?) Is it wrong to conform to the larger system to succeed financially if it means neglecting your culture at home?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think your comparison of Langston Hughes and Oscar Micheaux is extremely unfair. A poet needs a piece of paper and a journal to distribute his work. A film maker, on the other hand, has a tremendous amount of capital at risk and, in the early years of film, distribution was a tightly controlled process; if the distributors didn't like your film it did not get "play time."
My point is that Micheaux was doing the best he could with the materials he had to show American Society (all people)his vision of an African American Middle Class. The reason the film "Murder in Harlem" is not "beautiful" in the sense of a "Gone with the Wind," is that Micheaux had to operate on a shoestring which allowed one take. The reason his featured actors were "light skinned" was the fact that the stereotypes of film to that period made "dark skinned" actors less accessible to the general viewing public (whites). Micheaux was walking a very thin tightrope, where the failure of his films meant economic disaster. In fact the history of 'Black Cinema' is filled with directors and producers who could not effectively walk the tightrope.
I mean NO disrespect to Langston Hughes; he is one of my favorite poets and one of the titans of Modern Poetry. He was cutting edge and his work is beautiful and thought provoking. Hughes, however, was not working at a mass aduience in the sense Micheaux was. Poetry has always seemed to appeal more to upwardly mobile and better educated people, who might be more willing to take the risk of reading something more thought provoking. I am not certain the same can be said about the cinema.
Finally, whether it is W.E.B. Dubois v. Booker T. Washington, Dr. Huey Newton v. Dr Martin Luther King, NWA v. Michael Jackson, or Langston Hughes v. Oscar Micheaux; these dialogues are vital to the slow and painful path of resolving how African Americans deal with the history of race relations in the United States. In Micheaux it is not a matter of denying or belittling black culture, it is a matter of getting a place at the table and sharing food. That metaphor is very significant when you consider the rampant segregation of the 1930's.
James Kimball
Thanks for the response. I just want to make it clear that I am not condemning Micheaux in any respect. I simply wanted to point out that his approach (and most likely motivations) in portraying black America were vastly different to Hughes. Also, due to segregation, I very highly doubt Micheaux's films ever got shown in white theaters, so his main audience was probably a lot more specific. I also do not devalue his films because of their "lack of beauty." In fact, I think their asthetic failures provide more truth than a glossed up Hollywood film could ever do, thus provided a new sense of beauty.
You do bring up an interesting point though. Even the black theaters of the time provided Hollywood films to their viewers, and many viewers had grown accustomed to this approach. This could have limited Micheaux's approach considering that if he were to approach things from a different perspective, he may well have alienated patrons of the black theaters as well. As you said, it was about putting food on the table, and it is true that Micheaux had to consider his audience in his approach.
The discussion I was trying to open was not a debate of these artists' merits, but that of their motivations, worldviews, and approaches. I would also like to go deeper into how these works of art (whether it be Hughes, Micheaux, or the N.W.A.) affect the people who take them in.
Ah, I misread your sharing food reference. While I do think that Micheaux had to watch out for the financial success of his films, I completely agree that the messages of his films deal more with combatting segregation and finding a productive place in the world.
Last thing - I want to make it clear that I have no doubt Micheaux was attempting to do the most moral thing he could with this films in spite of his financial limitations. It must have been tough for him to make a film that would sell and progress society the way he thought best. This is why B-movies, whether they be from black filmmakers or not, are almost more interesting because it takes a conscious effort to dig through the surface of the film to get to their true meanings and motivations.
Thanks for a constructive discussion!
I think Hughes and NWA have a "radical" view in the sense they are celebrating "the street." They are attempting to awaken our consciousness to something we (the mainstream) had no idea existed. I think the radical part of Micheaux's work relates to his ability to protray African American characters as human. In 1935, in my opinion, a lot of racism was accepted, because African Americans were not seen as fully human. This myth was supported by the Hollywood elite and not out of a sense of profit.
As such, I think Micheaux was expressing how he saw "black culture." A diverse group of individuals, fully human, who were living the middle class dream or aspiring to it. I think Ice Cube the actor could relate well to Micheaux's vision. Ice Cube the rapper in NWA, certainly wanted no part in aspiring to the mainstream as he was celebrating the "streets." Hughes, in a similiar manner to Ice Cube, celebrated the glory of the Harlem Renaissance in poem, as he enjoyed the benefits as a member of the Middle Class.
Finally, I think that Micheaux's films did not get a wide veiwing in the Hollywood distribution system (white theaters), however his message ran counter to the message Hollywood was sending to African Americans in their being stereotyped. This was at least an uplifting message and one that affirmed the achievements of the "Black Middle Class."
It should be noted that Micheaux died in obscurity in 1952 and that after 1939 he had very little influence in the "Black Cinema." So in a sense, his contempories dismissed his vision and his audience "outgrew" him. The same can not be said for NWA or Hughes.
James Kimball
The more I think about Micheaux, the more I respect the man. With every step he took in filmmaking, he had to consider an immense number of social and economic situations. It is obvious his films were meant to progress black society, and he was doing his best to approach the problem while considering all these obstacles.
I also agree with the statement that Micheaux was portraying his view of black America through a diverse sampling of black characters. In a way, the inclusion of less intelligent black characters could be seen as a concession to popular racist sentiment. (i.e. He admits there are ignorant black people in America, but he is trying to communicate that they have the ability to be more than that.) I haven't decided whether or not this was a constructive decision on his part consider the audience he was most likely to reach.
Thanks again for the discussion, see you in class!
Post a Comment