(repeat of preamble: Today I thought I'd follow up on some reaction I've been getting about recent reviews / articles. Two threads have been met consistently with strong reactions - one of which I'd hoped to have closed the book one, and the other that continues to bother people I mention it to, so much so that it stopped a conversation dead the other night. )
Okay, I have been getting some serious grief for the suggestion in my True Grit review that the film - and by proxy, the Coen brothers - is "racist" towards Native Americans. Explaining what I saw and the reaction it had with a packed auditorium stopped a conversation dead in its tracks the other night. Fans of the Coen brothers - of which I consider myself and most of the people I know - are bristling at the mere mention of "racism" and the Coens in the same zip code.
I understand why, and why people are oversimplifying and thereby misinterpreting what the actual point I'm making is. I am not accusing Joel and Ethan Coen of being racist by constructing two scenes where Native Americans are clearly the butt of the joke; my problem is that they've taken their fondness for ironic detachment too far in True Grit, and it was totally lost on the crowd I saw it with. I don't make my point blindly or out of ignorance - I spent the better part of 2010 studying their films in depth and writing about the themes and undertones within, so I do feel that I have a case here, just as I feel the point is being wildly misread because of how loaded the term "racism" is.
The Coen brothers have a long history of including instances of casual racism on the part of their characters, particularly in "period" films. They consistently point out cultural norms that are outdated, often while mocking them - the KKK in O Brother Where Art Thou, the casual homophobia in The Man Who Wasn't There and Miller's Crossing (not to mention the ethnic stereotyping of "wops" and "micks"), or the "Uncle Remus" of The Hudsucker Proxy. They don't always use the prevailing attitudes of the time for comic purposes; at times, like the anti-Semitic neighbor in A Serious Man who only stands up for Larry when a Korean appears to be threatening him, is used to highlight overlooked forms of outdated racism.
And yes, I'm going to continue to use the term racism, which is where the bulk of this harsh reaction comes from, because it is a wholly adequate descriptor for much of what the Coen brothers like to highlight in an ironic fashion. "Oh, look how backwards we were then, isn't that funny?" I'm sorry if the terminology makes you uncomfortable, but this is a consistent, if under-represented, thematic device used in their films. It doesn't always work for them - in fact, it fails miserably in The Ladykillers, which presents two extremes in the spectrum of "caricatures of Black America" without any clear purpose, and I truly feel that True Grit represents a massive disconnect between their devoted fans and the casual audiences that flock their films every few years.
There are casual Coen fans, the kind of audiences who appear when the brothers tap into the cultural zeitgeist (or, to be honest, tend to briefly create it) - Raising Arizona, Fargo, O Brother Where Art Thou, and No Country for Old Men are examples of films that seem to inexplicably catch on with a wide audience, allowing the kind of success that permits films like A Serious Man, Miller's Crossing, Barton Fink, and The Man Who Wasn't There to fill in the gaps for devoted Coen fans. True Grit is the latest example, and it is being met with a fairly robust audience turnout, for whatever it is Joel and Ethan tapped into this time.
True Grit is also a film that takes place in post-Civil War Arkansas, where two of the three main protagonists served for the Confederacy. Rooster Cogburn has a heated discussion with LeBoeuf about whether Cogburn's service as one of Quantrill's Raiders counts as true service to the South, but the cultural framework the Coens are presenting (coming from Charles Portis' novel) is one where casual racism abounds. They choose to direct this racism towards Native Americans in the film, in what can only be read as another example of their pointed critique of outdated norms. And that would be fine, but I sincerely feel they overestimated their audience.
As I pointed out in my earlier review, both instances are structured for comedic effect. The first is a classic set-up of two long speeches followed by an abruptly shortened one from a character no one likes. The second is an over-compensation gag where the hero reacts to someone doing something bad by punishing them, allowing the punishee to reset, and then punishing them again. If there are technical terms for these, I'd be happy to hear them, but you can find both examples in most comedies, and the second example in nearly every Charlie Chaplin and Buster Keaton film. They are designed and executed on film for a laugh, period. Both scenes in True Grit are constructed for laughs, period.
My discomfort came from the audience I saw the film with that howled with laughter at both "gags," completely missing that the Coen brothers were commenting on racist attitudes towards Native Americans in the film's setting. The Coens have that track record, so I must take them at precedent rather than assume they thought this was funny at face value. The audience, on the other hand, people that honestly don't have the same exposure to this thematic trend, are laughing AT the joke, and not the commentary behind the joke. The commentary behind the joke isn't funny - it's sobering.
I can't bring myself to laugh at the audience that doesn't understand what they're seeing, and are becoming complicit in racial stereotyping for reasons contrary to its inclusion in the film. Instead, I became very uneasy. The fact that the actual "joke" is lost on audiences actually implies that there is a divide between the culturally backwards masses and the witty, erudite Coen brothers "cineaste," which made me feel more self conscious. I should have been laughing at the audience for playing out culturally scripted stereotypes, but I couldn't, and that troubles me on a number of levels.
For that, I must reiterate that while I enjoy True Grit as a film, I have difficulty reconciling the intention of the filmmakers with the experience of seeing it with an audience. The Coens were presenting yet another example of racism; the audience was responding to a joke set-up, and ne'er the twain shall meet, I fear.
5 comments:
While I can understand your frustration over this topic, I have a simple solution. You are no longer an average movie goer. When watching True Grit the Indian scene was funny. It was a drunk guy kicking children. If you read as much into this scene at that viewing as you have now the initial humor would be lost. It would take me multiple viewings to reach your conclusion. Most of the film makers like the Coen brothers work on many levels. Seeing these levels with a large audience is hard for most of us.
My husband and I saw it this afternoon and I, too, was uncomfortable with the audience's laughter. I think you've done a good job of explaining the Cohen brother's intent, and help me to understand why the audience found it funny. Still..we should all know better by now, and most if not all westerns are disturbing entertainment.
The scene with the running horse was also disturbing and I wonder what they could have been saying with that.
I am asian-american, and love the coen bros movies. However, I definitiely notice a racist element in their movies, with the use of "chinaman" in the movie. I also have noticed other ethnic groups take what the Coens dish out. However, I have noticed ONE group that has completely escaped the Coens' dramaturgic wrath..People of the Jewish faith. I think if they are allowed to skewer african americans (their favorite), latinos, asians, Polish, and native americans, they need to include the Jews in their negative verbiage. Interesting how this group has not been made fun of in a single Coen brother movie.
Charles, to some degree that's correct, although the brother's self-professed status as "non-practicing" Jews has manifested from time to time in their films. A Serious Man is almost entirely about exploring stereotypes of Judaism (particularly the three Rabbis). Barton Fink, to some degree also juxtaposes the stereotype of "philistine" Jewish media moguls in Hollywood with the socially conscious east coast writers like Clifford Odets (the basis for Fink).
To refine my point a bit further, I suspect from the many interviews they've given that the Coens are less interested in direct racism as they are in highlighting social attitudes they find racist or outdated; more often than not, the most egregious examples occur in their "period" films (Miller's Crossing, O Brother Where Art Thou), where films set in contemporary time (Burn After Reading, Raising Arizona) tend to focus their satire in different directions.
That being said, The Ladykillers is the exception to this rule, and it's their least successful attempt to reflect attitudes about "blackness" on film.
I stopped watching after the kid was kicked off the porch. It was an abusive racist joke. I have no sympathy for those that laugh and frankly no patience for those that try to intellectualize racist comedy and excuse the Coens. The jokes were set up perfectly, and stylistically fit with other comedic moments in the film. There was no irony, no self awareness, no sympathy. Tarantino would have played it differently.
Post a Comment