Hollywood? Racist?

In what ways does the cycle of new African-based films, produced by Hollywood, challenge and/or reproduce dominant images and discourses of race?

In recent years there has been an explosion of Hollywood movies based on stories set in African countries. Hollywood has a long history of producing films set in Africa. The majority of these, such as Casablanca (1942), Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls (1995) and Sahara (2005), merely include the African country they are based in, as a backdrop for the (usually white) American protagonist(s). These films were innately racist and rarely concentrated on black or native characters. However, what is said to be different about this new cycle of movies is that they are not only set in African countries but also depict stories about African (usually black) people. Examples of these films – and those which I will be analysing in this essay – are Hotel Rwanda (2004, dir. Terry George), Blood Diamond (2006, dir. Edward Zwick) and Catch A Fire (2006, dir. Phillip Noyce). This new mini-trend of films have become very popular, with both critics and audiences, (Blood Diamond was recently nominated for five Academy Awards and Hotel Rwanda was nominated for three) and, as a result, profitable. The African subject matter that is being highlighted by these films opens up discussion about why these narratives are suddenly popular to global audiences and how Africa and Africans are being represented. These issues all revolve around the theories of racial representation. Cinema has an inherent effect on our culture and therefore, can be said to influence our ideas of race. As Jill Nelmes says, ‘Popular cinema could be seen as playing a part in ‘naturalising’ particular ways of seeing and understanding the world…” The worlds depicted by these films are a portrayal of racial relations and can be said to reinforce and/or challenge already established discourses of race. Through this essay I shall examine whether or not these films have improved upon past representations of race, examining whether theories of colonialism still effect filmic images of racial difference today. I will also emphasise how these films still convey aspects of racism, despite intending to have the opposite affect. I will also examine the individual roles of the production, the film text and the audience and how they act independently and together in order to reinforce hegemonic ideas of race.

These three films are purported to not be racist and are said to convey well-rounded and ethical stories of African people. However, suggestions of racism are obvious in all three. It is important to note that the three war stricken worlds created by these films – the Rwandan genocide in Hotel Rwanda, the civil war of Sierra Leone in Blood Diamond and the apartheid and terrorism of South Africa in Catch A Fire – are just that, creations. “It may look like something familiar, but in actuality it is a different universe from the world of the real.” These films convey what is thought to be those particular worlds at those particular times. Therefore, one must analyse what hegemonic structures shape these thoughts. All Hollywood films are written and produced by Western filmmakers, to be viewed, fundamentally, by Western audiences. As a result, these films are made to meet the needs of the First World, not the Third World. As Edward Said notes about the centrality of the West:

“The thing to be noticed about this kind of contemporary discourse, which assumes the primacy and even the complete centrality of the West, is how totalizing is its form, how all- enveloping its attitudes and gestures, how much it shuts out even as it includes, compresses, and consolidates.”

Therefore, as far as reconstructing established hegemonic structures of race these films are as much the same as all other films made about Africa that use the setting merely as a backdrop. Even though these films do not convey overt racism, racism itself is an intricate social structure where individuals do not have to blatantly articulate racist slurs or connotations in order to be racist. The subtle racist undertones of these three films (which I shall highlight in detail later) just act to reinforce already established meanings of race, and doubly, act to compliment Western culture. This being a characteristic of racism itself, “Racism invokes a double movement of aggression and narcissism; the insult to the accused is doubled by a compliment to the accuser.”. Discourses of race in cinema, are established by three components: production, film text and audiences. Separately, these three units have individual influences on racial discourse. Together, they shape the entire cultural meanings depicted by the film as a whole. I call this the film triangle, and shall now examine all three components of the films, and how aspects of each convey discourses of race that support the already established structures evident in our society since colonial times.

As stated in the introduction, past films representing Africa were inherently racist. From nineteenth century travel writers to modern day directors, Africa has long been a place discovered and explored by Western minds, from a Western viewpoint, to fulfil Western needs. Early representations of Africa supported the colonial effort of European powers. As Robert O’Sullivan observes, “If black Africans could be represented as uncivilised and savage in the nineteenth century; then slavery and exploitation by their white rulers could be justified.” Therefore, early depictions found in books, such as Conrad’s Heart Of Darkness served to justify European colonisers’ right to conquer African lands and rendered the people as tribal, barbaric and ill-bred. Early Hollywood films, and even those like Sahara released only two years ago, repeat these same misrepresentations of Africa and its people. Films tend to emphasise the physical landscape of Africa and its exotic animals, over the people. As stated by Robert Stam and Louise Spence; “Hollywood films, in any case, show disproportionate interest in the animal, as opposed to the human life of Africa.” If human characters are central to the plot of a Hollywood film based in Africa it is usually a white male character who is of First World origin, such is the case with Matthew Maconaghey and co. in Sahara. This is racist in itself, as it conveys the idea that only white (usually) American men have the power and strength to come into the extreme environment of Africa and effect change. This results in subtly suggesting that the African people are not able to help themselves and therefore need the intervention of the West (an idea conveyed not so subtly in military films like Black Hawk Down). This underlying idea stems, also, from colonialism. The movies Hotel Rwanda, Blood Diamond and Catch a Fire appear to delve much deeper into Africa than ever before. The films do not merely depict Africa as a natural backdrop and the narratives centralise on black African protagonists. However, despite the differences one must examine if they are indeed different from these past representations. To analyse this one must first look at the context within which each film was made and the production processes of each.

Despite the fact that films set in Africa have been popular with global audiences for many years, the films of this particular mini-trend were claiming to be different. Therefore, the first to be released out of the three, Hotel Rwanda, found it difficult to raise the money needed to produce the film. Director Terry George has been quoted as saying, “…none of them [major Hollywood studios] were backing us because it’s a three strike movie. It’s got African American and African actors. That’s the principal cast. The white cast are B roles. It’s about Africa. And it’s about genocide. So those three strikes mean you’re out in Hollywood.” It is plain to see that Hollywood studios were not eager to invest in movies that might step away from the established stereotypical African films that were already proven to be successful. George managed to raise his own finances independently, and when the movie was completed, he landed a distribution deal with the Hollywood studios of MGM and United Artists. Even then George described the studios as “brave”. As a result of this distribution deal in the U.S., Hotel Rwanda was the first film of its kind to enjoy critical and commercial success worldwide. To an extent Hotel Rwanda opened the floodgates for narratives about African conflicts, as it proved that films dealing with this subject matter could be profitable. Both Blood Diamond and Catch A Fire, appeared to have no trouble with raising finances and were funded by Warner Bros. and Focus Features, (amongst others), respectively. Despite the easy access of financing for these films, in what ways do they affect the locales of where they are filming. All three films, filmed on several locations in Africa, (mostly all of them were in South Africa) however, little of the resources of these locations were used. “In such projects, […] mostly Western cast, crew and equipment are shipped in and out of location, and the benefits to the local industry are usually negligible.” All three films tell detailed stories of African individuals, yet the majority of the leading actors and actresses in all three are Hollywood stars and the production teams were shipped from America. How does this benefit the continent which the directors say they are trying to help? Also, these narratives seemingly portray the adversities faced by the African characters in the films, but that does not mean that their representations are not racist. After all as bell hooks says, Hollywood is “…the place where white supremacist capitalist patriarchy can keep reinventing itself, no matter how many times the West is decentred.“ All the directors of these films are white and from Westernised countries. Therefore, who is to say that these particular men can escape the stereotypes of Africa that they have been exposed to in the past and make films that are free of racism. Their films depict a type of new racism. Despite the fact that the films appear to act as positive portrayals of Africa, they haven’t fully moved on from past representations. This is clear even in production, as these white directors rule over their black cast, giving them direction on how to act black. Therefore, the production process mimics already established discourses of race. These film’s are still films depicting the First World’s voyeuristic gaze of Africa. They are particular images of Africa as seen through the eyes of the white production teams. The production process is an integral part of the films which, along with the film text and audience, shape cultural meanings of race.

The production of a film is interlinked with the actual film text. The film text can be said to reflect its own production practices. As shown above, the production process can not escape the culture within which the film is made and, as a result, the film text, too, echoes the wider social constructs surrounding its development. Despite these films’ apparent non-racist attitudes to its subject matter, aspects of the films themselves still adhere to past stereotypical representations of Africa. Nowhere is this more present than in the opening sequences of each film. Hotel Rwanda opens with a black screen. An African voice is heard, and is later acknowledged as a radio broadcaster from RTML radio, who played an integral part in the real-life Rwandan genocide. This voice denounces the Tutsis as “cockroaches” and warns people to “watch their neighbours“. The shot then cuts to the title sequence showing the words “Hotel Rwanda” in bold, on a backdrop of what is depicted as the Rwandan landscape. This shot includes rolling mountains, and in the forefront are dilapidated slums. Not only does this opening sequence rehash old filmic methods of depicting Africa using its exotic, and in this case rundown, scenery, but more modern, insidious undertones are evoked through the opening voiceover. The radio broadcaster acts as a symbol of the Hutu tribe who, in the film, carry out the slaughter of the, seemingly, victimised Tutsis. In the film, there is a clear definition between good and evil. The good are the Tutsis, who Paul, the protagonist aims to save, and the evil characters are the Hutus, who are shown as gun-toting, barbaric murderers. The truth of the Rwandan genocide is far more complicated than this generic Hollywood version of events. By equating the voiceover with the colour black of the black screen, a racist undertone can be found. In the film black is equated with evil. It is also interesting to note that the Tutsis were thought to be lighter-skinned, therefore they were less black than their enemy, the Hutus.

The opening sequence of Catch A Fire has similar opening scenes. This film also opens with stereotypical landscape shots and even includes exotic birds and animals. The family wedding in the opening scene takes place in a desert area, in the middle of a small collection of rundown shacks. The black characters dance, jump and sing in a tribal way. Despite including what seems to be traditional African wedding practices, by placing the wedding in this stereotypical setting, it renders the depiction of the wedding as racist. These people are well dressed and drive cars. Why is the wedding taking place in a desert, with no apparent signs of life? Other examples of this film that reaffirm past representations of Africa on screen include the following; Whilst Patrick is imprisoned, exotic bird calls and animal noises can be heard pervading his cell. Despite all the African characters speaking eligible English, (another connotation of racism, as the characters in all films speak the English language, ignoring their own native tongue) they are often, patronisingly subtitled. Music plays an integral part in this film. Tribal music is heard at the start of the film and the black South Africans often break into song, singing traditional freedom songs. However, the lyrics of these freedom songs are filled with violence, “We’ll meet in the bushes with our AK-47s and bazookas.” This evokes the idea that the black South Africans are violent, to the point of terrorism. When, we know, in this post-apartheid world that the white patriarchal system that was in place in South Africa at the time the film depicts, was undemocratic and later abolished due to its violent control over the majority of the population. By highlighting the violence of the ANC through these particular songs, the film evokes an almost romanticised version of apartheid.

The most clearly racist of the three films, Blood Diamond, also opens with a opening sequence that belittles and racially stereotypes its black characters. The film opens with a map of the world. The rest of the world fades slowly to leave the continent of Africa on its own. This map is in black. Again, Africa is depicted as the “dark continent”. Despite the continent’s numerous geographical and cultural divides, all societies are included in this blackness. This highlights another stereotype used by Western cultures, who believe that all parts of Africa are exactly the same. The darkness effervesces when Solomon, lights a gas lamp. Solomon’s home is depicted as a shack, made of vines, with no floor. His family sleep on the ground and their appears to be no signs of modern technology. The scenes that follow include shots of the landscape, yet again, and exotic animals such as pelicans. The exotic landscape is of such importance in this film, that it becomes part of the plot when, after a car chase, the three main characters of Danny, Solomon and Maddie are forced to trek through the jungle. These jungle scenes would not have been out of place in a Tarzan movie. This film is almost an exact replica of past films about Africa, if it wasn’t for the inclusion of the character of Solomon Vandy, played by Djimon Hounsou. The opening sequences of all three films relate back to these past representations that depict Africa as a land of extreme nature and exotic wildlife. Neither the nature or the wildlife directly affect the stories told by the films so, the filmmakers’ decision to include these shots can only stem from a stereotypical and racist viewpoint.

As stated previously, these films convey a type of new racism, in that they all try and subvert racist discourse, by overtly discussing racism in each film. In Blood Diamond the Commander of the RUF rebels speaks of the history of racism present in his country when he says; “The Freetown government and their white masters have raped your land to feed their greed. We have freed you! No more slave and master here. We are all brothers!” However, this valid point is paralleled by scenes of the Commander ruling over his own slaves, and this, along with previous scenes conveying the violence of this character, results in a subversion of what he says. We cannot believe what he says as he is the evil character in the film. Solomon himself, also speaks of a popular discourse of race, “I know good people who say there is something wrong with us, inside our black skin that we’re better off when the white man ruled.” A discourse which has its roots in colonial philosophy. Catch A Fire depicts an intriguing view of the terrorist. In the post 9/11 world, terrorism is feared and loathed, however, it can be argued that the protagonist in this film is a terrorist. What is interesting is that because the film is shown from Patrick’s viewpoint, the audience sympathise with his character and therefore, wills him to succeed in his task of bombing the oil refinery. This sympathy arises due to the fact that Western audiences are now aware of the horrors that were taking place under the apartheid regime in South Africa. We [the audience] do not see Patrick as a terrorist but as a man who was trying to make things right. This major aspect of the film, appears to be trying to subvert the racism inherent, not only in apartheid South Africa, but all racial discourse, as we align ourselves with an example of one man who is being discriminated against by that social structure. However, Patrick can be said to be a flawed character, (especially compared to Nic Vos the anti-terrorist officer who arrests him) so it can be said the principles for which Patrick stands up for are also flawed. Hotel Rwanda, perhaps, has the most overt aspect of subverting racism. Nick note’s character Colonel Olivier admits to Paul that there will be no help for him and the people he is trying to save:

“You’re dirt! We think you’re dirt Paul! The West, all the Superpowers, everything you believe in, Paul; they think you’re dirt, they think you’re dung. You’re worthless! […] You’re the smartest man here. You got ’em all eating out of you hands. You could own this freakin’ hotel, except for one thing: You’re black! You’re not even a nigger, you’re an African.”

These lines are delivered with an apologetic and defeatist attitude, conveying that the Colonel is sorry for the racism of the Western world that has allowed for these people to be abandoned during a period of time that could see them all killed. One may think that by overtly discussing the very structures that define racial discourses, that these films subvert them, but I believe the opposite to be true. In the case of Solomon in Blood Diamond, as will be shown in the next section, his character epitomises all racist stereotypes of black Africans. Therefore, his speech about colonial times lacks coherence and conviction. He acts as a spokesperson for racism itself, not the opposite:

This declaration is indicative of our cultural failure to understand that merely putting black characters in a film does not assure that the work acts, whether covertly or overtly, to undermine racism. Those black characters can be constructed cinematically so that they become mouthpieces for racist assumptions and beliefs.

In the case of Hotel Rwanda Colonel Olivier’s speech has a similar affect. Just because he acknowledges racism as a reason for the abandonment of the Milles Collines Hotel in the film, it does not act to subvert its foundations. The hotel is still abandoned and the black natives are left to fend for themselves. This conveys the idea that despite acknowledging racist discourses, nothing will change. There is an element of “this is the way things are here” and, as a result, an acceptance of the status quo.

The main black protagonists in each of these films encompass several characteristics of racial stereotyping. The main stereotypes include the interlinking of the African and the body, the linking of the African “other” with animal characteristics, and colonial mimicry. Paul, in Hotel Rwanda epitomises the colonial method of mimicry. In colonial times, colonial rulers would enhance their control by influencing the natives to take on the ruling elite’s social, political, religious and language nuances.“ During colonial times, and even after, a complex kind of intercultural performance occurred when “natives” took, or were awarded the privilege of acquiring, the language, dress, habits, religion, and social values of the colonial rulers.” In effect they ruled by coercion. Paul’s belief system is stemmed in Western values, he dresses in impeccable suits and believes he is “one of them.” He dismisses the politics of his own country and heritage. When asked to join his Hutu tribe, Paul refuses saying that “Time is money”, his only concern is the hotel and its paying White, upper class customers. However, this colonial mimicry backfires for Paul, as when the violence of the genocide puts his, and his family’s lives in danger, he is abandoned by his Western employers and friends. “I am a fool. They told me I was one of them.” This evokes the idea, that no matter how Westernised an African can become, he is still first and foremost an African, “By means of snubs, slights, discrimination, and outright violence, the rulers reminded the subjects that no level of mastering the “parent culture” could wash out the racial stain.” Just like, Paul, Patrick Chamusso depicts some elements of mimicry. At the beginning of Catch A Fire he tells of how he chose the name Patrick for himself over his tribal African name. Patrick also attends engineering school at night, and is poignantly, the only black man in attendance. When Patrick becomes a member of the ANC, he is fully aware that despite his mimicry the white ruling classes of his country will never allow him to be equal with them. In contrast, Solomon Vandy epitomises everything that is supposedly different between an African man and a man from the First World. For much of the film Solomon’s torso is on display. This conveys the nineteenth century stereotype of the naked African. Africans were believed to be tribal, barbaric and as a result, wore little or no clothing. The barbarity of this racist stereotype is also epitomised when Solomon, in his rare acts of defiance, screams and howls like an animal. When attacking the man who has indoctrinated his son into becoming a child soldier, Solomon howls, rips off his clothing and beats him with a shovel. This characterisation rehashes the colonial image of the African as something that was both fascinating and feared by the colonisers. Solomon is a dispossessed man in this film, he is ripped from his home and taken out of context. Therefore the only context or category we can place him in, is that of race. As Stuart Hall observes, “The moment the signifier ‘black’ is torn from its historical, cultural, and political embedding and lodged in a biologically constituted racial category, we valorize, by inversion, the very ground of the racism we are trying to deconstruct” Solomon, through his beast-like acts of violence, (rare as they are), his half-nudity and his categorisation as a person regarding only his race, equates him to the standard black African that has been depicted by the West since the colonial era. The stereotypes conveyed by all three films through their black protagonists show that these films reproduce dominant discourses of race.

The inclusion of white male counterparts, in each film, further epitomises the hegemonic discourses of race. Recognisable Hollywood stars have huge parts in each film. Leonardo Di Caprio, receives first billing in Blood Diamond over Djimon Hounsou, who is in fact at the centre of the story. Di Caprio’s character of Danny Archer is a corrupt white African, and epitomises everything that is wrong with the white man’s presence in Africa. However, the film awards more screen time and more development to Archer’s character. He is at the centre of the plot, not Solomon. By the end of the film one feels sympathy for Archer’s character and regards him as a hero who sacrificed himself so that Solomon could be reunited with his family. One forgets, that from the offset he was using Solomon to get the diamond that Solomon had hidden. “I am using him and you are using me and that is the way it works”. Similar, although lesser, effects are achieved by casting Nick Nolte and Tim Robbins in Catch A Fire and Hotel Rwanda respectively. Casting white male actors in these films who are more recognisable than their black counterparts, is a decision taken by the filmmakers that supports the hierarchy of white man over black man, “The racist idea that a film, to be economically viable, must use a “universal” (i.e. white) star, reveals the intrication of economics and racism…” once again, showing how these typical Hollywood films endorse the hegemonic racist structures of Western culture.

The third and final until of the film triangle is the role of the audience. Audiences translate what they see and hear on screen to their own defined cultural meanings. This inevitably involves analysing discourses of race. As stated before, Hollywodd films are aimed at Western audiences. Therefore, these films must contain elements that are easily identifiable to First World audiences, if they are to make a profit. “Here the dominant audience, whose ideological assumptions must be respected if a film is to be successful, or even made at all, exerts a kind of indirect hegemony.” As a result, it can be said that hegemonic discourses of race cannot be escaped in Hollywood films as they are the dominant discourses that are present in that culture. The individual spectator can be said to shape their own views of the stereotypes present in films. The highly stereotypical character of Solomon in Blood Diamond, for example, can be easily recognisable by audiences and then rejected. Despite Blood Diamonds apparent success in the box office and with critics, many audience members have commented on its inherent racist undertones. This shows, that Western audiences are ready to move on from stereotypical depictions of minority groups. However, by rejecting stereotypes, the audience has not diminished the power of those racial discourses. By merely recognising the stereotypes existence demonstrates its role in our society, “…knowledge of the inaccuracy of the stereotype […] does not forestall the political effect of the stereotype; indeed, the stereotype is effective on a colonial zed subject precisely through its distortion.” All colonial zed subjects will remain colonial zed in this post-colonialist era, if these stereotypes are re-used and reinstated in representations of race. Although these films appear to convey a well-rounded depiction of African narratives, there remain certain messages aimed at the audience that cannot be willingly subverted. Messages like Paul’s mimicry of the West, convey the idea that the West is better than the Third World. It is these subliminal, perhaps, unintentional discourses that shape audiences cultural politics, “While audiences are clearly not passive and are able to pick and choose. It is simultaneously true that there are certain “received” messages that are rarely mediated by the will of the audience.”

The film triangle, as discussed above, includes the three vertices of film production, film text and the role of the audience. These combine to shape the filmic reality and, also the cultural resonance it has for the global audience that watch the films. In films about Africa, all elements of the film triangle work together to conform to past representations, that have not moved on from the West’s obsession with the “Other”. “In this age of mixing and hybridity, popular culture, particularly the world of movies, constitutes a new frontier providing a sense of movement, of pulling away from the familiar and journeying into and beyond the world of the other” In Hollywood movies, the “Other” could simply be different worlds or galaxies, but when films such as these, highlight discourses of race, racial othering is an inherent and racist consequence. The sudden popularity and success of films based in Africa, has not been at this level before. One must consider that this is yet another world that offers filmmakers fresh narratives from different viewpoints. However, Africa needs to be explored without white filmmakers exploiting the Western mainstream curiosity of the “Other”, and instead highlight Africa for what it is for it‘s own people, not ours. “…blackness has fulfilled a specific function as the pre-eminent signifier of otherness, in defining the norm by what it is not, and thereby as a means of binding together disparate [white] ethnicities into a dominant American identity.” All these films work to reaffirm the very racist discourses they set out to subvert. Unintentionally, and inescapably, this new cycle of films have reproduced dominant images and discourses of race.