AlphaBean
05-30-2004, 03:48 PM
I just saw this on IMDB saying it's a new movie and I'm like... "okay did they rerelease Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song?" but it's just a documentary/homage to the original movie.
Has anyone else seen Sweetback? It's the original movie that spawned the "Blaxploitation" trend. I would say it was Blaxploitation, but all of the subsequent movies, i.e. Shaft, Dolemite, Cleopatra Jones etc. were done, at least in part by whites, whether it be firsthand (director etc.) or second hand (white-owned production companies, etc.) Therefore, since in the movie (Sweetback) itself it says "made for, by, and starring the Black People." or something to that effect. Which makes it less about exploiting a race, rather, trying its best to represent it. An interesting study could be done on this film, to see how effective it was in its goal, and to analyze all of the components.
Allright I shifted back into Cultural Studies mode there for a minute. Basically, it's a great movie if you like things that are different from the norm. At the time, this film was torn apart by critics, and angered whites everywhere for being so exclusionist, but I think that's cool. The idea is that whites can't fully appreciate the movie, and they're not supposed to, because it isn't for them/us. Which is why when I saw it, I was able to appreciate it for what it was superficially (a good film), but socially, especially in the context of 1968 or 1969 I think, it's impossible to truly appreciate it for what it really was.
I think that Mario Van Peebles' documentary-slash-dramatization of his father's struggle in making "Sweetback" might bridge the gap between 1968 black filmmakers, and the general audience of today.
Whatever, I think most of you would like it. And I didn't find any posts about it in the search. :wave:
Has anyone else seen Sweetback? It's the original movie that spawned the "Blaxploitation" trend. I would say it was Blaxploitation, but all of the subsequent movies, i.e. Shaft, Dolemite, Cleopatra Jones etc. were done, at least in part by whites, whether it be firsthand (director etc.) or second hand (white-owned production companies, etc.) Therefore, since in the movie (Sweetback) itself it says "made for, by, and starring the Black People." or something to that effect. Which makes it less about exploiting a race, rather, trying its best to represent it. An interesting study could be done on this film, to see how effective it was in its goal, and to analyze all of the components.
Allright I shifted back into Cultural Studies mode there for a minute. Basically, it's a great movie if you like things that are different from the norm. At the time, this film was torn apart by critics, and angered whites everywhere for being so exclusionist, but I think that's cool. The idea is that whites can't fully appreciate the movie, and they're not supposed to, because it isn't for them/us. Which is why when I saw it, I was able to appreciate it for what it was superficially (a good film), but socially, especially in the context of 1968 or 1969 I think, it's impossible to truly appreciate it for what it really was.
I think that Mario Van Peebles' documentary-slash-dramatization of his father's struggle in making "Sweetback" might bridge the gap between 1968 black filmmakers, and the general audience of today.
Whatever, I think most of you would like it. And I didn't find any posts about it in the search. :wave: