November 29, 2012
Steven Spielberg’s White Men of Democracy
Corey Robin over at his blog:
Two weeks ago I wrote, “When Steven Spielberg makes a movie about the Holocaust, he focuses on a German. When he makes a movie about abolition, he focuses on a white man. Say what you will, he’s consistent.”
My comment was inspired by historian Kate Masur’s excellent New York Timesop-ed, which argued that Spielberg’s film Lincoln had essentially left African Americans offstage or in the gallery. In Spielberg’s hands, blacks see themselves get rescued by a savior who belongs to the very group that has ravaged and ruined them. Just as Jews do in Schindler’s List. The difference is that in the case of emancipation, blacks—both free and slave—were actually far more central to the process of their own deliverance.
Thanks in part to documents from the National Archives that historians began to rigorously amass and organize in 1976—resulting in the multi-volume Freedom: A Documentary History of Emancipation, 1861-1867—students and scholars have come to a completely different view of how emancipation happened. As three of the historians who were involved in that project wrote in the path-breaking Slaves No More:
The Destruction of Slavery [the first essay in the book] explicates the process by which slavery collapsed under the pressure of federal arms and the slaves’ determination to place their own liberty on the wartime agenda. In documenting the transformation of a war for the Union into a war against slavery, it shifts the focus from the halls of power in Washington and Richmond to the plantations, farms, and battlefields of the South and demonstrates how slaves accomplished their own liberation and shaped the destiny of a nation.
Posted by Robin Varghese at 05:12 PM | Permalink






















Comments
This seems a bit of a rough charge to make against the bloke who directed The Color Purple and Amistad. Anyone else able to think of a major director who has directed two major movies with black leads? Because right now, I can't.
Posted by: David Walker | Nov 29, 2012 8:07:28 PM
Long on 'oral' tradition and supported by virtually no historical records... but other than that I am sure it would make a great sequel: 'How white northerners did not win the civil war.'
Posted by: Steve | Nov 29, 2012 9:29:05 PM
Isn't this a bit of a stretch? #1 it is a movie, not a documentary. #2 it is titled Lincoln. Is it such a surprise that it is a hagiography of Abraham Lincoln?
Posted by: addicted | Nov 29, 2012 11:41:19 PM
Could have perfectly well written about the wider context without feeling it necessary to have a pop at Spielberg. But that would be out of character for a US academic, wouldn't it?
Posted by: Dave | Nov 30, 2012 3:52:16 AM
What Dave said. There's a perfectly reasonable argument in the vicinity of that article about which stories get told or don't by Hollywood. Instead Corey Robin starts this article a) with clever and snarky lines about Spielberg a) with a contempt for the man (too downmarket to be good, at least not till he's safely buried). So that's what the article emerges from.
Robin is led to pretty strange places too. Even though the plot (how the 13th Amendment wove its way through Congress in 1863) is inherently one without much place for black people in non-human-interest roles (where Spielberg takes care to make them shine), Spielberg does something wrong in depicting it that way. It becomes in Robin's hands wrong for Spielberg even to make a film about the congress story, because he should have written about a completely different story - one that would have afforded more black leads. Spielberg's entire career is to be cast in shade, though Robin doesn't think to mention The Color Purple or Amistad.
Finally, Robin at his most errantly ambitious decides that the very interest in Lincoln's story and the 13th Amendment is biased. Because slavery was *really* ended mostly by former slaves (who happened to find themselves that way one day). Hence, valorizing Lincoln or celebrating the passage of the act in congress is playing into the hands of mighty whitey. If there is a bottom-up story, the top-down story must be bad unless it too has the right optics.
Fundamentally, the Spielberg essay reveals that Robin's thought has made no progress beyond sentiment. What's going on in his head is 'black person gooshy.' When the topic is oppression, he's very very sad, and when it's emancipation, he's very very happy. The rest is rationalization and being a good team player. So *both* those stories have to be about bad things done to black people, or good things done by them. Never mind that the stories have an inverse relationship - the worse the oppression is, the less direct power and influence you should expect its victims to have shaping their own destiny in the most powerful halls of the country. Shades of Radi-aid?
Posted by: prasad | Nov 30, 2012 5:37:28 AM
Spielberg film = sociological fodder and bums on seats.
Posted by: Troy | Nov 30, 2012 7:59:45 AM
The author argues that Lincoln is the wrong subject for a movie about abolition. What he seems to have missed is that Spielberg was making a movie about Lincoln, not about abolition.
Posted by: Eric | Nov 30, 2012 1:00:08 PM
Actually, to answer my own question at comment 1: at the very least, Spike Lee, Quentin Tarantino and Tony Scott. But apart from Spielberg, only Spike Lee was specifically addressing race-based issues.
Posted by: David Walker | Dec 1, 2012 12:41:57 AM
Post a comment