It seems almost impossible, and somewhat disturbing, to imagine
finding humor in a subject as controversial and inflammatory
as racism. Norman Leer was undoubtedly successful with his
concept for All in the Family, but the fine line between
being entertaining and being offensive runs deep with such
an issue that is historically embedded in the consciousness
of American society. In fact, when Queen Latifah first read
the original script for Bringing Down the House, she
insisted that changes be made because of its overtly inappropriate
language and racial slurs. Even with this watered-down version
however, it is clear that the film sets out to examine the
extent of sociological ideology through the lens of comedic
relief.
The story places Peter Sanderson, a white, middle-aged Los
Angeles attorney, head to head with Charlene Morton, a poor,
black ex-felon, which creates a situation that causes both
characters to acknowledge the vast differences of each others
worlds. Given this fundamental plot, it would seem that the
movie could take advantage of the enormous opportunity it
has to address these various issues of race, class, and genderalbeit
in a light, off-the-cuff manner. And while Bringing Down
the House confronts particular stereotypes that have long
been perpetuated, it nonetheless falls back on a traditional
story line that reinforces underlying social preconceptions,
and essentially promotes the separation between these two
distinct worlds. By only presenting the two polar opposites
of the societal spectrum, wealthy whites and poor blacks,
and no individuals in between, the movie reinforces the idea
that African Americans and Caucasians cannot coexist within
the same sphere because of their seemingly innate"
differences. Thus, though these filmmakers on one hand were
successful at employing humor to address existing racism,
they ultimately stopped short of any real kind of message
and instead merely supported certain notions of race, gender,
and class that have thrived in mass media images throughout
cinematic history.
Despite this storys inherent flaws, I cant say
this film has no message at all. Its efforts to confront racism
and traditional stereotypes are not without their merits.
Charlene, played by Queen Latifah, is a bright, savvy woman
who knows the law and understands the intricacies of her legal
case. Consequently, she proves to Sanderson, who equates her
improper" English with ignorance, that she, in
fact, is intelligent and can hold her own with any formally
educated individual. Furthermore, her role is integral to
Sandersons life to the extent that she teaches him the
value of emotions over intellect and emphasizes the importance
of his wife and family in the face of his demanding profession.
The audience is introduced to Peter Sanderson as he struggles
in an unhappy divorce and a stressful career that prevents
him from spending valuable time with his children. While Sanderson
appears to embody the white American dream with his large
house, attractive family, and well-paying job, it is nonetheless
Charlenes entrance into his world that shows him what
his true priorities should be and what real success is. She
becomes his confidante and counselor in his attempt to woo
back his wife and build a stronger relationship with his children.
Many scenes throughout the movie reveal Charlene coaching
Sanderson in how to talk to his daughter about boys, how to
become more sexually adventurous with his wife, and how to
help his son overcome his struggle with reading. Hence the
film turns certain preconceptions on their ear by demonstrating
how an uneducated, black woman is the vital force in maintaining
the white, nuclear, all-American" family.
Bringing Down the House also addresses societal prejudice
by employing the use of a racist neighbor, reminiscent of
Archie Bunker, who lives across the street in Sandersons
affluent white community. Her proclivity to degrade almost
every ethnic and sexually oriented minority group is meant
to reveal the ignorance and abhorrence of bigotry through
the medium of humor and sarcasm. She refers to Georgey Sanderson,
Peters son, as a fag" because of his hairstyle
and asks Sanderson if a group of Hispanics that were looking
at a house down the block were casing it." Exposure
to this characters outwardly prejudiced attitudes forces
the audience to consider their less blatant, but equally as
dangerous, preconceived notions about certain groups of people.
Even Charlene herself reverts to some of the traditional
racist images of African Americans to illustrate the absurdity
of these deluded stereotypes. In Sandersons various
attempts to explain to clients and business associates why
a poor, black woman would be in his social circle, Charlene
is forced to accept the traditional African-American stereotypes
as the hired help, a church gospel leader, and an Aunt Jemima-like
character. While she assumes these roles because she is dependent
on Sanderson for legal counsel, she indiscreetly rebels by
acting out these images to their extremes. Thus she uses a
slave" dialect and performs a minstrel shuffle
in order to emphasize how ludicrous and objectionable these
ideologies are, as well as the fact that prejudice still exists
in America, even among the most educated and refined. While
these messages are delivered in a comedic form, their influence
is not lost on the audience. I found myself scoffing at the
racist neighbor and the ridiculous roles Charlene has to perform,
in part because of what I have acknowledged as an unacceptable,
antiquated mentality that has no business being in todays
forward-thinking society. Nonetheless, these caricatures of
discriminatory ideology also caused me to examine my own preconceptions
and evaluate whether I embody certain aspects of these prejudices,
in terms of how I regard various groups of people, underneath
the socially constructed framework of political correctness.
One other comment should be made about the progressiveness
of Bringing Down the House. It is interesting to note
that Queen Latifah, a larger woman of color, was able to land
the leading role opposite a white man in a non-black film.
Though this movie is not the first of its kind to promote
a non-traditional female lead, this inclusion is monumental
in fact because Latifahs character does not embody any
of the conventional Anglo standards of beauty, such as a slim
physique, light skin, and small facial features. In this sense,
this movie deconstructs all the traditional conceptions by
presenting a female lead that redefines how beauty is understood.
This broad-minded aspect of the film is even more impressive
when you stop to consider how many larger Caucasian females
have had the opportunity to star in their own romantic comedies.
Hence Queen Latifahs performance not only breaks through
various racial boundaries associated with the long-established
genre, but it also provides a somewhat new image for what
female leads can look like and all the different shapes and
sizes in which they can come.
While this role represents a major step in how Hollywood
views minorities in the movie industry, it remains abundantly
clear that certain underlying ideologies remain strong in
cinematic imagery, as well as in the story lines that have
become prominent in the romantic comedy genre. Thus Bringing
Down the House is no exception to this rule, and consequently
employs other stereotypes and preconceptions that are just
as damaging as those they address in the film. To begin with,
the movies concept embeds a certain amount of social
dominance in the relationship between the two main characters.
Peter Sanderson, as a white, rich male, represents the top
of the power hierarchy while Charlene Morton, a poor, black
female, embodies the bottom portion. As if this did not create
enough tension, Charlene finds herself dependent on Sanderson
to help her with the false charges of armed robbery against
her. Subsequently, her freedom rests in the hands of a white
mana scenario that resonates deeply in African-American
history. Hence as progressive as this film attempts to be
in some ways, its situational context of power between the
two main characters ultimately reverts it back to the familiar
understandings of racial relations in America and its conventional
representations through the mass media.
Moreover, as Bringing Down the House confronts prejudice
and racism throughout its work, it nonetheless applies more
subtle stereotypes that are used to categorize and compartmentalize
certain groups of people. For example, African Americans in
the film are associated with poverty, jail, drugs, and violence.
Charlene is portrayed as solving her problems with violence,
whether she is beating a woman to a pulp in the restroom or
hanging a teenager over the ledge of a building to make him
apologize to Sandersons daughter. Thus the image is
presented that black people do not settle their disputes with
words, but rather with fierce action in order to get their
message heard. This idea is further perpetuated in a particular
scene in which Sanderson visits a predominantly black nightclub
in order to receive a confession from Charlenes ex-boyfriend
that he framed her in the bank robbery. Not only does violence
run rampant as Charlene gets shot in the club, but drugs and
poverty set the backdrop, which promotes the notion that this
is what constitutes the African-American world. Consequently,
as the filmmakers are successful at acknowledging the more
blatant forms of racism in the United States, they ultimately
fall back on other forms of stereotyping in their story line,
which makes the movie appear to be guilty of the same sins
it attempts to admonish in its work.
In fact, even the casting of Queen Latifah, and the character
she assumes, poses some questions as to how forward-minded
this movie really is. When examined somewhat closer, Charlene
Morton seems to embody the two most lasting representations
of black women in the mass mediathat of the Mammy"
and that of the Jezebel." As Gail Dines, a professor
of womens and media studies, discusses, the Mammy is
usually very fat... very dark, and wears a bandanna and a
beaming smile as a sign of how much she enjoys her oppressed
position.... She was often shown as deeply committed to the
white family and especially caring of the children."
Though Charlene lacks the bandanna, she otherwise fits the
above description, particularly in her position with the Sanderson
family. She is revealed as the answer to their needs in as
far as she is able to help Georgey Sanderson, the son, overcome
a learning disability and Sarah Sanderson, the daughter, deal
with boy issues. Furthermore, Charlene aids in bringing Peter
Sanderson back together with his ex-wife by teaching him how
to loosen up and express his true inner emotions. She ends
up breaking Sandersons cell phone in the middle of his
conversation to illustrate the importance of personal connections
over high-speed access. It was, in fact, Sandersons
incessant use of his phone and constant obsession with his
work that drove his wife away in the first place. Thus we
see Charlenes positive influence on the attorney in
the final scene where he has left his large firm and monumentally
throws his cell phone out the window in order to enjoy the
company of his wife. Hence though Charlene may be somewhat
of a novel character, her general appearance and actions in
helping to piece together the white family demonstrate a much
more historical black female image that has infiltrated film
since its inception.
Likewise, Charlene seems to symbolize another traditional
representation of the African-American woman, the Jezebel.
Dines acknowledges that, similar to the Mammy depiction, the
Jezebel image clearly has its roots in slavery, where
it was used to legitimize the rape of black women by white
men." These women are portrayed as sexually insatiable"
and having an excessive appetite for sex," which
creates the view of females as purely sexual objects. In Bringing
Down the House, Howie Rottman, Sandersons associate
and friend, identifies Charlene as a cocoa goddess"
and consequently makes overt passes at her in an attempt to
seduce her into bed with him. Once again this unequal power
relationship, particularly in a sexual context, reveals the
attempt for white male dominance over black femininitya
scenario which hearkens back to the days of slavery and its
vulgar mistreatment of black female servants by their white
owners. Charlenes image as a sexual creature is even
further perpetuated in a scene where she is trying to teach
Sanderson how to satisfy his wife. She instructs the new divorcee
on how to be more sexually forceful in an almost animalistic
kind of manner where she encourages him to own that
jungle" and ends up mounting Sanderson on his living
room couch. Thus the Jezebel image continues to resonate within
the character of Charlene, which begs to question whether
this leading lady is truly a new kind of woman or rather an
amalgamation of traditional, racially-based stereotypes that
date back to the antiquated antebellum period.
An even further question that I offer in regard to this issue
is whether this film is actually promoting tolerance and a
better understanding of social differences, or rather merely
emphasizing the existence of separate racial worlds that are
perhaps only somewhat more understated than what existed during
segregation. By demonstrating how out of place each of the
two main characters are when they enter into the others
community, Bringing Down the House ultimately illustrates
the chaos that ensues when these two seemingly non-compatible
spheres collide. Charlene is made to feel like a second-class
citizen in a white, affluent community that values African
Americans solely for their labor skills and sexual prowess.
Sanderson appears weak and emasculated in an urban, black
environment that sees violence on a daily basis and is forced
to resort to crime and drugs in an effort to maintain a particular
lifestyle. While it seems almost unquestionable that the film
vastly oversimplifies these caricatures, its message of the
conflict between these two ways of life nonetheless is quite
clear.
The conventional ending in which Sanderson reunites with
his white wife appears to instill the notion that America,
to a certain degree, is still uncomfortable with an interracial,
inter-class relationship. Moreover, though Charlene in the
end finds herself with Sandersons white associate Howie
Rottman, the distinctive, unbalanced power relationship still
remains in which Charlene is valued for her sexuality and
physical attributes rather than for her intellectual capabilities
or emotional connections. Thus the basic story line perpetuates
the idea that certain unconquerable barriers exist between
these two social circles, and consequently any attempt to
break through these constraints can only result in chaos and
an existence in which individuals feel out of place and misunderstood.
Stuart Hall, a renowned professor and cultural scholar, once
wrote in "The Whites of Their Eyes":
Ideologies are, of course, worked on in many places in
society, and not only in the head... But institutions like
the media are peculiarly central to the matter since they
are, by definition, part of the dominant means of ideological
production. What they produce" is, precisely,
representations of the social world, images, descriptions,
explanations and frames for understanding how the world
is and why it works as it is said and shown to work.
Based on this interpretation, a film such as Bringing
Down the House retains a large amount of influence, in
terms of how it treats issues of race, gender, and class,
as well as how it portrays these issues as a larger reflection
of social reality. To this extent, the messages and images
that this movie transmits through its medium of comedy are
undeniably dualistic and somewhat contradictory in their nature.
While blatant racism and traditional stereotypes are unabashedly
confronted throughout the context of the movie, the underlying
story line based on unequal power distribution and antiquated
racial representations simultaneously conveys its own description
of how the world functions. Thus in many ways Bringing
Down the House works against the desired effect it is
possibly trying to achieve.
To a certain extent, it appears that the film had the opportunity
to address the deeply-rooted and still highly controversial
issue of racism in a comedic fashion, but instead chose to
fall back on dated stereotypes as a means of attaining cheap
laughs and physical humor. It seems a shame, in fact, that
a culture as wide and diverse as ours was essentially ignored
by the movies ideological message and rather was presented
in a very limited and narrow way in the name of producing
blockbuster sales and attracting large audiences.
July 2003
From guest contributor Kristin Ecklund
|