I should probably preface this post by saying clearly that this is not a review. In fact, I haven’t even seen the film and I don’t ever plan to, partly because I doubt I’d enjoy, and partly because I don’t want to support the project. But I feel like I’ve read enough reviews and synopses to speak competently about what the movie has in common with previous efforts by white Hollywood writers to capture the experiences of oppressed blacks. The movie contains several features that are typical of this Hollywood subgenre. The most common of these is the presence of the attractive, charismatic white hero opportunistically inserted into a film that is ostensibly about non-whites. In more egregious versions of this same ploy, directors have even gone so far as to insert a fictitious white character into a screenplay that was otherwise based on true events. In other words, providing their own white hero when reality failed to do so.
The film has been praised by audiences and critics (including some black ones) for the portrayal of the black characters. By all accounts, they come across as witty, funny, assertive and generally likable. But they invariably lack specific qualities that Hollywood tends to reserve for the white protagonists. For one, they lack agency and are powerless to improve their own situation. Some may argue that this was necessary since black domestic workers in the Deep South during the 60’s truly were powerless. That may be so, but as I’ll show later, the filmmakers appeared to have no compunctions about deviating from reality when it came to other aspects of the film.
The other thing that distinguishes the black protagonists from the white ones is their level of physical attractiveness. Not to say that the black actresses were ugly, but they were not beautiful in any conventional sense of the term. This was clearly intentional, and it’s a common thread among black supporting roles in Hollywood films in which the main hero is white. Not only is the black character not attractive, but she or he is often completely desexualized, as appears to be the case in this movie. Given these facts, as likeable as the black character might be, no one in the audience would ever want to be that person.
Another criticism I’ve read about the film is that it sanitizes the nature and the extent of the oppression characteristic of the time and place the film is intended to depict. The more vicious manifestations such as the rampant physical abuse and sexual predation endured by these women are completely omitted from the story. But for me, what I find most problematic about this movie and many others like it, is that it constructs a false delineation between racist and non-racist characters. This is an elementary-school, bad-versus-evil treatment of a complex and incredibly nuanced concept, and the oversimplification is one that I find offensive. This approach tends to do well with white audiences because they can watch the film and compare themselves favourably to the racist characters, and then leave the theatre with that warm, fuzzy feeling of knowing that they’re one of the good ones.
Given the clearly ethnocentric perspective from which the story is told, I wonder if the writer of the novel or the screenplay actually consulted any black historians, or domestic workers, as the main character in the movie did. My guess is no. But I think that would have helped.
I disagree. I think "The Help" is one in a long line of Hollywood movies that show the black experience through the bias and sensibilities of whites. I used to think Perry and movies like "Soul Plane" were as bad as movies like "The Help," but I was mistaken. Perry, for all his faults as a filmmaker, makes movies for black audiences, has an overwhelmingly black fanbase, and is himself black. They may be hard to stomach, but I wouldn't call them racist.
His work also doesn't get the kind of award-show recognition this movie will probably get.
If by "racist" , you mean which movies have the most negative impact on Blacks and on race relations, I'd say The Help is worse. It's true that Tyler Perry's films often have characters that caricaturize specific aspects of black culture, but The Help caricaturizes one of the most brutal and most sensitive parts of African American history. On top of that, as C pointed out, Tyler Perry movies are seen by mostly Black audiences, and a few non-blacks who tend to identify with black culture. The Help is totally different in that respect.
On the other hand, if by "less racist" you mean The Help is less offensive to Black people than Tyler Perry movies, then I'd have to disagree again, for the reasons discussed in this article and the many other articles by black critics who found the film offensive.
The other thing that clearly sets this movie and others like it (i.e. white screenwriter, white protagonist, black victims) apart from Tyler Perry movies is that in Tyler Perry movies, you have truly positive black characters. As poor as his character development might be, there is no shortage of strong, intelligent, attractive, successful black characters. The Help and movies of its ilk, never include such characters. In these movies the black cast is never endowed with the full breadth of human experience. Rather, they are relegated to playing the role of props in a narrative designed primarily highlight the experiences and heroics of the white lead character. And somehow the black props/victims always need to be coached into realizing their full potential and value by some white saviour. This was one of the more problematic aspects of the movie for me.
i love feeling-good about racism
say what you want about tyler perry's movies, but at least they don't need to be viewed through the lens of white people.
having said that, 'the help' is still less racist than tyler perry's work.
discuss.