ExploringTheSunkenPlace

Abby centers on a woman who becomes possessed by an African goddess of sexuality. I must agree that it is a bit problematic, primarily in the way it seems to vilify black female sexuality.  In many instances, black femininity is presented as monstrous within film. Abby is a direct example of this. 

First off, and perhaps the most problematic, is the way that Abby is possessed to begin with. The demon, Eshu, enters her while she is pleasuring herself in the shower, which alludes to the demonization of female pleasure. There have been repeated instances of female masturbation being seen as “defiling oneself”. This scene made me think of that belief, mostly because of how Abby’s possession could have been seen by some as something of a punishment or consequence of her actions. Right at the beginning of the film, female pleasure is associated with devilish, or demonic, nature. What supports this idea is that the demon does not possess her when she is having sex with her husband, just prior to her shower, but just when she begins to give herself some pleasure. 

This scene could also be taken as a comment of female dissatisfaction with traditional “lovemaking”, or the overall subordination of female pleasure during heterosexual sex. The sex scene between her husband and herself is over and the “act” is completed, yet Abby still felt the need to satisfy herself in the shower - which I found to be a truly interesting, and accurate, tid-bit. 

I believe the film Beloved accomplished its goal of depicting slavery’s destruction of identity. It does so in a manner that is both raw and haunting - literally. Since watching the film, Sethe’s flashbacks still come into my mind every now and then. The intense POV shot of slavers bringing their mouths to Sethe's bare breasts, snickering and toying with her, and uttering words like, “milk her like cattle”, was the scariest part of this film for me. It is this type of torture that results in the level of trauma that destroys Sethe’s identity, as well as that of her family members. Even after Sethe has made an arduous escape from this life, the slavers come looking to claim their property - which includes Sethe and her children. The way that Sethe preferred to murder her own children instead of having them become slaves themselves is truly telling of how despicable the whole institution was. On top of this, the revelation that her ex-husband didn’t abandon the family, but witnessed her being milked and became mentally broken, was yet another mental hit.  

The film does a phenomenal job of depicting how traumatic slavery is for the individual by dragging out Sethe’s mental downfall. Even though it has been years since Sethe endured these tortures, the trauma quite literally makes the walls around her tremble. When her previously deceased daughter suddenly shows up on her yard in the form of Beloved and reveals the truth of her identity to her, she has this urge to make things as perfect and ideal as she can to keep her around. Sethe is elated at the news of her baby being returned to her, which seemed understandable. As the film progresses, however, she seems to spiral out of control. When she began using up all her money to buy pricey looking sweets, cakes, toys, and decorations, I just watched in disbelief. She had worked so hard, and been so centered, but now she was squandering her money. She was even disregarding Denver, giving more specialized attention to Beloved - even when Beloved was being unreasonable and violent. She essentially goes off the rails, and the process is long and ugly. The house they live in, although not originally super well-kept, looks like it has been ransacked. There are decorations thrown around throughout the house, and empty plates and dirt pile up on every table top. Eventually, Sethe is barely able to get up from a chair. 

As I began  Eve’s Bayou, I asked myself why the film was being required for viewing within a class studying Black Horror. However, I quickly caught onto who the real monster was - the Patriarchy. The film ultimately centers around the damaging - if not horrifying- effects of the patriarchy within a household that leads to the loss of innocence. 

Louis, the father and leader of the Batiste household, is a man of hubris. He is the “big doctor” of the town, instantly attracting respect and admiration from those around him - especially that of multiple women. And of course, he indulges in this admiration - in fact, he even admits to it being his “weakness”. But of course, given the timing and culture of this time, it is considered somewhat normal, it is to be expected of a man this “successful”. The film confirms this through the very first scene where he dances at a family gathering with Ms. Mereaux. They dance in a raunchy manner, she even slides her hands down his body as she bends down until she is eye-level with his “package” - in front of the whole family! His daughters, neighbors, wife, and even Ms. Mereaux’s husband watch as the crowd cheers them on. In the middle of this dance, a friend of Louis’ mother asks, “ aren’t you so proud your son is a successful doctor?”, as if him being a successful man is all that matters in the world and excuses him of any behavior that would be deemed “unacceptable” if a woman dared to replicate it. 

Further patriarchal and sexist behaviors are perpetuated within the film, as well. For example, Eve and Cicily were asked to help serve the guests, all while her brother is enthusiastically celebrated by his mother for doing nothing other than existing. It is here that the expectations of the children are differentiated based on their gender. But of course, the actions of the father figure here have deeper implications for the women of the household - primarily Eve and Cicily. 

Although Ounga /The Love Wanga (1936) contains overt discussion on race within the film and centers on black magick/”voodoo” through its black female protagonist, it’s a large miss. It’s a story of how voodoo was seen through white eyes during the time. At first glance, even I thought this was a Chloe, Love is Calling You situation, where white actors play back roles. Alas, Klili is indeed played by Fredi Washington, an African-American actress. I also found it interesting that this actress was called “pioneering”, as if it was so grand that she was able to obtain roles in major films “even though” she was black. Coming back to my initial thoughts upon seeing her character for the first time, Klili is the same color as the white characters, but what seems to set her apart is the slight kinkiness of her hair and the general understanding that she is black. The story centers around how Klili loves a white man, but because she can never be with him due to her being half-black, she tries to use voodoo to gain his love. The film’s tone-deaf nature is apparent in the way Klili first begs Adam to be with her, saying “I’ll be your slave, anything…”. What black person would really say that about themselves knowing the deep, blood-stained history of slavery? Probably the kind of character that is written by a white person in the 30s. The depictions of voodoo and black culture are also alarming, voodoo is shown as a weapon used by those that are “primitive”, those that dance in an odd “forced-to-be-tribal” manner in a circle, against white people. The film completely overlooks how black magick and voodoo are actual houses of true belief, similar to the religions of christianity or catholicism. Overall, the film left a bitter taste in my mouth. 

Candyman (2020), on the other hand, left a sweeter taste (no pun intended). Candyman is a retelling of a film with the same title released in 1992. The original film centers around a white graduate student who tries to investigate the urban legend of the Candyman, who largely preys upon the black inhabitants of Cabrini-Green. Candyman tries to convince Helen to “be his victim” so that his legend can be revived - inserting clearly that a white woman’s death would bring him attention the way his other kills haven't. Though Candyman’s story does originate from a black man’s lynching, there is no attention payed to his origins and the generational trauma of black people. Candyman is the villain of this story, and a white woman is the hero. 

 Jordan Peele has given us yet another piece of art to dissect - Nope can be understood in multiple ways, with countless underlying meanings that have been unearthed and discussed since the film’s release. However I have my own thoughts about the religious imagery, rabbits, and the tethered themselves. 

Jeremiah 11:11 pops up multiple times throughout the film, the verse itself reads: “Therefore thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will bring evil upon them, which they shall not be able to escape; and though they shall cry unto me, I will not hearken unto them”. This verse, originally meant to warn the Judeans that their immorality would eventually lead to their destruction, can be understood as a notification of impending doom based upon current or past actions. We see 11:11 before the tethered make their appearance, so we can understand 11:11 as a warning that they are coming. And after we learn that the tethered were created by the government in an attempt to control the masses (for their own gain), but were ultimately abandoned for their lack of a “soul”, we know that their revenge is the destruction that was foretold.

The rabbits, which the tethered are forced to eat, also serve as imagery with deeper meaning. Rabbits themselves are often used for experiments, obviously against their will. But why did Peele include these rabbits and how do they really fit into the film’s message? When we think about experiments and black history, there are countless accounts of black individuals and slaves being used for experimental purposes. The Tuskegee Study for example, was a study that collected data from 600 black men - 399 with syphilis and 201 that did not have the disease. Their consent was never collected and they were told they were being treated for bad blood”, instead of an actual life-threatening disease. The goal was never to actually treat the individuals, it was just to study how the disease progressed - or in other words, how it killed them. There are also other accounts of procedures being done on female slaves against their will, like those of  J. Marion Sims, who went on to be called the “Father of Gynecology''. 

Jordan Peel’s “Get Out” is a clearly phenomenal film that sparked deeper interest in black horror within academic discussions. It has so many layers and small details that allude to greater racial and social themes. During my second time watching it, I analyzed so many additional details that I had overlooked in just the first few minutes of the film, like how character actions connected to self-awareness, color blindness, and common anti-black attitudes. 

In the opening scene where we see a black man get strangled and stuffed in a trunk, he seems to have a sense of self awareness. As a random car seems to track his movements, he knows that he is a black man in a nice neighborhood - as well as of the dangers that follow this stereotypical situation, as he says “I know how they like to do motherf*ckers out here”. As he makes an abrupt turn and walks away he says “not about to be me, not me” - a thought that I’m sure thousands have had before being abducted, abused, or murdered. Peele seems to comment on how this awareness is not enough, even trying to get away from a dangerous situation is not enough.

We then go into an example of white ignorance through the presentation of color-blind beliefs. Meeting Rose’s parents weighs heavily on Chris’ mind, and that’s clear from the atmosphere. And when he asks if her parents know he is black, Rose just shrugs and says, “should they?”. I think Jordan is likely echoing sentiments expressed in films like Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner, where a white mother is on the verge of tears as she is introduced to her daughter’s black partner. As a viewer, I was instantly thinking of a situation in which her parents would be shocked to see a black man with their white daughter, and I know that Chris was thinking the same thing. However, she presents this “I don’t see race” attitude. Even in inserting this attitude, I felt like the film was commenting on how problematic it is. Color blindness assumes the hard work is over, it inputs the idea that racism is somehow no longer limiting the lives of people of color and separates race from any consideration of power, structure, or hierarchy. Because really, even though I know the truth of Rose’s nature, the attitude she poses, one of being unaffected by race, is an attitude of white privilege.