139 replies to this topic

[Sniperscope]

Plenty of Guardian readers here.

Well, let's not detain you from your Daily Star any longer, then...

LMAO!!!

[Mister Asterix]

Recently, I watched a wonderful ITV series titled ‘The Adventure of English’. One segment featured a group people who spoke Gullah — a hybrid of English and African dialects. The program stopped and just listened to these people speak. It focused on the pronunciation, grammar, and vocabulary — emphasising the differences of the speech of these people — for no other reason than to get a flavour of the language of these people. And every single one of these people was black! Horror! Surely this means presenter Melvin Bragg is racist. Or do we forgive him because that is the way people thought back in 2002?

[baerrtt]

Plenty of Guardian readers here.

Another thoughful thread, another useless comment from Ambler.

[ChristopherZ22]

Do you think that Live and Let Die, if not some parts of it, are racist? Why or why not?

If you look at the sixties Bond films, you see the villains trying to either control or destroy the world (or parts of it) with Cold War weapons. They manipulate rockets (Dr. No), try to destroy the US economy so that communists can dominate the world (Goldfinger), attempting to destroy a US city in hopes of eventually gaining world domination (Thunderball), literally trying to cause the major powers to destroy each other and taking control of the world (You Only Live Twice), trying to destroy the world through biological weapons (OHMSS), or using a lazer satellite to destroy the world (Diamonds Are Forever).

In Live and Let Die, we see blacks trying to take control of the US economy through heroine. I like Live and Let Die, but the obvious message is that if blacks tried to take control of the world, they would do it with drugs. So yes, the film can be called racist. Why couldn't blacks just manipulate rockets or try to gain a monopoly on gold? Is it because they don't have as much money as whites? Are they just drug dealers?

Edited by ChristopherZ22, 21 October 2009 - 02:16 AM.

[Tybre]

Or maybe the black villain with drugs is smarter than the white villain with missiles?

Seriously, drugging the hell out of the population is a much more effective plan than knocking a few missiles off course.

[00Twelve]

Nonsense. The heroin scheme needed no specific ethnicity to carry it out. There are several key factors in the story ending up as it did:

- Fleming's novel had an ingenius villain using a vodou symbol as a threat to those who would believe in it (in the book's case, a contingent of the lower-class black population of the U.S.) as he used them to carry out a plot nowhere near that of the movie. It was about stealing buried Caribbean treasure, laundering it in America, and sending the money to SMERSH to fund operations.

- Drugs were popular fodder for crime movies of the day, whereas spy movies about world domination had completely died off. The producers were trying to remain current. Another world domination film would have been an awfully tired affair.

- Among the popular subgenres in action films was blaxploitation cinema, and the creative team was influenced by that movement.

Combine all those circumstances together and you have the basis for LALD as it was. Hey, I'd have loved to see more of the book onscreen, but it's a great romp as it is. Rather ridiculous to throw accusations of racism towards it.

[ChristopherZ22]

Rather ridiculous to throw accusations of racism towards it.

I did some Bond research several years back in my university's library while an undergrad. I looked up critic reviews of LALD written when it came out in 1973. Some of them charged the film with racism, and thus gave it negative reviews. It isn't like the claim that it is racist is recent.

I also took a film class in grad school a few years ago, and we read one of the most respected scholarly works on blacks in cinema. The author briefly mentioned LALD and its racism.

Edited by ChristopherZ22, 21 October 2009 - 05:56 AM.

[00Twelve]

Rather ridiculous to throw accusations of racism towards it.

I did some Bond research several years back in my university's library while an undergrad. I looked up critic reviews of LALD written when it came out in 1973. Some of them charged the film with racism, and thus gave it negative reviews. It isn't like the claim that it is racist is recent.

I also took a film class in grad school a few years ago, and we read one of the most respected scholarly works on blacks in cinema. The author briefly mentioned LALD and its racism.

No, it's not a new accusation, but I've always seen it as far-fetched (unqualified though I might be[?]). It's not as if every single black character is played to be an idiot. The major baddies are written with as much eloquence as anyone else in the picture (Kananga, Tee Hee, Samedi, Rosie, etc.) and the nameless henchman are no less dignified than any one of Blofeld's jumpsuit-clad cronies. Neither Bond nor Leiter nor Solitaire display any sort of racist attitudes. In fact, the only character in the movie with actual racial bias is the buffoon-- J.W. Pepper. It's no coincidence that he is written as both a bigot and a moron; it's a commentary on racism.

The movie also purposefully avoids elaboration on exactly how the threat of Baron Samedi is effective among Kananga's network; it even goes on to imply that Samedi is real and not just a scare tactic, which is a far cry from the much more frequently attacked novel.

A movie merely containing a villainous network comprised mainly of one ethnicity doesn't autamatically justify cries of racism. Where are the same accusers when Connery "becomes" Japanese? That's one of the most insulting disguises since blackface!

Everyone's entitled to an opinion, of course, but I just can't agree that LALD is outright racist.

[ChristopherZ22]

Where are the same accusers when Connery "becomes" Japanese? That's one of the most insulting disguises since blackface!

Although it looks silly, it is justifiable. If Bond had not become Japanese, Tiger could not have hid him and the plan would have failed.

[00Twelve]

Where are the same accusers when Connery "becomes" Japanese? That's one of the most insulting disguises since blackface!

Although it looks silly, it is justifiable. If Bond had not become Japanese, Tiger could not have hid him and the plan would have failed.

Oh, it's certainly justifiable, plot-wise. The book's version is much smoother (featuring actual plastic surgery), without Bond looking like a walking insult to Asians.

[Zorin Industries]

Where are the same accusers when Connery "becomes" Japanese? That's one of the most insulting disguises since blackface!

Although it looks silly, it is justifiable. If Bond had not become Japanese, Tiger could not have hid him and the plan would have failed.

You are missing the point of what 00Twelve is saying. Forget the story. The very device itself can be read as a bit iffy.

Rather ridiculous to throw accusations of racism towards it.

I did some Bond research several years back in my university's library while an undergrad. I looked up critic reviews of LALD written when it came out in 1973. Some of them charged the film with racism, and thus gave it negative reviews. It isn't like the claim that it is racist is recent.

I also took a film class in grad school a few years ago, and we read one of the most respected scholarly works on blacks in cinema. The author briefly mentioned LALD and its racism.

But just because some academic says it is "racist" doesn't actually mean it is. And reviews from 1973 are not all that relevant to a debate about the film now as the politics were somewhat different in those days.

LIVE AND LET DIE the film is acutely aware of what it is doing. It is not racist. It has not been racist. And it will never be racist. The only thing that has overtones of introverted racism is this very notion that the film is iffy on racial grounds as if a black audience cannot take a piece of mainstream entertainment featuring a black villain without thinking the whole world is about to lynch them. For God's sake, the film features an American black villain with a English white teenage and virginal girlfriend!!?! How is that racist? Progressive maybe, but not prejudicial.

[DLibrasnow]

The EON producers saw the novel as racist. It was even revealed in interviews at the time that they tried to balance the racism by making a white sheriff the subject of ridicule.

Let's not forget that at the time of Ian Fleming (who may or may not have been a racist but was certainly an elitist) writing LALD that what we now see as racist was seen in a different and more acceptable light.

[RJJB]

I never viewed LALD as racist, but saw it as a product of the black exploitation movies that was very prevalent at that time. Moore's buffoonery as Bond fit the bill perfectly as a white man unable to fight against the black enemy. The only difference of course is that ultimatley, the white man triumphs.

LALD is important because it shows that the producers lost their way. Instead of setting trends, as Bond movies had done, they now followed other popular trends. The overall quality and creativeenrgy that had intially fueled the series was gone.

[00Twelve]

I never viewed LALD as racist, but saw it as a product of the black exploitation movies that was very prevalent at that time. Moore's buffoonery as Bond fit the bill perfectly as a white man unable to fight against the black enemy. The only difference of course is that ultimatley, the white man triumphs.

LALD is important because it shows that the producers lost their way. Instead of setting trends, as Bond movies had done, they now followed other popular trends. The overall quality and creativeenrgy that had intially fueled the series was gone.

Partially, though, LALD was the way it was because the spy movie genre was on the decline while crime movies and exploitation cinema were on the rise. Nobody was interested in making movies about Cold War espionage; the more tangible issue of drug abuse and violence was the driving force behind most successful action pictures of the day. The producers were doing what they've always tried to do, which is remain current with the trends of the times. I don't see it as a lack of creativity per say, but rather a deliberate shift in focus from Cold War enmity to private villains. Much as I would have liked to have seen it, a story about laundering buried treasure and sending it to Russia would have been rather passe at the time.

Also, there had just been four films with the same villain holding the world for ransom. It was time for a change in a major way.

[elizabeth]

Do you think that Live and Let Die, if not some parts of it, are racist? Why or why not?

well, i think in this case, you have to look at where the movie was set. in this film, it was set in new orleans and around louisiana, which is densely populated by african-americans and voodoo practitioners. based on that, i do not think that this film is racist.

i think others might argue that the film is a mockery by the british on the american south, what with the portrayal of jw pepper.

Edited by elizabeth, 22 October 2009 - 09:14 PM.

[Quincy]

I don't think its racist. But it is damn funny watching the "black" people of Harlem and Bond react in the beginning of the film. All the parts in the club, taxi cab, and his calm and collected behavior after he is captured is all played brilliant by Moore.

"Funny how the least little thing amuses him."

Gets pushed into a wall violently. Only for Bond to reply with a jolly, "Thank you!" Gotta love the good parts of Moore's entries.

The picture is far from perfect but the beginning(first 20-30 min or so) is handled brilliantly.

[Guy Haines]

No. Dr Kananga/Mr Big is a typical Bond villain, and Yaphet Kotto portrayed him as such - wealthy, cultured, patronising towards Bond and the leading lady. And fully deserving of his eventual fate, as are all Bond villains. His racial background is, unavoidably, part and parcel of the story Fleming wrote and Saltzman and Broccoli filmed, but it shouldn't affect how we view this episode.

[AMC Hornet]

My girlfriend's daughter is half-black - the way Halle Berry is half-black - and she refers to LALD as "the racist one." Rather than argue with her, I simply suggested that she read LALD, watch Dr. ("fetch my shoes") No, then tell me again that LALD is racist.

I haven't heard back on that yet - she's too busy trying to make a career as an actor - not an easy task for a half-black woman in America....

[coco1997]

My girlfriend's daughter is half-black - the way Halle Berry is half-black - and she refers to LALD as "the racist one." Rather than argue with her, I simply suggested that she read LALD, watch Dr. ("fetch my shoes") No, then tell me again that LALD is racist.

I haven't heard back on that yet - she's too busy trying to make a career as an actor - not an easy task for a half-black woman in America....

That's pretty ignorant of her to believe LALD is racist. If LALD is racist, then every blaxploitation movie made by every black producer throughout the 1970's was racist.

[AMC Hornet]

I think the reason the racist charge keeps rearing its ugly head is because LALD appears to be a blacksploitation movie made by white producers, with a white hero, and the black characters lose in the end.

What the hell - The Jeffersons, That's My Mama and Sanford & Son were all produced by Norman Lear. That didn't stop black audiences from appreciating all the work and exposure black actors were getting on TV....