Looks of Colorblindness

Historically films and movies are a form of entertainment easily embraced because of their ability to transport the viewer into the world of the narrative, a form of escapology. The history of film followed much the same path as that of the world in which it was produced in. Movies moved from being dominated by male representations to stories inclusive of women during and after the feminist movement gained salience. Even then movies with and centered around female protagonists were a reproduction or maintenance of the phallocentric norms that existed in society “the function of woman in forming the patriarchal conscious” and “Woman then stands in patriarchal culture as signifier fir the male other” (Mulvey, 746: 1992). Mulvey argues that women were in the films but only as a space for men to fill in the meaning of a woman in a given context, meaning they were present but powerless in that they were not self determinant entities. On account of the fact that cinema focuses on a type of voyeuristic looking, that looking is transferred quite easily to the female form in an erotic way because of how this already exists off camera in the lived world. Therefore women are subjected to being watched for their physical qualities more so than their actual role in the film “In their traditional exhibitionist role women are simultaneously looked at and displayed, with their appearance coded for strong visual and erotic impact so that they can be said to connote to- be- looked- at- ness” (Mulvey, 750:1992). Theories around the portrayal and representation of women in cinema have been put forth by many but what is always omitted is the fact that the category ‘women’ is monolithic because they are shaped by the white woman dominant theory. The experience of middle class white women is taken to be the representative for all women.

As a result of being omitted from most narratives and thus denied their right to gaze or recognize themselves and unable to relate or engage to the imagery of white women in film, women of color have developed what Hooks calls the oppositional gaze. She sees the lack of representation as a continuation of the racial subjugation that black people were subject to in the days of slavery “The politics of slavery, of racialized power relations, were such that the slaves were denied their right to gaze” (Hooks, 115: 1992). She further argues that to consume cinematic film with its negation of black women was to accept the notion being put forth that women of color are neither desired nor required to be represented in film. Because film is or was believed to be carried over from real life onto the screen this acceptance would hold true in the real world too. This is constructed around phallocentric spectatorship which I view as a form of soft power, a subliminal means of subjugating women of color. This serves to make the black woman feel inferior, insecure in her outward appearance and feel as though her beauty and womanhood are things that exist in relation to the beauty of the white woman. A good example of this is in the Tyler Perry movie “For Colored Girls” where Whoopi Goldberg the mother of two mixed race girls reveals how her husband “gave” her to a white man because he wanted to have beautiful children. The concept of beauty is in relation to closeness to whiteness and consequently Whoopi Goldberg herself is by her husband’s definition ugly because of her lack of whiteness and therefore has no ability to produce beauty in her offspring.

Even in films a where black women are represented, the women are not portrayed in an appealing manner or even a manner that black female spectators can relate to as seen in the example of Sapphire in the television show ‘Amos & Andy’ “How could we long to be there when our image, visually constructed, was so ugly. We did not long for her. She was not us” (Hooks, 120:1992). The other form of representation of black women was to be the backdrop of and draw more emphasis to the white female characters in the narratives “Even when representations of black women were present in film, our bodies and being were there to serve- to enhance and maintain white womanhood as object of the phallocentric gaze” (Hooks, 119:1992). Interestingly enough the images of black women which were and are considered desirable emulate the images of white women. Good examples of this are Jennifer Bills who is not easily recognizable as black and Oscar award winning actress, Halle Berry. Additionally, characteristics which are typically physical characteristics of white women have come to embody what the characteristics of women as a whole should be as is evident in all the films we see where black leading ladies are dawning Rapunzel like mains and straight figures. These characteristics have become the entertainment industry standards.

Ironically the images that women of color emulate in order to be accepted in film are in themselves fallacious as Julie Burchill points out “What does it say about racial purity, that the best blondes have all been brunettes (Harlow, Monroe, Bardot)? We are not as white as we think” (Hooks, 119:1992). This means that even the new and improved more representative images of the black female should not be something that women of color identify with. However, what they identify with is the ability to be accepted and viewed as desirable even though that is still not them. This further perpetuates the racial subjugation because what it is teaching is that what is and continues to be accepted blackness is as close to white as possible.

Writers and producers like Tyler Perry work to try and change or rather present a more accurate representation of women of color in the multiple forms in which they exist and points it out in the film dialogues, presenting it as humor, as something women of color and the black community at large can laugh at because ultimately the idea that one group of people should try to erase another’s presence is laughable.