On Tue, 26 Jul 1994, Errol Vieth wrote:
> Lee Elliott wrote with reference to being correctly orthodox:
> >Cameron seems to have a kink with this sort of thing, after all, in
> >Terminator 2, Dr. Bryson, although a well-educated black man, is
> >ultimately responsible for the death of humanity and the mass production
> >of super-spohisticated, killer cyborgs (with an Aryan accent!). Bryson,
> >the movie's sole black man, must die so that our white heros, and the
> >rest of the world, may continue with their lives.
> Whatever we do we cannot have intelligent black men in films. If we do,
> then their intelligence must always be pure, and never misused. We cannot
> show them as having to deal with the consequences of their power.
> And we cannot show him as sacrificing his life for the benefit of white
> folks and his own wife and child. He must be a hero in other ways.
> Hmmm. Isn't there something weird about this, Lee Elliott?
What I see as weird is the hypothetical statement following "If we do..."
Very rarely are intelligent black male characters featured in films at
all. I'm not sure of Lee Elliott's intent, but I long to see more positive
black male characters that are not killed off or marginalized in the
context of a film's story.
Marc [log in to unmask]
> What Cameron cleverly left unsaid, is the question as to who owned the
> company. Is that too subtle for a politically correct viewpoint? If
> Cameron had a point, it was that the control is held not by one colour or
> gender, but by the often faceless corporate owners/stockholders.
> Errol Vieth