The Boomerang Effect (and why Jacqueline's story is important)

This post first appeared on The Loop 21 three years ago (The Loop 21 has since deleted the article...boo!). My article prompted a thoughtful response from director, Reginald Hudlin, which was also deleted by The Loop 21 (ugh!). Anyhoo, here's my take on one of my favorite movies of all time, Boomerang, and why I think Jacqueline's story is important.

It’s hard to believe that eighteen years ago audiences around the country first laughed out loud at the box office hit film Boomerang (1992). The movie, arguably one of Eddie Murphy’s best films, introduced us to Bony T (Chris Rock), the incomparable antics of Strange (Grace Jones), and blessed us with Mr. Jackson’s (John Witherspoon) now legendary phrase, “Bang! Bang! Bang!” Without a doubt, Boomerang is one of the best American comedies of the twentieth century.

I’ve watched Boomerang at least several dozen times throughout my life (I was eleven years old when the film was first released). Each time I watch the film, I gather something new, whether it be one of Tyler’s (Martin Lawrence) pro-black conspiracy theories or the unintended comical reactions of an extra on the exercise machine in the background.

However, as I’ve gotten older, I’ve watch the movie with a different lens--a more grown up one, if you will. Needless to say, the more I watch Boomerang the more I notice Robin Givens’ character, Jacqueline, as the quintessential villain presumably because she can manage a career and a sex life.

Let me explain.

I've always been more interested in Jacqueline, a highly successful and sexual Black woman, than Marcus, the predictable dunce who eventually learns a lesson about love. My main argument is that while both Marcus and Jacqueline are flawed, it only seems that Marcus gets rewarded in the end by living a happy life with Angela (Halle Berry) and Jacqueline gets vilified, never seen or heard from again. The thematic conclusion presented in the plot eerily reflects real world assumptions about sex and romantic relationships.

(Note: The point of this article is not to set up useless binaries between heterosexual men and women, but to explore how the relationships presented in Boomerang might be a reflection of society's problem with successful, independent, sexual, and loving women.)

I’ll start with the counter arguments then explain the problems with each as it relates to a larger discussion of gender and sexuality in the context of romantic relationships.

Counterargument #1: It’s not about Jacqueline being able to manage a career and sex life, it’s about my man Marcus being done wrong!

In fact the story is also about Jacqueline, though the Hudlin Brothers and Eddie Murphy chose to highlight Marcus as the central character who can learn from love.  We never know what happened to Jacqueline after she told Marcus “it’s over” and left hurriedly to catch the cab. We also don’t know what happened to Jacqueline after Marcus left her in the bed upon realizing he loved Angela. Did Jacqueline find another lover, (perhaps a woman?), to fill the void that Marcus left? As the audience, we’re left to assume that Jacqueline 'got what she deserved' because she was cold-hearted (similar to how Marcus was earlier in the movie).

Interestingly enough (as noted on the DVD audio commentary), “the Executives at Paramount Pictures were nervous about casting Robin Givens in the film because she was disliked by many in the general public due to her past with Mike Tyson.”

Hudlin continues to say however, “that actually made [Givens] perfect for the role, that she was this formidable person, and a match for Eddie Murphy, who also had an increpid reputation as a ladies' man. So, I wanted the audience to feel like this would be a fair fight.”

Mr. Hudlin’s boxing references were not unintentional. Robin Givens was perfect for the role, not simply because she could act, but because of her public battle with ex-lover, Mike Tyson. Essentially Jacqueline’s character, played by a women who in real life was was ostracized publicly for her relationship with a successful Black man, was thought of as a formidable opponent to Eddie Murphy’s character Marcus because she could match wits with him sexually and intellectually.

Robin Givens was the perfect woman to play Jacqueline, the villain, because in real life she was the villain.

The idea of woman as villain, both real and imagined, also speaks to a larger societal issue concerning successful and outspoken women who publicly battle with (what should be) private romantic relationships. Often times these battles involve more than simply a lovers quarrel, but rather serious issues concerning domestic violence and sexual abuse. Whether it be Mike Tyson or Marcus Graham, to suggest that either have been 'done wrong' by a woman seems a bit shortsighted, but nonetheless a predictable response in a patriarchal society that has yet to accept its role in the proliferation of gender biases while minimizing the complexhood of a woman's sexuality within romantic relationships.

Counterargument #2: Jacqueline is karma in the flesh, not a villain.

Women are not personifications of abstract ideas, but rather, we are human beings; the stuff that personification is actually made of. As Hollywood depicts women as karma in the flesh and thereby saviors of men, the reality is that "the over-reliance on 'woman wisdom' leads to lack of accountability on the part of men."  In a society that is infatuated with categories, we have to keep in mind that each time we label women and men based on constructions, we also Otherize them, turning the individual into an idea or an object that’s easier to judge, trivialize, and indeed scrutinize.

By accepting Jacqueline as the villain, we also assume that her purpose is to teach Marcus a lesson, and essentially make us feel better about reconciling the guilt of treating someone in our lives wrongly. What about Jacqueline’s autonomy and personhood? Granted she too was flawed, as noted earlier, but can we honestly accept that her flaws only served as means to make Marcus (the man in her life) a better person?

Notably, the scene between Marcus and Angela highlights this issue. When Marcus audaciously tells Angela, “I’m a better person because of you” we understand that Marcus still doesn’t get it (as illustrated when Angela slaps him in the face). Though despite Marcus’ misuse of Angela, he still gets the girl in the end.

The Importance of Jacqueline’s Story

Which brings me back to why I’m interested in Jacqueline’s story. Though she’s as flawed as Marcus, she’s also extremely powerful in her own right. Her sexuality, intelligence, and success, though mysterious for the most part, are relatable. It’s unfortunate, however, that her story wasn’t intriguing enough for the writers to make it central to the plot. Though, it may just be a refection of how we haven’t reached the point yet where stories like Jacqueline’s are welcomed in public discourse about romantic relationships. While Steve Harvey tells women and men how to act, some of us are (or will eventually be) brave enough to tell our own stories.

At times, I wish another Boomerang would be produced so I can admire the characters all over again. But as one friend reminded me, "some movies have to be appreciated in our past, never in present."

Indeed.

Media Analysis On Violence, Rape, and Little Red Riding Hood

RED, from directors Jorge Jaramillo and Carlo Guillot is an interpretation based on the fairy tale "Little Red Ridding Hood". Jaramillo and Guillot's interpretation is gruesomely violent, and yet (as I will further explore below), is also a beautiful take on a classic story. Here is a description of the piece from the directors:

"Based on a true fairy tale. As the silhouette of a lonely girl runs through the woods, something in the shadows is lurking her. RED is an animated short film, which presents a new version of the classic tale "Little Red Riding Hood" by Charles Perrault. The directors Jorge Jaramillo and Carolo Guillot explore more thoroughly the drama, horror, and realism of the story. A journey of feelings and moments, with visual and musical elements existing only to carry a clear and strong narrative. In RED the directors based on traditional shadows animation, giving it a new perspective by using technology to create a new concept, while maintaining the visual and narrative force of the classic technique."

[vimeo http://www.vimeo.com/38704159 w=500&h=281]

I should also note that Elizabeth Marshall (2004) argued that classic tales like "Little Red Riding Hood" were initially "tied to practices of childhood rearing . . .and disciplining young readers into normative heterosexual femininity and masculinity" (pg. 261). The original tale of "Little Red Riding Hood" was just as violent in that the story functioned as a psychological ploy to discipline children into gender norms. Now we might understand this piece as relates to the sexuality of young girls and rape culture, as Marshall writes,

“Little Red Riding Hood, like constructions of rape victims in contemporary discourses of law and media, was in unauthorized territory, the forest rather than the home, talking in a free and uninhibited way to a male who wasn't her husband or father. In popular parlance, Little Red "’asked for it’" (268).

"Little Red Riding Hood"'s violent beginnings has since been diluted as a tale of childhood fantasy, that is until now with Jaramillo and Guillot's interpretation.

I'm uncertain about the primary audience toward which Jaramillo and Guillot's piece is targeted. However, given that this piece has since gone viral (largely due to Jezebel.com's write-up) and is readily available on Vimeo, I'm sure the piece has been consumed by people of various ages and groups.

Number of violent acts: 1

The nature of violent acts: RED physically slaughters the wolf with a knife and breaks the wolf's neck, killing the wolf in a violent confrontation. I would be remiss not to mention the psychological violence associated with this exchange. Though RED is an animated girl, one can only imagine that if she were 'real' the pychological impact of such a gruesome act would have long lasting traumatic effects.

Harris' discusses cartoon violence as "stylized and unrealistic" and as a result may "induce[d] fear or desensitization" (pg. 273) in viewers since the events could not happen in 'real life'. In other words, it seems Harris is arguing that viewers might allow themselves to indulge effortlessly in cartoon violence, which can also be humorous, since there is less 'real life' consequences tied to the media itself. Perhaps it is much easier to suspend fear in an animated world. For me, however, this piece is cathartic. If I had to categorize my reaction to the piece based on the readings, I might relate my reaction to the fear-of-victimization effect, with some caveats. I do not necessarily think that RED's cathartic effect has to do with the idea that the more media like RED that I consume, the more I am afraid of becoming a victim of violence (Bushman, et al., pg. 364). However, I do feel a sense of what Harris describes as an "emotional purging" (pg. 276) when I watch the piece. I enjoy watching RED, not necessarily for the violence acts themselves, but rather because the violent acts are perpetrated on a known perpetrator, the wolf. It may be that I am experiencing what Sparks identifies as post-viewing gratification related to the character, RED, herself. I find pleasure, albeit intellectual, in watching RED kill the wolf. She avenges the death of Little Red, whom she apparently drags away at the end of the piece. This act of vengeful violence appeals to my sense that the wolf, or the rapist/murderer, got what he deserved. RED avenges the victim's death, and all (seems) right in the world. Aside from the gratification quality of the work, the technical aspects involved in the piece are quite beautiful.

An aside:

When Walter Benjamin quoted poet Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, "War is beautiful", in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Production, he was doing so to express the aesthetics of war. For Marinetti, the physical structure of weapons and even the printed propaganda associated with war was artful. In the case of RED, (or the technology involved in the production of RED), this piece has an aesthetic, albeit violent, quality. This is not to say, however, that the violent acts themselves are to be admired.

For me, RED is a beautifully produced piece of technology art. The directors tell a story that is both well-produced and thoughtfully mediated with the use of technology. Aside from it's technical merits, I find that this story is beautiful because I understand that humanity is often found in some of the most gruesome and perverse expressions. RED is essentially an aesthetically stunning piece of callous emotion. Yet I understand that the aesthetics of violence in this case is beautiful only because the nature of the violent act itself is vile.

I also admit that my sense of gratification might be based on prior experiences engaging in domestic violence and sexual assault advocacy as well as my academic background in gender studies. Certainly Marshall's discussions on "Little Red Riding Hood" sat in the back of my mind as I watched this piece. Considering all of the exposure to prior experiences and perspectives, perhaps I was primed (Sparks, pg. 91) for this moment, and reacted according to previous associations with the "Little Red Riding Hood" tale.

References

Benjamin, W. (1968). Illuminations. New York: Schocken Books. Bushman, B.J., Husemann, L.R., & Whitaker, J.L. (2009). Violent media effects. In Nabi, R.L. & Oliver, M.B. (Eds.), Media processes and effects. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Harris, R. (2009). Violence: Watching all that mayhem really matters. In A cognitive psychology of mass media. (5th ed). pp. 257-290. Marshall, E. (2004). Stripping for the wold: Rethinking representations of gender in children's literature. Reading Research Quarterly. 39(3). pp. 256-270. Sparks, G.G. (2010). Effects of media violence. In Media effects research: A basic overview. pp. 80-104. Boston, MA: Wadsworth.

My NCA Statement on Feminism and Communications

Due to lack of travel funds I am unable to attend NCA (National Communication Association) Conference 2012 this year. Below is my official statement that will be presented on my behalf during Saturday morning’s roundtable session entitled “Critical Perspectives on Feminism and Activism in the Third Wave”. I’ve spent the last few years grappling with feminist identity. Despite over the years having performed so-called “feminist duties” as an academic and as a political activist, (i.e. earning a MA in Women’s Studies, caucusing for Hillary Clinton in 2008, and volunteering as a hotline operator for a women’s shelter), I realize that my feminism has less to do with declaring a feminist identity and more to do with how my feminism emerges through work and scholarship, both of which almost always reflect a feminist ethic grounded in an inquiry stance. That is, I’m always questioning my-self in relation to Other; always replaying Trinh T. Minh-ha’s mystifying question in my head, “If you can’t locate the other, how are you to locate your-self?”

I worry, however, that feminism as a discipline, as a politic, as a form of activism, and as an idea(l) has become institutionalized within a western moral, ethic, and capitalistic framework that looks more and more like hierarchy, chronology, and characterized by waves (eg. generations). I also wonder about feminism as a capital enterprise. The notion of “professional feminism” troubles me. I realize folks have to make a living off of their work, but the label “professional feminist” conjures up awkward emotions. And no, I’m not referring to the welcomed contradictions of personhood that Gloria Anzaldúa brilliantly theorizes in Borderlands La Frontera, but rather I’m talking about the idea of professional feminism that exist in conflict with how I understand feminist consciousness; that is, something as sacred. Something that cannot be bought or sold. Untouched.

That said, however, I’m happy to see and feel feminist ideas spread throughout our home lives, our governments, our schools, and disseminated by way communication technologies.

To see feminist activism travel throughout time and space has been incredible to witness. With technology we are able recognize the multivalent nature of our potential of doing feminism, and by extension being feminist. Feminists have been able to spread our advocacy projects across time and space, and organize our bodies to protests in cities and neighborhoods across the globe. We have brought together domestic and international partners as we strive for justice and relief. We have called out others and at times we have had to confront ourselves. We have moved our advocacy beyond stationary online and offline spaces.

As we move throughout these spaces and places, I hope we can approach third space consciousness where we fight as much for the preservation of our selves as we fight for the preservation of others.  This movement toward consciousness—born of techno advocacy practices that span across computer mediated and non-computer mediated contexts, is a threshold space of place where we can (I hope!) see ourselves through the eyes of others and by way of panoramic views.

This kind of feminism spreads like sun rays and warms me up everytime I think about it.

Feminist theory and ethnography is peppered throughout the discipline of communications. I know of researchers at my institution who look towards feminist theory and ethnography to inform their work in communications and education, and of course, I have peers who see no use for feminist theory and ethnography. In fact, they may have never heard of feminist theory and feminist ethnography throughout their academic careers. The beauty of academia and research is that we can take multiple approaches to understanding the worlds around us. As a researcher and scholar of both education and communications, I carry with me an understanding of feminist theories and methodologies that I apply to my research on media, Internet/web 2.0, and youth culture. Feminist theory and ethnography are just a few of my lenses, and I don’t expect anyone else to wear them as I do when approaching research. I do, however, expect that the discipline of communications will continue to embrace interdisciplinary approaches. I expect communication scholars to acknowledge and embrace transdisciplinary analyses informed by theoretical approaches that take into account experiences and storytelling at the intersection of gender, class, sex, sexuality, ‘race’, dis/ability, religion, tribe, and ecology.

"Consciousness of exclusion through naming is acute"

Consciousness of exclusion through naming is acute. Identities seem contradictory, partial, and strategic. With the hard-won recognition of their social and historical constitution, gender, race, and class cannot provide the basis for belief in ‘essential’ unity. There is nothing about being ‘female’ that naturally binds women. There is not even such a state as ‘being’ female, itself a highly complex category constructed in contested sexual scientific discourses and other social practices. Gender, race, or class-consciousness is an achievement forced on us by the terrible historical experience of the contradictory social realities of patriarchy, colonialism, and capitalism.

~ Donna Haraway, "A Cyborg Manifesto"

Photo source

Sandoval, Anzaldua, and DuBois: Recommended Works for My Columbia U. Kinfolk

Ever feel like screaming out book recommendations in the middle of class while your classmates one-up each other in the midst of talking about a seminal theory from an equally seminal theorist? And by seminal, I do mean "Western". That totally was my experience tonight as I sat muted during a discussion about Frederic Jameson and postmodernism in my "Readings in Communications Theory and Social Thought" class.

That said, however, I'm grateful to be a apart of an academic environment that encourages its grad students to take ownership of their education by co-creating the syllabus, thereby co-creating classroom culture. My classmates and I have been granted the task of suggesting readings and movies to be included during the second half of the semester.

I proposed the following readings for the second half of the semester to my Columbia University kinfolk tonight. Here's hoping they agree to at least one of these fine texts. Let me know what you think.

###

Tara L. Conley proposes:

Hey all. I'd like to purpose that more critical perspectives from folk of color to be included in the mix, along with some oppositional/differential consciousness readings from women writers. I propose the following works, particularly as they relate to our discussions on Jameson and postmodernism, citizen-subjects, affective realties, and the rhetoric of progress:

• Methodology of the Oppressed by Chela Sandoval. I propose reading and examining Parts I-III (pg. 14-78). From the introduction, Sandoval writes, "Part I engages in a close textual analysis of Frederic Jameson's investigations of capitalist, socialist, repressive, and emancipatory developments as they occur within the transnational order known as postmodernism. The central problem encountered in Part I is Jameson's assertion that forms of resistance, oppositional consciousness, and social movement are no longer effective under the imperatives of the neo-colonizing mode of globalization he calls postmodernism. Part II . . . counters Jameson's assertion by tracking the U.S. women's social movement from 1968-1988, and identifying the oppositional practices adapted and utilized by U.S. feminists of color, who advanced one of the first essentially 'postmodern' resistance movements of the twentieth century, U.S. third world feminism" (pg. 1-2). The first portion of Part III, Sandoval writes, "lays out the primary inner and outer technologies that construct and enable the differential mode of social movement and consciousness" (pg. 2). Sandoval presents a critical perspective that I assume will spark a lively discussion about the relationship between resistance movements and postmodernism.
• Borderlands La Frontera by Gloria Anzaldua. Considered one of the 100 best books of the twentieth century, Borderlands essentially illustrates through narrative what Sandoval argues through 'high' theory. Published in 1987, Borderands is Anzaldua's single-authored seminal text (her other text, This Bridge We Call Home, co-edited in 1981, is as prolific). She had since expanded on her theories of consciousness up until her untimely death in 2004 (see Interviews/Entrevistas, Making Face, Making Soul/Haciendo Caras, and This Bridge We Call Home). Be forewarned, some might find Borderlands difficult to navigate in terms of language-switching and in terms of content. It's a raw text that forces readers to embark on a different kind of theoretical journey.
  • I propose reading and examining the following selected chapters:
    • Chapter 3, "Entering into the Serpent" (pgs. 47-61)
    • Chapter 4,, "La herencia de Coatlicue: The Coatlicue State" (pgs. 63-73)
    • Chapter 6 "Tlilli Tlapalli: The Path of the Red and Black Ink" (pgs. 87-97)
    • Chapter 7, "La conociencia de la mestiza: Towards a New Consciousness" (pg. 99-113).

• The Souls of Black Folks by WEB DuBois. If you haven't already read this book, (or perhaps you have but it's been a long time since you revisited the book), then I propose reading and examining the following chapters, particularly as they relate to differential (or double) consciousness and the rhetoric of progress:
  • Chapter 1, "Of Our Spiritual Strivings" (pg. 7-15)
  • Chapter 4, "Of the Meaning of Progress" (pg. 49-58)