OF NATIVE DAUGHTERS AND SONS
OF NATIVE DAUGHTERS
AND SONS
Since 2016, it is
obvious that unbridled ego and fascist thirst for power has infected the United
States of America. Everywhere, in all
sectors of our lives, one finds evidence.
Our once cherished longing for rule of law and reason has rapidly
diminished. American citizens distrust
one another and luxuriate in hatreds which have brewed in the so-called New
World since 1492. We are trumped by
confusion, vulgarity, and vicious contentions.
In old-school slang , we are a
hot mess. We are sickened by physical,
political, and psychological change. The
pathos of hope tantalizes us, as our language, our media madness, and our abject doubts undermine belief in
sanity, goodness, and civility. Have we become so civilized by technological advancements
that we accept barbarity as our norm?
The answer to such a question is a kaleidoscope, an
unpredictable thing. Yet, we trudge along
as we have done for centuries, denying that the oblivion of humanity is
our fate. Perhaps it is not. Perhaps native daughters and sons of this
Earth shall survive the evidence of things unknown and unseen. Perhaps as a cultural phenomenon, the current
screening of the third film version of Richard Wright's 1940 novel Native Son is an omen.
I have not yet seen the film which resulted from
collaboration Suzan-Lori Parks, the writer of the screenplay, and Rashid
Johnson, the movie's director . Thus, I
can't condone or condemn it.
Nevertheless, I have read much of the "buzz" that emerged from
the film's premier at Sundance and dozens of articles about the adaptation of
Wright's novel , the recycling of the 1951 and 1986 films of Wright's
masterpiece. The breadth of coverage and the disconnections of critique prepare me to
reject being taken in by opportunistic hype.
I resist the conclusion Troy Patterson reached in the pages of the New Yorker about the ending of the film:
"It means that an intelligent grappling with a classic text has reached
the limit of what the text has left to offer.
The movie, deviating from the
book, will grant its protagonist humanity by turning him into a Christ figure
who dies for America's sins, and the book like the coal furnace, will prove to
be obsolete." Nor will I agree,
without severe qualifications, with Rashid Johnson's opinion, delivered in a Chicago Tribune interview (March 31,
2019): "I think this book and this story has so much to do with fear and
anxiety and the way that we make decisions when we're facing existential
concerns and our understanding of who we are as opposed to who we may be viewed
as. I just thought it was really
pressing to start to talk about those ideas."
It escapes me why there's a need "to start to talk" (as if we are
saying something new) about what thousands of African Americans and other
people have continuously talked about in a never-to-be-concluded conversation
since 1940. I suppose that many young
people born after 1999 have not been encouraged to participate in the long
conversation at home or in their schools, that it will not be easy for them to
reconcile James Baldwin's forced rejection, on aesthetic grounds, of Richard Wright's primal intentions with the
entitlement to transform Bigger Thomas into likeable,
post-racial character. What's to
like about the dynamics of rampant capitalism and vile systemic racism in our nation? I imagine when I get around to writing about the film I may
succeed in saying something meaningful about the need to reject Hollywood hype
and to think coldly and critically about the terminal rewards of failing to
remember our historicity.
Jerry W. Ward, Jr. April
10, 2019
Comments
Post a Comment