The Art of Criticism: Two Ways to Look at It : Political Correctness, Film and the Critic

The punch/counterpunch on John Singleton’s “Higher Learning” left me wondering more about the writers than about the film. Instead of boxing gloves, Kenneth Turan and Jamaa Fanaka swung pompons. Their articles (“ ‘Higher Learning’ at Singleton U,” Calendar, Jan. 11 and “Unclogging the Pipeline for Black Artists,” Calendar, Jan. 30) serve as good examples of what happens when critics downplay the artistic problems of a film just because the filmmaker’s heart is in the right place.

In Turan’s review, the ink oozes with patronizing explanations for the shoddiness of “Higher Learning.” The most incredible and frightening line of the article comes when he writes, “In a ‘Dumb and Dumber’ world, it is undeniably heartening to see someone trying to address what is going on in society, a filmmaker who wants to use the medium to do the right thing.” The right thing for a filmmaker to do is make a good film. Period. The assumption that a “correct” film will stress the horrors of racism and other social injustices is misguided. The film must be dealt with on its own terms, regardless of whether it measures up to the requirements of someone’s agenda. The art of film offers an experience that is justified in itself.

Author Ralph Ellison once remarked that he was “not primarily concerned with injustice, but with art.” He also realized that art and social protest are by no means mutually exclusive. Around the time Ellison started to write, many literary critics complained about the so-called “protest novel.” Today, critics such as Turan exalt certain aspects of the “protest film.” However, both camps are wrong for failing to assess the work on its own artistic integrity. Art, whether it’s film or literature, has enough of its own problems (as in “Higher Learning”) without it being responsible for solving America’s problems as well.

Even though Turan pads the few effective lines of criticism with self-esteem pep talks, he is still not safe from Fanaka’s retort of Not Getting It. In the constricting atmosphere of political correctness, many critics have submitted themselves into a sort of voluntary censorship, in fear of being vilified. They ask themselves, “Is this correct?” not sure if they should like or dislike a film, nervous about Not Getting It.

I seldom like to admit that I’m at a loss for words, but that was the case with most of Fanaka’s article. For instance, to address his comparison of Martin Scorsese and Robert De Niro to John Singleton and Ice Cube is an exercise in futility. Fanaka goes on to compare the Harlem Renaissance to the “South-Central Renaissance.” Harlem in the ‘20s and ‘30s had a host of cultural, political and economic factors. Whether it is the rise of economic black nationalism or the Communist and Marcus Garvey influences, one is unsure of Fanaka’s comparison except in the most vague terms.

*

Although the recent surge of black filmmakers is very impressive, it cannot compare to the personalities involved in the Harlem Renaissance (which is no small feat), such as: Langston Hughes, W.E.B. DuBois, E. Franklin Frazier, Paul Robeson, Louis Armstrong, George S. Schuyler, Jean Toomer, Duke Ellington, A. Phillip Randolph, Josephine Baker and so on. James Weldon Johnson once called Harlem “the intellectual and artistic capital of the Negro world.” One would be hard-pressed to find someone who could describe South-Central L.A. in that manner.

A film with characters full of complexity and ambiguity and an honest investigation into the struggle for humanity is infinitely more meaningful as social protest than a poor film that preaches about social injustice. The characters in “Higher Learning” are as deep as the pamphlets that litter the school campus.

The audience is hammered over the head with pretentious sermons, labels and slogans, swaggering platitudes, simple racial cliches and public service announcements. Singleton ends the film with a close-up of the American flag and the words “unlearn” appear on the screen, just in case “you didn’t get it.”

Filmmakers and critics should challenge their audience. Preaching should be saved for the pulpit and slogans reserved for political campaigns. Film and critiques are both art forms that shouldn’t be trampled on by substituting political platforms for aesthetics. Certainly, art is elastic enough to incorporate anything it wants, but bad art is bad art and no amount of spoon-fed messages, no matter how moral or self-righteous, will change that.