Author Archives: catbread

Based on a few comments I see here, it seems that people find issue with Williams article. But for many reasons I found it to be brilliant–not necessarily because of the points that are made, but simply for the fact that they are made.

How the black body is depicted and received by audiences is a topic rarely talked about whenever I have discussions about film or television, so it’s refreshing whenver this rare topic does come up in a class of mine. The psychoanalytical mindset of Williams can be offsetting to people who are determined to destroy any sort or Freudian interpretation of media. But I love how he brings up the fact that the spaces many of the black male characters in the show exist in can be interprested as being homoerotic/places for intimate homosocial relations.

Of course this doesn’t mean that the creators of the show INTENDED it to be this way…But I often feel like taking into consideration a creator’s “intentions” for a work can make viewers blind to how it can, nevertheless, be interpreted (and consequentially affect) large audiences.

I especially feel like William’s exploration of black male homosocial relationships to be important, as I feel like it’s a topic that’s (especially in hose communities) is avoided like a plague. I also feel like the same should/can be applied to female relationships in shows, but often that’s overlooked.

I find it interesting that with the increasing availability of space with the invention of DVDs and Blu-Ray discs, that distributors find more and more ways to fill that new space. For some reason it bothers me usually when there’s an insane amount of additional features–not because I find this unnecessary, but they (1) are usually more in quantity and quality and (2) give me high expectations for EVERY DVDs to have adequate bonus features.

For example, your average action movie may have 5-minutes interviews with the actors, behind-the-scenes footage showing how special effects were done (Don’t you want to know how Davy Jones’ tentacle beard was made? If not, you will now), and if you’re lucky, a director’s commentary. With so much room to cram extra ‘goodies’ with, I feel like many DVDs go overboard and give viewers only small clips of interesting material to make buying the DVD more worth while.

And thus is born the expectation of ALL DVDs to be the same way. But when I rented the Brokeback Mountain DVD, there was no director’s commentary–which INFURIATED me. But had such a thing never been used on DVDs, I wouldn’t have cared.

Where do these NEEDS come from? Never after watching Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End did I think, “I wish I knew how they animated Davy Jones’ beard.” But like on many DVDs today, on Pirate’s DVD there’s an extended section on how special effects were made, which usually are fairly interesting. The Watchmen DVD apparently has a lot of extras including bio clips on the fictional characters, a short, fictional documentary about part of the movie’s universe, and I even think an animated feature based on part of the graphic novel. The same has extended to television shows.

Did distributors purposely create this need, or was it born from the desires of avid DVD collectors?

I’m not sure if anyone else feels the same, but the “presence” of Simon and Burns in The Corner (the book) compared to the TV show seems much more obvious and intrusive than their presence in Homicide: A Year on the Killing Streets.

For example, early in the novel, the authors go into detail about DeAndre’s style of clothing. They say that he’s:

“a study in urban conformity, and within minutes, he is primed and dressed to match the set: a black puff ski parka left open to flap in the breeze, a thick blue and white flannel shirt worn outside over-sized jeans that ride low on the hips, the requisite high-top Nikes that go for upwards of $125 a pair…

…By the time he gets down the block and around the corner, it’s afternoon and the fiends–white boys coming north from Pigtown, those of his own hue rolling down the hill from monroe Street…

…By and large, teh Mcullough boy is a study in a lower key” (20-21).

The writing itself seems so stilted and dishonest. I feel like if both Simon and Burns presented themselves as outsiders looking into a world they most likely had little to no experience in INSTEAD of as omniscient narrators attempting to show an objective view of the world they were in, the book would be less painful to read. Up front I want to say I most definitely appreciate the fact that there’s a popular non-fiction book about inner-city black communities that doesn’t demonize people involved, but instead I feel like the tract the authors took in this case is just tricky ground. For a subject matter like this, I wouldn’t write about DeAndre’s attire in lengthy blocks of prose that virtually takes all of the humanity out of why DeAndre dresses the way he does. Using the phrase “those of his own hue” is just awkward.

Oddly enough, I find the show to be so much more enjoyable and honest. Is it because the director is a Black man that also was born and has history in Baltimore? I feel like that most likely is a huge reason. The characters I see on the show remind me so much of Black people I’ve known in my life/in my family that often it’s painful to watch this show at all. It touches me in a way that few shows do, and it mostly has to do with the fact that I feel like its portrayal of characters is the most honest I’ve seen in a long time.

What do you think of the differences between the book and the show, as well as the issue of “honesty”?