I am an African American, professional actor, semiotician and film lover. I am, therefore, underemployed, underappreciated and an afterthought in Hollywood. I am also a man who rarely sees an accurate depiction of black people and American history in film and on television. It's something I've grown used to, but now I'm mad as hell and not going to take it anymore!
All people who truly care about honest representations of American history in Hollywood should boycott the heavily promoted "Cold Mountain." At a cost of $80-plus million and sporting a stellar cast and crew, this film adaptation of Charles Frazier's acclaimed best-seller opened Christmas Day and is being touted as the film to beat at the Academy Awards. It has generated glowing reviews for Disney, Miramax and all involved.
It is also a sham, a slap in the face of African Americans whose ancestors gave their lives in the Civil War, fighting for true freedom (take that, President Bush) from the most heinous form of slavery known to modern man: the American slavery system. How could a three-hour film depicting life in the heart of Virginia and North Carolina during the Civil War use only momentary shots of black people picking cotton and a few black actors portraying runaway slaves as its total picture of slavery during this period?
In an article in the Washington Post, the film-makers have said that slavery and racism were simply "too raw" an emotional issue to present in their film. In other words, who would want to see a love story with the beautiful Jude Law and Nicole Kidman set in the reality of the Southern monstrosity of slavery?
The film opens with a depiction of one of the more important battles of the Civil War, one in which the Union-trained black soldiers tunnel under Confederate lines -- a battle in which blacks suffered their highest rate of casualties of any Union division in the fight. Yet, it is almost impossible to spot any black actors fighting in this film (as three University of Virginia history professors recently noted in another Post article). It plays like "Saving Private Ryan," another Hollywood epic in which black contributions to history -- namely the Battle of Normandy -- are left out. Shame on you, Hollywood.
The Weinstein brothers (owners of Miramax, the distributors of "Cold Mountain") are smart, astute businessmen with keen cinematic sensibilities. They should know better. Could you imagine "The Pianist" or "Schindler's List" ever being made with but a few seconds of the reality of the Holocaust? Of course not. A film with such a gross misrepresentation would never make it past page one of a screenplay! And in reality, isn't the Holocaust, which occurred a mere two generations or so ago, emotionally "rawer" than slavery?
Year after year, an Academy Award goes to a documentary about the Holocaust, and every year Hollywood releases sumptuous, hauntingly beautiful films about this horrifying chapter of the 20th century. And every year I go. Why? Because I love film. And I love the truth. But there must be some reciprocity somewhere. I have attempted to sell stories to Hollywood -- true stories -- from our history as black people during the years of slavery. The response from Hollywood is generally along the lines of "I saw something like that already in 'Roots' ." What an insult!
Why are we as a people always an afterthought? We must let Hollywood know that we deserve respect. How do we? By not giving them the pleasure of our dollars. Let a boycott of "Cold Mountain" begin our response to Hollywood: Tell our stories, tell the truth, and we will come.
Erik Todd Dellums is a Brown University graduate and actor who has appeared on TV shows such as "Homicide," "NYPD Blue" and "The Wire" and in the films "Boycott" and "Dr. Dolittle." He is the son of former Rep. Ronald V. Dellums, D-Oakland, and attorney Roscoe Dellums.
If he wants artistic control of a film, Erik Todd Dellums should drum up twenty or thirty million dollars from investors and produce his own.
Presuming to wrest artistic control of a film from the actual producers is theft.
Just like what the ADL wanted to do to Mel Gibson.
Huh?
secondly, He is the son of former Rep. Ronald V. Dellums, D-Oakland, and attorney Roscoe Dellums. Is it just me, or did "Erik have two daddies" ???
Like they ever miss an opportunity like that. *sarcasm off*
Doggone that Gates, confusing the issue with facts!
The film opens with a depiction of one of the more important battles of the Civil War, one in which the Union-trained black soldiers tunnel under Confederate lines
No, Pennsylvania coal miners did that from Burnside's 9th Corp.
-- a battle in which blacks suffered their highest rate of casualties of any Union division in the fight.
Wrong again. A black regiment was trained to attack the salient after the explosion, but Meade and Grant vetoed the idea because of how it would play in the press. Grant was afraid the headlines would read: Black soldiers reduced cannon fodder...
So, instead of trained soldiers going around the trench and over the wall.. Ledlie, Ferrero's divisions went into the trench where the are dispatched like fish is a barrel. By 9:45 Grant and Meade have ordered the troops recalled, but Burnside refuses to transmit this order to his men until 12:30 p.m. The last troops in are the black regiment. By 2:00 p.m. the Rebels have forced all Yankees within their lines to surrender, and the opportunity provided by the mine has been wasted.
Shame on you, Hollywood?
No! Shame on you, Mr. Dellums for not even doing the most basic of research before writing a screed the makes you appear ignorant.
Autobiography, no doubt
Not hardly. The Union soldiers who dug the tunnel were white Pennsylvania coal miners.
Actually, the primary black involvement in the Battle of the Crater was an early example of PCness. A black division was specially trained to charge AROUND the crater. At the last minute Grant chickened out from using the blacks for fear that if the attack failed radicals would say he had intentionally sent blacks into a slaughter . And he was right. That would still be a criticism today had that happened.
So he switched the lead unit to an untrained white one with a drunken, cowardly leader. They charged INTO the crater, which was quickly surrounded by southern artillery and riflemen, leading to one of the great slaughters of the war.
If I remember correctly, the black unit was one of the follow-ons and caught a piece of the slaughter, but not its main brunt.
I saw the movie and it was part of the movie. It was a short part but it was there.
I did notice some Black soldiers in the opening battle scene, btw, one of the few places - the others being generic shots of slaves in the field, and some stragglers Inman encounters on the road who promptlly (apparently) get shot. Oh, and the drugged slave the preacher character was going to throw off the cliff. I did - on my own - feel that Blacks were badly portrayed in the picture, they certainly weren't portrayed nobly or anything but as real outsiders to the central characters' existence. Then again, there are no laws saying that Blacks must have screen time or lines or be portrayed with dignity or whatever.
That said, I don't see where a call for a boycott has a leg to stand on. The movie is no more about African Americans than is "Something's Gotta Give."
The unrest in Africa caused by the screen depictions of the lucky blacks selected to go to America and wealth and freedom as a contrast to their situation could become more significant. That is why most movies for the international market don't emphasize what a relatively wonderful life American blacks have today compared to what they would have been had their ancestors also been trapped in Africa.