Daina Goldenberg

English 131 

​

         I loved my English 131 class, taught by Treza Rosado. Treza was funny, engaged us in #realtalk, and introduced much of the class to the feminist magic of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. More importantly, however, she helped us build tools for critical thinking that stayed with me throughout college. In this class, for the first time, I began to really recognize subtle, probematic representations of gender and race in popular media. This class effectively ruined Disney movies for me. Well, maybe not completely. But I did start to keep track of actors who most often typified the protagonist, the sidekick, the villain, and the comedic foils (including in live-action and animated work) and, most importantly, to develop an argumentative writing style that helped me work through the massive grey areas of racial and gender representation. My favorite work from this course is a paper I wrote discussing race in Shrek and in Tropic Thunder; I was forced to dig deeper and deeper into notions of racial identity to develop my discussion, especially considering that Tropic Thunder involved the modern-day use of blackface by Robert Downey, Jr. I revised this paper over and over, constantly needing to expand and even reverse my thesis in light of new information and analysis. This class was a labor of love, and probably the most rewarding academic experiene of my freshman year. (Ultimately, I submitted this essay as a writing sample in my application to work as a writing consultatnt at the Odegaard Writing and Research Center. Things worked out!)

 

Here's the paper: 

​

Shrek and Tropic Thunder: Who is Racist?

 

      What do Shrek 2’s Donkey and Tropic Thunder’s Australian method actor Kirk Lazarus have in common? These characters highlight the use of racial difference and cultural stereotypes in popular film. Whether a film’s intent is serious or comedic, race plays a major role in affecting its characterization and plot, and whether the portrayal of race in film  is unintentional or intentional, there’s no question that it generates a variety of critical responses. The United States in particular has a controversial past regarding the portrayal of African-Americans in media, from “blackface” comedy (black painted faces as satirical caricatures) to the stereotypical “mammy” and “jezebel” characters. However, there has also developed a culture of animated characters expressing personalities typified with African-American stereotypes and African-American Vernacular English (AAVE) dialect. These representations (Shrek’s Donkey character, for example) encourage discussion regarding how African-Americans are portrayed in popular media today. The 2008 comedy/satire Tropic Thunder, on the other hand, wherein white actor Robert Downey Jr. assumes a modern blackface transformation for his role, invites comparison with historical racial representation in film, but also seems to serve as a self-conscious portrayal of race in present media. This study of intent in film is meant to help determine a clearer separation between racist mindset and conscious commentary in entertainment, and determine whether a true separation is completely possible in this genre. Tropic Thunder and Shrek 2 will represent two portrayals of racial themes in media that show how a variety of themes, from filmmaker’s intent to critical reception, may challenge or perpetuate prevailing racial themes in media.

 

     In the movie Tropic Thunder, five actors on the set of a major Hollywood Vietnam War action film enter the real-life dangers of an exotic filming location in order to capture genuine footage for the struggling blockbuster. In the process, they unwittingly stumble into the domain of a notorious heroin drug ring, and attempt escape as hidden cameras continue to roll. The characters in this film satirize the making of a major Hollywood film. In particular, we note character Kirk Lazarus (Downey Jr.); he portrays an Australian method actor playing a black character, Sergeant Lincoln Osiris, stationed in Vietnam during the war. Also featured are Brandon T. Jackson, a black actor playing rapper Alpa Chino, and Ben Stiller, a white actor who plays actor Tugg Speedman in the film.

 

     Though many stereotypical characters flood the satire, the most criticized seems to be Robert Downey Jr.’s Australian character that assumes blackface for this film- within-a-film. Many believe that reintroducing blackface in a modern film creates the same racist and oppressive impression that it did in early movies. For example, Lauren Pabst, a Chicago writer, argues that the modern use of historically negative aspects of film, such as blackface, automatically carries the weight of this antiquated racist humor; “the problem is that…the historical context is too significant and relevant today to gloss over in such a thoughtless way” (Contextual Healing). However, in satirical comedy, it would very difficult to separate a movie’s commentary from real-life and history; a primary point of satire is to reflect details surrounding current reality in media. The film uses many real cultural references, including blackface, but the joke is on Hollywood. The hope is that the audience understands it, becomes “in on the joke”, and reacts positively. Thus, our focus should not only consider the argument of overtly shocking or racist elements in film, because satire will always involve a mixture of responses in this case. Rather, it is important to focus on deeper ideas about inequitable representation in film as well.

 

      The film immediately creates a satirical impression with excessive cutaway film shots and sappy dramatic acting during a rolling scene in the jungle. The context for the purpose of this absurd film is set. Brandon T. Jackson, a black actor in Tropic Thunder, assumes the nickname “Motown”, which already notes the racial ignorance of the people involved in making the blockbuster. Robert Downey Jr., playing Kirk Lazarus, remains “in character” for the majority of the film, which mocks Kirk’s extreme commitment; his use of blackface simply exaggerates his own ignorance as well. Lauren Pabst argues that the film adopts a racist mentality and that the movie seeks to avoid seeming racist simply by incorporating the offensive references “incidentally” and with the intention of perpetuating Hollywood stereotypes (Contextual Healing). Pabst asserts that no matter the creative intention of the film’s jokes, the oppressive history of blackface makes all similar representations automatically racist, even if they are used “incidentally” as humorous plot devices. However, we can argue that Downey’s blackface is not an incidental, unintentionally-racist gag that simply punctuates a moment of the film; constant character interactions regarding blackface are woven into the film, highlighting intentional, thoughtful plot devices that further develop the sense of comedic satire throughout much of the film.

 

      One of the most overt jokes of the film occurs when Stiller’s character Tugg argues with the actors regarding the next step to take through the forest. He says “What’s the matter with you people?” referring to actors. Downey’s character rebuts with “What do you mean, ‘you people’?”. Meanwhile, Brandon T. Jackson’s character turns to Downey and mirrors “What do you mean, ‘you people’?” This is a clear spoof on Kirk Lazarus’s excessive immersion into his character. Its timing and absurdism make for a funny scene that highlights the ignorant Lazarus’ confusion, and his inappropriate continuation of  the AAVE stereotype. Following Jason Smith’s definitions in his essay in the Journal of Black Studies, this may also serve as a color-conscious example of a major black character questioning the societal and systemic racism occurring in the scene (Smith). However, Lauren Pabst argues that “the presence of Brandon Jackson, a black actor… [is] written to cool the sting of Downey’s meta-minstrel show… he is given very little to do, other than put Downey Jr. in his place” (Contextual Healing). This does address the problem in popular film of adding a black character to diffuse racial tensions and act as a sidekick. Jackson’s presence therefore becomes a color-blind representation that, in writer Jason Smith’s terms, “can be seen as a discursive tool to discount the significance of race” (Smith.). In other words, the inclusion of black characters sometimes may serve as a “cool-down” mechanism that relaxes some of the racial representation in films, and works to portray the films as neutral toward all races. So, rather than Kirk Lazarus’ overtly racist gesture (which creates a satirical commentary), it is more likely that the inclusion of Brandon T. Jackson’s character is a “safety net” to ensure the audience’s understanding of the outrageousness of the film. We can tackle even more clear problems of racial representation in film by discussing stereotypes in Shrek 2.

 

      Shrek 2, which creates its own spoof on traditional fairy tales, takes place in the land of Far Far Away following the nuptials of ogres Shrek (voiced by Mike Myers) and Princess Fiona (voiced by Cameron Diaz). For the duration of Shrek's adventures, Donkey (voiced by Eddie Murphy), serves as a friend and partner. Though it contains many purposeful satirical references to fairy tales and popular culture, the film also makes a racist association that is much less pronounced and probably unintentional, the inclusion of a black sidekick in an animated film.

 

     First, consider the relevance of Donkey’s characterization through Rosina Lippi-Green’s study of racial representation in animated films. Though her study focused primarily on Disney films, the themes are relevant to this DreamWorks picture as well. Lippi-Green argues that often “Disney…[portrays] sidekicks as scrappy inner-city tough guys with hearts of gold”. Lippi-Green argues also that many animated sidekicks and characters adopt an AAVE (African American Vernacular English) dialect and cultural background. Donkey assumes these stereotypical characteristics. He plays the entertaining, annoying yet loyal sidekick to Shrek, the Scottish protagonist of the film (and though Shrek plays an ogre, his characterization much more closely follows a human model than other animals or creatures in the film). Donkey clearly assumes a distinct AAVE dialect. Also important is the characterization of the donkey itself. The donkey is not seen as a noble creature; it is often a work animal that is even sometimes used culturally in name-calling and insults. Thus, when a magical potion within the film, which turns Shrek into a handsome human man, also turns Donkey into a white stallion, the plot becomes reminiscent of Lippi-Green’s discussion regarding King Louie, the orangutan in the film The Jungle Book. King Louie adopts the AAVE dialect, the stereotype of “the African-American entertainer”, and most importantly, expresses the desire to be “like a man” (Lippi-Green). Donkey’s characterization and transformation throughout the movie develops some of these themes as well, which yields a real sense of unintentional racism in the film. However, while considering both of these films, it is important to apply some ideas about color-blindness and color-consciousness to help us shape more of our current ideas about racial representation in media.

 

     Ideas driving color-blind representation can further assert that Shrek 2 contains elements of racism. For example, Shrek 2 adopts the plot of the “interracial buddy formula, which uses fictional friendships to ignore institutionalized racism” (Brown). The partnership between Shrek and Donkey, a “white” character and a “black” character, thus creates a “colorblind” element of the film that encourages its portrayal as racially neutral. In this case, the formula followed in this film, while not totally racist, is at least shallow in its traditionalistic plot and characterization. Unfortunately, if we apply colorblind and colorconscious ideology to Tropic Thunder, we will note inherently racist interpretations as well.

 

     It seems that the intent behind the action movie spoof is to be very color-conscious in its representation of the stereotypes of Hollywood filmmakers. However, it can be guilty of the more common color-blind methods of film today as well. One includes the use of Brandon T. Jackson’s character as a racial buffer for the film, as mentioned earlier. Another includes Robert Downey Jr.’s identity crisis toward the end of the movie. Brown comments that the color-blind framework stresses “individualistic understanding of race, where the individual comes to grip with his own racial standpoint, not the structural ways in which race is perpetuated in society” (Brown). The viewer becomes drawn into Robert Downey Jr.’s personal struggle, as an entitled and confused actor. He becomes emotionally lost, and rather than make a statement denouncing his ridiculous method acting choices, he simply sheds his now-forgotten character and highlights his true identity. Though this may be a clear satirical mechanism for the movie (the overdramatic actor’s meltdown), it seems also to perpetuate the white character’s plight and realizations at the end of the movie, instead of making a more comprehensive statement about racial representation in media, which was so often incorporated early in the film. Jason Smith also makes a point that “the helper status of blacks [in film] in relation to whites is exclusionary in the sense that positions of power are often reserved for white characters”.  We note that indeed, the positions of power in the film lie within Ben Stiller’s character Tugg and Robert Downey Jr.’s Australian character Kirk. Brandon T. Jackson assumes “helper status” as one of several sidekicks in the film. Even Downey’s black character, so prominent throughout much of the film, assumes helper status when he is used simply as a device, disposable during Kirk’s self-realization. In this way, even the absurd, modern satire falls back into a traditionalistic plot theme.

 

     Though it is encouraging that overt racist sentiment in film is often irrelevant to motion pictures today, it is important that we note the intentional and unintentional sources through which racial representation still occurs in motion pictures. From the typical animated sidekicks to outrageous satirical characters, the intention of these characters’ presence in films and the critical responses yielded by those who experience them will continue to create an ongoing discussion regarding what must be considered “racist” or not. A separation continues to be difficult, because various elements of films can be analyzed to find, to varying degrees, both examples of color-conscious and racially progressive sentiment, as well as the more typically traditionalistic color-blind models. From this point, it will depend on the viewer to create the comprehensive final opinion regarding these popular films today.

 

 

Annotated Works Cited

 

Lippi-Green, Rosina. "Teaching Children How to Discriminate." Contexts for Inquiry. New York: Bedford/St.Martin's, 2014. 693-728. Print.

 

              One of our first readings in class, Lippi-Green’s discussion of racial and cultural representation in animated films, proved to be an extremely helpful source when I considered my arguments for Donkey’s character in Shrek 2. Her examples, using Mushu from Mulan, and King Louie from The Jungle Book in particular, related very well to Donkey’s characterization and plot line. Though I decided not to consider much of Lippi-Green’s quantitative information, especially since it focused mostly on Disney films and not Shrek’s producer DreamWorks, the comparisons that she made and the cultural connections she described in her paper helped to clarify the kinds of ideas I wanted to express in my paper as well. I would have liked to include even more comparisons and evidence with the use of the AAVE dialect, since Lippi-Green focused mainly on accents expressed in animated films, but I feel that I got just enough of her analysis to be able to analyze Donkey in a comprehensive way.

 

Pabst, Lauren. "Tropic Thunder and Post-Racial Blackface." Contextual Healing. Wordpress.com, 5 Feb. 2009. Web. 27 Jan. 2014. <http://contextualhealing.wordpress.com/2009/02/05/tropic-thunder-and-post-racial-blackface/>.

 

                    This is a more casual, independently published opinion piece that most relevantly addresses arguments against the film Tropic Thunder. I want to use this source to create a more balanced representation of opinions within my paper, by introducing a negative opinion regarding the portrayal of race in this film. Lauren Pabst (currently an associate program officer with the MacArthur Foundation in Chicago) takes a much more critical view and argues essentially that it is not specifically the characterizations themselves which are offensive, but their current use considering their historically terrible context. It is an extremely well written argument, and addresses actors, directors, critics, and other parties involved with the production and success of the film. I believe that if I can generate a strong argument despite the strength of this opinion piece, then I can successfully support my thesis and keep my paper on track.

 

Shrek 2. Dir. Andrew Adamson, Kelly Asbury, and Conrad Vernon. Perf. Mike Myers,  Eddie Murphy. Dreamworks Home Entertainment, 2004. Film.

 

I am going to use the film Shrek 2 as a main argument for the “middle ground” position regarding the portrayal of race in media. I am mainly going to focus on the character of Donkey, voiced by Eddie Murphy, and discuss the implications of having an African-American actor voice this comedic and silly character. I believe it would be harsh and unrealistic to argue that the film participates in a racist portrayal of a character. However, it will be interesting to discuss how often the animated sidekick in films is typified with the AAVE dialect and cultural background. I believe it will reflect a sociological element of film that seems almost subconscious, but is ingrained within many moviemakers and by those who watch their films today. That is what generates a concern for racism in this scenario.

 

 Smith, Jason. "Between Colorblind and Colorconscious; Contemporary Hollywood Films and Struggles over Racial Representation." Journal of Black Studies 44.8 (2013): n. pag. Academic Search Complete. Web. 27 Jan. 2014.

 

                  This is a scholarly article published by the Journal of Black Studies. The author examines the general historical context of racism in the United States. He then applies social and cultural connections from history to the racist portrayal of African-American actors in popular media. The studies Smith researches include many of the past decade’s most popular films, making it a well-researched and pertinent source to use today. Smith makes a very interesting argument regarding “colorblind” versus “colorconscious” casting and plot decisions; I believe that including this clearly defined topic in my paper may give an actual name and academic depth to the kind of points I want to make, especially regarding my argument about the inherent racism in Shrek. It will serve as a good connector with the academic discussion currently circulating regarding race in media. This article also has a large focus on the role of the “black sidekick” who appears in films, as part of the colorblind genre of film representation. Evidence suggested here would be a supportive force for my paper.

 

Tropic Thunder. Dir. Ben Stiller. Perf. Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr. Red Hour Films, 2008.

 

                    I’m hoping to generate my most important arguments using this film. What I want to do is observe Robert Downey Jr.’s character, an Australian method actor who assumes blackface for the filming of a Vietnam War-era  action movie. This film is clearly a spoof on action films, and satirizes many of its major characters, including Downey’s. What I want to do while comparing and analyzing the two main comedies of my paper (Shrek and Tropic Thunder) is show how this seemingly blatant display of racism (blackface in today’s media) is actually the opposite; it is meant to comment instead on the plight of overly-dramatic and insensible actors in Hollywood. I want to be able to show that the undercurrent of racism within the seemingly innocuous Donkey character actually reflects a more historically oppressive past than the use of blackface in Tropic Thunder ever would. The characterizations portrayed in this movie will be used as evidence to suggest that this movie participates in a thoughtful play on Hollywood movies, not in the perpetuation of racism in film.