Discussion Threads are a place for you to ask questions, engage with your TAs and peers, to find collaborators, and generally deepen your engagement with the course and your own learning. You should think of these posts as mini papers. Write in complete sentences, do not use bullet points or ellipses. Your response should be between 250-500 words. The style of your post can be speculative and personal, you do need to come up with arguments, rather just reflect on your own comprehension of the material. Write in your own voice. But this is not a social media space– your posts should be thoughtful and structured.

In their ‘manifesto,’ “Reclaiming Black Film and Media Studies,” Racquel J. Gates and Michael Boyce Gillespie offer a series of ‘expectations bundles as concerns.’ Included in their list are: “we must remember that traditionally the field of film studies was designed around the centering of heterosexual white men. This forms the bedrock of the film industry and of film studies,” and “we must insist on being attentive to issues of film form as opposed to focusing on content alone.” They end on a note of ambivalence, in specific regard to Black film historiography, but ambivalence is evident throughout the manifesto and particularly present in the juxtaposition of the two concerns I have listed above: film studies has centered whiteness and also, and yet, the specialized languages and terminologies of film studies do provide useful analytical categories for understanding film– what it is and how it works. With that in mind, identify and discuss some moment of reflexivity in Sorry to Bother You. That is, some moment when you became aware of the film reflecting upon itself as a film. And, if possible, how did that moment of reflexivity produce, in you, some critical way to think about the film’s representation of whiteness or blackness?

Reclaiming Black Film and
Media Studies
Racquel J. Gates and Michael Boyce
Gillespie

Historically, the study of the idea of black film has been a
fraught, insightful, and generative enterprise—be it a matter
of industrial capital and its delimitation of film practice in
terms of profit, or the tendency to insist that the “black” of
black film be only a biological determinant and never a for-
mal proposition. In many ways, the black film as an object of
study mirrors the history of America, the history of an idea of
race. While the field continues to shift and change, and the
study of black film becomes more common, it is often still to-
kenized by the industry. Discussion about black film and me-
dia is booming in academic programs (e.g., American Studies,
Women and Gender Studies, English) and in Film and Media
Studies, but it is doing so even more in nonacademic spaces,
with blogs, podcasts, and think pieces proliferating at a rapid
pace. We offer our manifesto, recognizing that film manifes-
tos never whisper. Their messages envision political, aesthetic,
and cultural possibilities. They demand and plot. They ques-
tion and insist. What follows are expectations bundled as con-
cerns for not only the renderings of black film to come but, as
well, the thinking on blackness and cinema that we hope
will thrive and inspire future discussions. We are devising
new terms of engagement with current developments in
mind.

We must remember that traditionally the field of film stud-
ies was designed around the centering of heterosexual white
men. This forms the bedrock of the film industry and of film
studies.

This means that the study of black film, however one defines
black film, has as a practice and a product often been treated as
additional or derivative rather than integral (e.g., the infamous
“race week” in any Intro to Film/Media course). We must
learn, acknowledge, and teach that blackness has been central
to the history of film since the birth of the medium, not just
starting with The Birth of a Nation (D. W. Griffith, 1915). We

must teach Oscar Micheaux, but also the Lincoln Motion
PictureCompany,andthelonghistoriesofearlyandnonextant
black film that scholars like Jacqueline Stewart, Pearl Bowser,
Allyson Nadia Field, and others have endeavored to bring to
light. Furthermore, greater focus on the work of black women
andqueerfilmmakerswillfurtherthenecessarydecenteringof
film studies’ perspectival tendencies and ultimately dispute the
narrow categorical meanings attributed to black film. The
study of black film must always be a rebel act.

We must stop referring to every significant black film or me-
dia text as “first,” thus erasing the labor and intellectual con-
tributions of all who came before.

The excitement around films such as Get Out (Jordan Peele,
2017), Moonlight (Barry Jenkins, 2016), Black Panther (Ryan
Coogler, 2018), and, most recently, Sorry to Bother You (Boots
Riley, 2018) tends to produce a discourse of exceptionalism,
of “firsts” (“first film to do X”). Critical discussion around
the films tends to tacitly frame them in terms of a white film
landscape, suggesting that their worth rests in their ability to
look and sound like standard (i.e., white) films, severing
their ties to black film history and distancing them from
“unexceptional” black films in the present. As a final note,
the vibrant and insightful work of the New Negress Film
Society, a collective of black women filmmakers (Frances
Bodomo, Dyani Douze, Ja’Tovia Gary, Chanelle Aponte
Pearson, and Stefani Saintonge), thrives in ways counter to
the tacitly industry-minded insistence on black cinema ex-
ceptionalism.1

We must be critical and suspicious of academic essays, panels,
and other activities about black film that do not substantially
engage with or cite film and media studies scholarship.

How is it possible to discuss black film without regard to the
debates and inquiries that continue to provide the critical mo-
mentum that is black film and media discourse? The univer-
sal experience of watching film gives the false impression that
we are all equally knowledgeable about film’s histories, theo-
ries, and contexts. Moreover, this practice renders invisible the
existence of cinema studies, turning film into something that
anyone can “do.” Having an opinion about a film does not
constitute film and media training.

We must insist on being attentive to issues of film form as
opposed to focusing on content alone.

Focusing on the conventions of Disney/Marvel cinema might
help us appreciate how Black Panther revises and perpetuates

FILM QUARTERLY 13

M A N I F E S T O

Film Quarterly, Vol. 72, Number 3, pp. 13–43, ISSN 0015-1386, electronic ISSN 1533-8630.

© 2019 by The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Please

direct all requests for permission to photocopy or reproduce article content through

the University of California Press’s Reprints and Permissions web page, http://www.

ucpress.edu/journals.php?p=reprints. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/FQ.2019.72.3.13.

D
ow

nloaded from
http://online.ucpress.edu/fq/article-pdf/72/3/13/92567/fq_2019_72_3_13 by U

niversity of C
alifornia S

anta C
ruz user on 19 O

ctober 2020

http://www.ucpress.edu/journals.php?p=reprints

http://www.ucpress.edu/journals.php?p=reprints

https://doi.org/10.1525/FQ.2019.72.3.13

comic superhero cinema. Thinking through the modalities
of black speculative fiction and Afrofuturism in Sorry to
Bother You helps to ground the film’s trenchant and absurd-
ist critique of capital, race, and class. What does it mean to
understand BlacKkKlansman (Spike Lee, 2018) as Blaxploi-
tation fantasy and visual historiography of American cin-
ema? The thinking to come on Barry Jenkins’s If Beale
Street Could Talk (2018) as a film adaptation that visually
renders James Baldwin’s text must also consider how this
rendering occurs with a consequential sonic component. It’s
important to think about the formal principles across
experimental/avant-garde work (e.g., Kevin Jerome Everson,
Cauleen Smith, Christopher Harris, Ephraim Asili) to
appreciate the range of aesthetic capacities evinced by
the idea of black film. Terence Nance’s Random Acts of
Flyness (2018) models an alternative sense of anthology-
television seriality, a production that flourishes on formal
experimentation and collectivity. It restages the late-night
variety television conceit with an absurdist cycling across
formats and modalities. The inventiveness of Yance
Ford’s Strong Island (2017) requires appreciating how the
film redefines documentary form with its exquisite build-
ing of an archive and Ford’s direct address. Moreover, the
film remains immune to humanist or sentimental recupera-
tion in its consideration of familial grief, injustice, and the
antiblack ways that whiteness always operates as the arbiter
of truth.2

We must go to film festivals. We must follow film pro-
grammers.

Black film thrives in arenas other than the standard cineplex.
What might it mean to give as much attention to this context
as to the industrial/commercial buzz? This is especially the
case for 2018, with the Flaherty Seminar programming of
Greg De Cuir and Kevin Jerome Everson; Maori Karmael
Holmes’s continued brilliance directing the seventh edition
of the BlackStar Film Festival in Philadelphia; the continued
circulation of the “Black Radical Imagination” touring pro-
gram of experimental/avant-garde shorts cofounded by Erin
Christovale and Amir George and currently programed by
Darol Olu Kae and Jheanelle Brown; the Smithsonian’s
African American Film Festival; Ashley Clark’s film pro-
gramming at the Brooklyn Academy of Music.3 In particu-
lar, Clark’s programs this year have been generative and
collaborative opportunities to expansively appreciate cinema.
The “Fight the Power: Black Superheroes on Film” series
framed the then-impending release of Black Panther, the
BAMcinématek and the Racial Imaginary Institute’s “On
Whiteness” series was tied to the Whiteness Symposium at
the Kitchen, and the “Say It Loud: Cinema in the Age of
Black Power (1966–1981)” series was tied to the “Soul of a
Nation” exhibition at the Brooklyn Museum.

We must stop championing representation as a marker of
racial progressiveness, and instead begin concentrating on

Terence Nance’s alternative anthology series, Random Acts of Flyness (HBO, 2018)

14 SPRING 2019

D
ow
nloaded from
http://online.ucpress.edu/fq/article-pdf/72/3/13/92567/fq_2019_72_3_13 by U
niversity of C
alifornia S
anta C
ruz user on 19 O
ctober 2020

the themes and ideas with which those representations
engage.

For far too long, both the academic and popular study of
black film and media studies has focused too narrowly on the
mere presence of black bodies both in front of and behind
the camera. Black bodies do not equal blackness. Blackness
does not necessarily equal black liberation or recuperation.
A study of black film and media that merely equates the in-
clusion of black makers and characters with revolutionary
cinematic practice will never truly effect change, but rather,
will simply instantiate a history of black bodies labored by
and laboring for whiteness on ideological and formal levels
(e.g., blackface, social-problem cinema). Black film historiog-
raphy does not have to be a progressive fantasy. Perhaps,
ambivalence might be a good place to start.

If the representation debate revival must occur, then at least
reread Stuart Hall.

Notes

1. For more information on the New Negress Film Society, see
https://newnegressfilmsociety.com/.

2. Inspired by Yance Ford’s postscreening comments at the
Museum of Modern Art, New Directors/New Films Series,
March 19, 2017.

3. For more on Black Radical Imagination, see http://blackradi
calimagination.com; and Tiffany Barber and Jerome Dent,
“Urban Video Project: Interview with Curators of Black
Radical Imagination,” LightWork, March 20, 2015, www.
lightwork.org/tag/black-radical-imagination/.

M A N I F E S T O

A Queer(’s) Cinema
Manuel Betancourt

“We are children of straight society. We still think straight: that

is part of our oppression.”
1

Queer cinema, no matter how rebellious, is the child of
straight cinema—its bastard child, perhaps, but its progeny
no less. Queer cinema must push against decades of tradition
to create itself anew. Borrowed genres and hand-me-down
narratives have served their purpose. If the (curated though
not novel) propositions and (recent though not unique) ex-
amples that follow point anywhere, it is to a still-to-be-imag-
ined future where queer cinema can continue to expand
while never ceding its right to be “niche” in order to serve
those it portrays.

“I hate straight people who think stories about themselves

are ‘universal’ but stories about us are only about homosexu-

ality.”
2

Queer cinema is not universal. Nevertheless, the question
of how to reconcile the specificity of queer storytelling with
the universalizing effect that cinema can perform is at the
heart of its project. But to aspire to universality is to risk los-
ing the particular. There is no single queer narrative, except
that of oppression—and even that is so frustratingly varied,
changing from country to country, gender to gender, body to

body, person to person. There is no “one-fits-all” narrative to
queer life.

“We believe that sexual politics under patriarchy is as pervasive in

Black women’s lives as are the politics of class and race. We also

often find it difficult to separate race from class from sex oppres-

sion because in our lives they are most often experienced simulta-

neously.”
3

Queer cinema is intersectional.4 Its politics force audien-
ces to see how oppression operates in competing and com-
plementary ways. If white, cisgender characters have long
held the monopoly on on-screen queer representation, a re-
cent wave of films by and about the queer experience have
finally begun righting that myopic purview. In the past de-
cade alone, audiences have met a black Brooklyn teenager
searching for her sense of self in Pariah (Dee Rees, 2011), a
pair of trans sex workers wreaking havoc on Christmas in
the L.A.-set Tangerine (Sean Baker, 2017), and even a pan-
sexual at risk of losing her memories in Janelle Monáe’s dys-
topian “emotion picture,” Dirty Computer (Andrew Donoho,
Chuck Lightning, 2018).

“WAKE UP! We can’t let straight society appropriate our

language, artistry, physicality, bodies, and culture to profit

and buttress their own communities.”
5

Queer cinema is fabulous. Its bold style is rooted in joyous
possibility. To reduce queerness to a sexual orientation is to
miss the aesthetic sensibility that runs through queer life. It’s
the glint of glitter at the balls, the feel of leather at the bars,

FILM QUARTERLY 15

D
ow
nloaded from
http://online.ucpress.edu/fq/article-pdf/72/3/13/92567/fq_2019_72_3_13 by U
niversity of C
alifornia S
anta C
ruz user on 19 O
ctober 2020

http://www.lightwork.org/tag/black-radical-imagination/

http://www.lightwork.org/tag/black-radical-imagination/

https://newnegressfilmsociety.com/

http://blackradicalimagination.com

http://blackradicalimagination.com

• Manovich

19

Manovich

• Manovich 1
• Manovich 2.
• Manovich 3
• Manovich 4
• Manovich 5
• Manovich 6
• Manovich 7
• Manovich 8
• Manovich 9
• Manovich 10
• Manovich 14
• Manovich 15
• Manovich 16
• Manovich 17
• Manovich 18