Click to Skip Ad
Closing in...

Black Liberation via White Privilege: A Reappraisal of Michael Mann’s 'Collateral'

Features
by Andre Seewood
June 9, 2014 6:11 PM
45 Comments
  • |
Collateral

Sometimes the work of a great filmmaker can hit all the right notes but not strike the right chord in audiences, critics or both at the time of the film’s initial release.  Such was the case with Orson Welles’ "Citizen Kane" (1941), Alfred Hitchcock’s "Vertigo" (1958), Francois Truffaut’s "Shoot The Piano Player" ("Tirez sur le pianiste" - 1960) and of course most famously with Frank Capra’s "It's A Wonderful Life" (1946).(1)  

Although many films miss their commercial and/or critical marks, some films gain in reputation and commercial success only after repeated viewings, revivals and reappraisals by audiences and critics.  I am not above such critical hubris as was the case when I first saw Michael Mann’s 2004 film, "Collateral" in the theatre.  At that time, I was unable to get past the fact that I thought that Jamie Foxx had been miscast as a milquetoast cab driver opposite a silver haired Tom Cruise as a hit man fulfilling multiple contract killings throughout a single night in Los Angeles.  Fortunately, following my instincts that there is always something to admire even in the lesser works of great auteurs I purchased a DVD copy of the film when it was first released a decade ago, but I never found an occasion to watch it.  Although "Collateral" can hardly be considered a critical or commercial disappointment at the time of its release, it is a film whose success is built in no small part upon the popularity of both Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx as its stars and Michael Mann’s well known visual panache in shooting Los Angeles at night rather than for the depth of its story and themes.  Hearing through social media about the film recently playing on cable and other secondary networks, I found myself watching my DVD and being astonished by my own obtuseness with regard to the utter brilliance of this film.

What struck me immediately about the work a decade after its release was how the circumstances and the relationship between the White hit man, Vincent (Tom Cruise) and the Black cab driver, Max Durocher (Jamie Foxx) could easily be interpreted as an action packed philosophical parable that attempts to transfer the morally suspect power of White privilege from a White character to a Black character.  This interpretation, which I will explore here, first strikes the mind in an early fascinating scene between Vincent and Max in the cab after Vincent has committed his first murder and after he forces Max into a form of indentured servitude which will last for most of the film’s story.

When Max’s boss calls him to complain about the damaged cab and levies serious garnishments to Max’s wages, Vincent commandeers the cab’s radio microphone and instructs Max on what to say back to his boss to stop this unjust treatment.   When Max protests that he cannot speak back to his boss so disrespectfully, Vincent abruptly speaks directly to Max’s boss with an authority based on phony government credentials, a detailed knowledge of insurance liability policies, and a sense of White privilege that trumps the expected subordination inherent in White employer/Black employee relations.  Vincent, playing the role of an aggressive take no bullshit Cyrano de Bergerac, instructs Max to call his boss an “asshole” and to say that,” the next time you pull any shit I’m gonna have to stick this yellow cab up your fat ass.”  This is the first of many scenes where Vincent allows Max to borrow his White privilege as a form of collateral to insure his continued servitude throughout this intense night journey.  The fact that Vincent has zip tied Max’s hands to the steering wheel only adds to the interpretation that Vincent is both demonstrating and transferring to Max the very machinations of White privilege in circumstances where a Black male is unable or unwilling to exert resistance against the oppressor.

That Max is being oppressed by Vincent in this process is but a sweeter irony of our interpretation.

The very next scene which also underscores this idea of the demonstration and transference of White privilege is when Max while attempting to alert others of his predicament, is robbed by two White trash males and Vincent returns to unceremoniously kill them both and retrieve his briefcase.

Vincent tells Max, “You attract attention you’re going to get people killed who didn’t need to be, you understand?”

Each subsequent murder by Vincent with Max alternately as witness or unwitting participant demonstrates the violent force of White privilege and teaches Max how to perform “Whiteness”; that is how to lack empathy for others, pretend to possess credentials you don’t actually have, violate, abuse and even kill others to attain money as the ultimate goal of a soulless human condition.  The master’s privilege is based on a dialectic of servitude enforced through heartless displays of violence and lies that take other people’s confidence.

It must be said here that this interpretation of "Collateral" has a philosophical basis and it is found in the German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel’s master-slave dialectic or what is properly translated as lordship and bondage.(2)  Without delving into a long explanation or an untidy oversimplification, let’s just say that Hegel after studying some reports concerning the violent Haitian revolution from French oppression (1791-1804), he noted that what defines the relationship between a master and a slave is death.  The master is master because he does not fear death, but the slave is a slave because of his fear of death and as a consequence he enters into an agreement where in which his servitude grants him life and his disobedience will grant him certain death.  What is curious both in this simplification of Hegel’s master-slave dialectic and the interpretation of "Collateral" that is being put forth here is the notion that White privilege is ultimately based upon a White man’s sociopathic lack of empathy for non-Whites and an absence of the normal fear of death.

Vincent represents a terminator-like grim reaper murdering people as professionally as possible for a pre-determined price, without shame, compassion, or most importantly without fear of his own death.  Vincent as performed by Tom Cruise is the personification of a form of heartless White privilege that murders all the minority victims he has been hired to kill without remorse as a means of proving and maintaining a race based moral supremacy.

A powerful scene that demonstrates this transference of White privilege from Vincent to Max is when Max has to assume Vincent’s identity and talk to Vincent’s Latin employer Felix (Javier Bardem) inside of a Latin nightclub.  As Max pretends to be Vincent he is surrounded by armed Latin guards who keep their hands on their weapons.  As he traverses the night club all of the Latin club goers stare at Max with suspicion.  The Blackness of Max’s skin signals suspicion and inferiority to all of the Latin patrons, guards and even Felix the employer who has never actually seen Vincent before.  After Felix tells the story of Black Peter and Santa Claus to Max as Vincent, Max uses the improvisation skills he has learned from the real Vincent to safely gather the information Vincent needs to complete his murders.  When he leaves the club he is no longer looked upon with suspicion and inferiority by the guards or the patrons; he is protected by the cloak of White privilege.  

By contrast, in the climatic and bold Asian nightclub shoot out sequence that is a major set piece within the film, Vincent as a White man traverses through the crowd of Asian club goers with an invisibility and an invincibility that is racially coded; that is to say, Vincent’s Whiteness in a sea of writhing Asian bodies is not questioned, interrogated nor given a dirty look- because the aura of White privilege gives his presence a kind of “carte blanche” to walk safely through the social spaces of all other races held below Whites on the totem of racial hierarchy.  Max benefits from Vincent’s White privilege in this scene because Vincent protects him from being killed and exchanges glances with him that acknowledge the transference of White privilege as a protective cloak in exchange for his continued servitude.  Even when the violence erupts and people are screaming and running frantically for the exits, Vincent’s Whiteness allows him to kill his intended target, an Asian drug lord, and escape outside to Max’s cab without so much as having to say,” excuse me”.

And just in case we might doubt the veracity of this race based interpretation of the film, Vincent suddenly kills a sympathetic Latino cop who had found and believed in Max’s innocence while he was standing in the club’s doorway.  Max is appalled at this murder above all the others because it was both senseless and unnecessary.  He is forced at this point to overcome his own fear of death and use the tools of White privilege to force his own violent liberation from enforced servitude.  It could be that by putting this film in context with other recent popular slave liberation narratives like Tarantino’s "Django Unchained" and McQueen’s "12 Years a Slave" we can discern a greater depth and meaning in the film’s story and theme than we could upon its initial theatrical release.  It is in this way that we might think of Michael Mann’s "Collateral" as a kind of slave liberation narrative that we might call, "11 Hours a Slave" since the film takes place between 6:30pm and 5:40am, according to the director himself.(3)             

Vincent solicits Max’s servitude in a variety of ways that become increasingly morally suspect and violent.  First, he offers Max a substantial bonus for taking him to what would turn out to be his first murder and then he threatens to take Max’s life when after the first murder he tries to remove himself from the situation.  Vincent finally uses threats against Max’s mother and the object of his affection, Attorney Annie Farrell (Jada Pinkett-Smith) as the means to secure Max’s obedience.  Since Vincent does not fear death he uses death itself as a means of attaining Max’s servitude because those thought of as slaves love and respect life and the lives of others in such a way that the Masters could never understand or respect.  

Yet these threats and the servitude they enforce only makes us certain that "Collateral" is a philosophical parable based on Hegel’s master-slave dialectic, but doesn’t reveal how Max is able to liberate himself from Black servitude via White privilege.  To make sense of this liberation we must look at the character of Max Durocher as performed by Jamie Foxx.  What I first mistook as an uncertain performance by Foxx as Max in the beginning of the film during its initial theatrical release, I now understand to be a part of Foxx’s overall dramatic performance of a former bad-ass character trying to pretend to be timid and subservient to achieve his goal of owning his own limo company and being his own boss.  In a sense Max was only pretending to be a slave so that he might one day be a master.  Throughout the course of the film’s narrative we begin to understand that Max Durocher is not as docile and timid as he pretends to be during the first act.  What Foxx is really doing is constructing a performance within a performance much like Denzel Washington constructed as Det. Alonzo Harris in "Training Day" or as Cary Grant constructed as Roger Thornhill in "North by Northwest."  Foxx is playing a character who himself is pretending to be something that he is not which is timid, docile and subservient because as the film progresses we see that he already had the tendencies inside that will be used to affect his own liberation; all Vincent is really doing is providing Max with an emotional road map through which he might tap into these primordial instincts that he must use to defeat his master.

This is what makes "Collateral" such a compelling film, it turns the master-slave dialectic on its head by revealing that it is the slave who is actually morally and intellectually superior to the master and that as the final shoot out in the darkness reveals, it is only by a twist of fate and our own perseverance that we are able to make other Whites recognize the illusion of White privilege as an evil enforced by violence.  It is though violence that such evil must be brought to an end.  This is no doubt what Hegel was noting in the bloody violence that attended the Haitian revolution and the killing of Whites that brought about Black liberation in the face of the atrocity of slavery.  

By the end of the film, with Vincent dead on an empty train, his White privilege has been reduced to what Frank B. Wilderson III describes in his book "Red, White & Black," as “fungible”.(4) We might define fungibility here as being no longer privileged and therefore replaceable in like or kind with other similar objects.  In Vincent’s last words he states,” A man dead on the MTA, you think anyone would notice?”  Vincent is no longer The White Man with special skills, privileges, and talents, but now just a man- a dead man who is replaceable, fungible, unimportant.    

For some Whites the greatest fear concerning Black liberation is that they themselves might have to come to terms with their own fungibility; their own lack of importance in the earthy scheme of things. "Collateral" tells the tale of Black liberation via the transference of White privilege and in so doing it becomes a brilliant cinematic version of Hegel’s master-slave dialectic in transit with a cab ride that ends on a train.

NOTES

(1) "It's A Wonderful Life" is a film that David Graeber the author of "Debt: The First 5,000 Years" would probably describe as the most accurate depiction that was ever made of how “everyday communism” is exercised in a capitalist society.  See page 100 of "Debt: The First 5,000 Years" for an explanation of everyday communism in capitalist societies.  

(2) As H.S. Harris explains concerning Hegel’s conception of lordship and bondage,” The real Lord in the relationship is Death, which becomes the inevitable consequence of disobedience, rather than the uncertain outcome of an equal contest.” Page 39, "Hegel: Phenomenology and System," Indianapolis: Hackett, 1995.  For a simpler explanation of the master-slave dialectic see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master%E2%80%93slave_dialectic

(3) See reference note concerning an HBO interview with Michael Mann in: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_(film)

(4) Frank B. Wilderson III explains that, "the other misunderstanding I am attempting to correct is the notion that the profit motive is the consideration in the slaveocracy that trumps all others…  in point of fact, slavery is and connotes an ontological status for Blackness; and that the constituent elements of slavery are not exploitation and alienation but accumulation and fungibility… (pg. 14, "Red, White & Black: Cinema and the Structure of U.S. Antagonisms," Durham: Duke, 2010).


Andre Seewood is the author of "SLAVE CINEMA: The Crisis of the African-American in Film." Pick up a copy of the book via Amazon.com HERE.

Features
  • |

More: Jamie Foxx

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries    

45 Comments

  • Perivi Katjavivi | August 24, 2014 9:42 AMReply

    Brilliant!

  • E. Night | July 15, 2014 6:03 AMReply

    In reality, this movie is about existence and anonymity.

  • Sean | July 8, 2014 9:10 PMReply

    My eyes usually glaze over when I read "white oppression", slavery, and especially of all, "white privilege". I don't agree with you, but I can see your arguments you made. Actually, with Cruise and Foxx in their respective roles, it does make the movie more compelling.

    I'm not sure about the whole "transfer of white privilege" part from Max to Vincent, nor the fungibility of white privilege. Mostly because after Max and Vincent shot the hell out of train door, Vincent reached for another clip, and upon finding none, he just sat down and died. He became that dead guy doing laps on the MTA. It was like he recognized he his own fungibility, in some capacity, as early as the beginning of the movie. Max, instead of have some transfer if privilege, was enabled to grow a pair and defy Vincent.

    Gah, never mind, I enjoyed he article nonetheless.

  • Tieuel Legacy | July 5, 2014 2:36 PMReply

    I love Collateral. I see the points that you are making which is a different look at slavery and indentured servitude (interesting that this is the 2nd time I'm commenting on this today). I also see that Max is empowered and shown a way to be more assertive toward his dream of being a Limo Fleet owner and travel to the islands. And if kidnapping is slavery then the points are true as well. I just think that if Vincent encountered a white guy that was down on his luck or lacked "get up and go" he would do the same thing. He would use Max to get what he wants and show him that he is being mistreated by his employer. It's the same thing with roles reversed in The Big Hit with Cuba Gooding, Jr.

  • T | June 27, 2014 11:43 PMReply

    Very interesting... Except Mark Ruffalo's character is named Ray Fanning, and isn't Hispanic. Still an interesting read.

  • squeesh | June 22, 2014 5:15 AMReply

    @Frank

    Dude,please---the reality is that black and white people do not go through life seeing the same things the exact same way, especially when it comes to minority-majority perspectives. Also, I'm tired of your "angry white man" stance---it's lame and tired as hell. Funny how white boys like you are always whining about AA, and never confess up to the fact that maybe some of you just couldn't cut in the corporate environment, and that's the real reason that black person got promoted over you---because they were better qualified to begin with, but your egos won't let you admit to that,apparently. The reality is, it's getting hard for everybody out here in the workplace, looking at their very real chances of getting laid off, and having to pound the pavement afterwards with no guarantee of finding a job right afterward. So save the "white victim" complaint for somebody who gives a damn

  • Frank | June 20, 2014 8:39 PMReply

    Andre - ok, perhaps I am so ingrained to the "white privilege" viewpoint that I cannot see your pov. I don't think so, but perhaps I too am a racist. In corp America Blacks get the benefit of a tie and in many cases are promoted over more qualified people because of their color. That causes resentment. If you don't believe that you are not as aware as you seem. Being a white male in corp America is harder than ever because you have to be at least 20% better than others to advance. Corporate affirmative action. It's also brutally unfair to those African Americans who truly deserve promotion. It's True. No one wants to hear your bitching. Tragic ignorance? I don't think so. I do not see things from a victims pov but I'm not ignorant. Quit playing the victim card and perform... That really is what it's about. Whether or not you agree a vast vast vast amount of "whites" (and you can throw in Asians, Indians, and Hispanics) do not want to hear black Americans whining about things bring unfair. It's bullshit. It is a victim mentality and way past time for this to go away. Did Obama play that card? No.

  • Andre Seewood | June 20, 2014 9:30 PM

    Frank, I'm not going to fall for your offensively stupid and insulting strawman argument... It has nothing to do with article, the interpretation of the film that was put forth in the article- nor the discussion of how great films can be seen from multiple interpretations. You are not going to drag me into a argument or a discussion that has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with the article above. You wanna stand on your soap box and complain about how hard it is for a White male in corporate America- do it at a tea party rally cause it's about as interesting and meaningful as a turtle farting in the ocean in my opinion. Not being able to cogently and intelligently talk about race is a sign of racism, just as not being able to see things from a minority perspective is a sign that White privilege blunts some (but not all) White people's ability to empathize with races other than their own. It is very telling how your straw man argument concerns the alleged White man's problems in corporate America which just your way of turning a discussion about the racial dynamics in COLLATERAL into a White subject about corporate promotions. Frank, as far as I'm concerned you are a lost cause. And I personally I'm tired of wasting my time.

  • Frank | June 20, 2014 7:23 PMReply

    Andre, I failed to fully read your response. I get that you are not pointing out racism but rather an intriguing racial theme of master-liberator. I suppose my point, and many others I assume, is that looking at everything through a lens of racial-ness is tiresome. Now, I say that from the 'white privilege' vantage point, but regardless I think people don't want to hear it. That is why people are bitching. In corp America no one cares who or what you are - just perform and do t make excuses.

  • Andre Seewood | June 20, 2014 7:50 PM

    Frank, if you sincerely believe that," in Corporate America no one cares who or what you are- just perform and don't make excuses," then I am deeply offended by your tragic ignorance and I now realize that you will never, ever, ever be able to understand why," looking at everything through the lens of racial-ness is tiresome," for certain people, as well as, why some," people don't want to hear it." White privilege: cui bono?

  • Frank | June 20, 2014 6:41 PMReply

    I appreciate your perspective - I really do. In no way am I trying to be a dick. I am not sure how I even happened upon this article in the first place as all I was trying to do was look up something on Eddie Murphy.
    In regards to the comment from "Up" - you could very well be spot on. I am a white guy and grew up in lilly white suburbs, went to a great big ten university etc... I had it pretty easy in retrospect. As a odd aside, I wasn't even aware of what racism was until I was well into my teens. Remember Larry Holmes? I was a big fan. He fought this white guy, Gerry Cooney. I was for Holmes and I vividly remember this guy I knew couldn't freaking believe that because "Cooney was White" ... that attitude struck me as so odd at the time I still remember it. But, I digress. Anyway, I certainly have my issues with others at times as I have made far too many stereotypical comments about others whether that be gays, other countries, races or religion. I count many people of all sorts as my friends and generally feel open-minded about other perspectives. But that really doesn't mean that I am.
    I did quote Lauren, but I don't know her from a stack of books. You say she is black and I am trying to benefit from agreeing with her because she is black? She had a good point I thought.
    All I am saying is that if you spend your time looking for a racist perspective you will find it. I can watch anything and make judgements and find some cause or reason, but honestly it doesn't mean it is really there. You are wasting too much energy and generating way too much negativity...it's not always there

  • Andre Seewood | June 20, 2014 7:07 PM

    @Frank, while your honesty is appreciated, I think that both you and Lauren have missed the point and the intent of this article. This article is not "looking for a racist perspective" it is looking at the film through the lens of its racial dynamics to claim that the film can be interpreted as a slave liberation narrative. The problem with both your original commentaries and Lauren's comments is that the two of you immediately equate a racial intepretation of a film as "looking for a racist perspective" or as a negative critical assessment and that is not true. As I have said in other commentaries: ignoring racial inequities, power imbalances and the advantages of White privilege does not mean that these problems no longer exist. This interpretation is not a waste of energy nor does it generate too much negativity: it is an attempt to think critically about a particular film in a way the enriches our appreciation of said film and the only negativity it seems to be generating is from those few who don't want to think critically and feel that the subject of race is itself always a negative discussion. If both you and Lauren want to ignore racial issues because concentratring on such issues is unhealthy and negative you would do well come to the realization that the very ability to ignore racial issues, inequities and racial interpretations of works of art is a privilege that is reserved for Whites and the willfully ignorant. Again, COLLATERAL is not a racist film and this article is not a racist interpretation of the film.

  • Up In The Balcony | June 20, 2014 11:49 AMReply

    OH BOY! I see another tasty morsel has flown in the web. A self proclaimed "white guy", Frank, has stop by with his... ahh... well... I wouldn't call it a critical analysis of Andre's article, so I'm left to define it as a white man's view. And oh my, did he show his whiteness. Now I'm not Andre but I am sure the following caught his eye.

    "Sometimes it's best to just look at things as they are"

    Really? And how are they? Is that not the gist of Andre's analysis? You know, to absorb, experience, reflect and look at films from different perspective? Geez, I think Frank is exhibiting the errors of white privilege. And check this, he even used the black chick, Lauren, in an attempt bolster his opinion. --> "I echo Lauren's comment about your unhealthy preoccupation about hidden agendas to substantiate your world view of relentless oppression"

    "see, although I am a white guy, I'm agreeing with a black woman, so my opinion is not related to my skin color"

    Really Frank? Andre has an unhealthy preoccupation about hidden agendas? So that's how you view a critical analysis of a film that differs from yours? Or maybe it's the "racial" element that has you crying foul?

    Anyway, as the champ said in Harlem Nights "Don't tttt-take this aaaaa-ass whooping ppp-personally, but get ready b/c I believe Andre's bout to lay you out.





    "I echo Lauren's comment about your unhealthy preoccupation about hidden agendas"

  • Frank | June 20, 2014 10:02 AMReply

    PS. I echo Lauren's comment about your unhealthy preoccupation about hidden agendas to substantiate your world view of relentless oppression. Sometimes it's best to just look at things as they are and quit trying to subvert the narrative to support your mythical claims.

  • Up In The Balcony | June 20, 2014 12:41 PM

    Now you didn't hear this from me, but please, somebody call 911 b/c Andre is killin' the po' white guy, Frank. But maybe Frank will survive this brutal beating? Maybe, just maybe, he'll return with a rebuttal, of sorts. Hey, I'd simply like for him to address (as Andre has questioned) what's all this "push back' about this article and its interpretation of the film is really about? I mean, I believe I know exactly what's behind the screams of the naysayers, however, I'll wait for the rest of Frank's story.

  • Andre Seewood | June 20, 2014 12:09 PM

    And you also echo the malignant blindness of White privilege that is inherent in Lauren's comment since only those who are benefiting from White privilege would see any discussion of its cinematic representation as an unhealthy preoccupation. And I hate to break this to you, but Black people and White people often see the same movie from different perspectives. "For example, if there are no African-American characters at all in a movie, people of color may be more aware than Whites of watching what critic Anna Everett calls a "segregated" film- one from which people like themselves are excluded; even if Whites recognize the exclusion, it will have different meanings for them. Moreover, watching "intergrated" films- movies with some African-American actors and characters- people of color may be more conscious than Whites of the racial hierarchy in which members of their group seldom qualify as the hero. (Again, even if Whites are conscious of the hierarchy, it will have different implications for them.) Page 122, Shots in the Mirror: Crime Films and Society by Nicole Rafter. This article is a discussion of those different meanings a film can have for African-Americans.

  • Frank | June 20, 2014 9:54 AMReply

    Well written article, and interesting points....however I can't help but think that you can find what you want to see if you look. The Foxx character could have been played by anyone else and it wouldn't have changed the dynamic. Then I suppose you would have complained that the movie was racist because it was too white. What if the thieves who stole the briefcase were black instead of "white trash"..... Oh man, racism right? In movies these days street hoods are almost always white to avoid the tag. Ugh. C'mon man! I am a white guy and I feel like a totally helpless sap committed to the Man in today's corporate world. We all would have acted like Max and tried to survive.

  • Up In The Balcony | June 20, 2014 12:21 PM

    ** The two disagreeable old men up in the balcony, Statler and Waldorf have reached an agreement**

    "BRAVO Andre, another one bites the dust!"

  • Andre Seewood | June 20, 2014 11:55 AM

    Now, I stated clearly in the article that the film,"could be interpretated," in the way that I am discussing. I've also stated in these commentaries that great films lend themselves to different interpretations from multiple perspectives. I would also like to state that all works of art can be appreciated for their surface (or commercial) appeal and for their deeper meanings, themes and suggestions. So I really don't know what all this "push back" about this article and its interpretation of the film is really about other than the fact that thinking critically about film is somehow antithetical to a small minority of people who visit a website devoted to discussing (Black) films using different interpretations and multiple perspectives. And now to the most ridiculous part of your commentary. How can you presume to know what I would have "complained" about if the Foxx character had been played by anyone else? This is a pointless hypothetical because fortunately the Max character was performed by Jamie Foxx, so let's discuss the film as it is and not as it could be if someone else were cast. You ask," What if the thieves who stole the briefcase were Black instead of "white trash?" But such a hypothetical re-casting minor supporting characters would not invalidate the interpretation that I have attempted to put forth... Why? Because I'm reading the film as a "slave liberation" narrative- and therefore I'm looking at how the Max character who is Black was able to liberate himself from White servitude via his "borrowing" of White privilege from the Vince character. I understand that it is often extremely difficult for Whites to have discussions about race, racial privilege and racialized narrative tropes in films, but we can only enrich our understanding of films, roles and race power relations as they are represented in film by having such discussion and reading such interpretations. Just because you are a "white guy" who feels like a totally helpless sap committed to the Man in today's corporate world does not allow you the "privilege" to invalidate an interpretation of a film based on existing racialized dynamics that the film itself exploits for dramatic effect throughout its narrative. And I state again, I'm am celebrating this film- this is not a negative review of COLLATERAL.

  • UITB | June 11, 2014 1:23 PMReply

    Another one bits the dust. Andre has slain another naysayer/detractor, Random Commentary.

    Btw, has anyone seen Andre's first challenger, Ms. Lauren? I think she exited stage left when a few male heroes came to her rescue. Oh well, maybe she and a few other S&A readers have learned a little something about what to expect if they dare knock on Andre's door with mess on their minds.

  • Go Home | June 11, 2014 8:39 PM

    Glad you're back Carey. Dipshit. :)

  • Andre Seewood | June 11, 2014 12:35 PMReply

    @Random Commentary. I fail to see the point of your rebuttal. Just because I didn't substantiate the fact that COLLATERAL was not a critical or commerical disappointment at the time of its release (a fact that can be checked via boxofficemojo, imdb, or rotten tomatoes) in no way supports your original assertion that I," attempted to write a close ended qualitative review which excludes any viewpoint that doesn't agree with [my] own." I mean I have to ask: Did I fall asleep and Wake up in a room full of stupid? Even a cursory glance at the biographical information about Michael Mann on wikipedia reveals that he studied history, philosophy and architeture while in college. Thus, the Hegalian philosophical subtext in the film could have been drawn from his early studies of philosophy. Yes as you say, the safest thing to say is that I saw a deeper subtext in the film than 98% of the average film viewers. Hence, that is why I wrote the article to draw our attention to this deeper subtext and augment the discussion of Black cinema past, present and future. If people don't like to think about movies seriously - particularly Black movies- then that is their perogative. Not all of us think alike and some of us don't think at all- but it besmirches no one else's character and stops no one else's daily routine if some of us find more in a film than 98% of the average film viewers and decide to write about it. I find it quite interesting that you think a film that has a White savior character that aides the liberation of a Black character (12 years a Slave) more interesting than a film where a Black character liberates himself (Collateral).

  • Up In The Balcony | June 11, 2014 10:39 PM

    Wait a minute, I stand accused, I've made my move too soon. Random Commentary is not dead. In fact, he has come back stronger than ever. Yep, the man has hit the lion king with the best rebuttal to date.

    Hmmmm, I'm not taking sides in this war of words but it appears the young lion (lets call him Simba *wink* ) is on a journey to dethrone the Lion King, Andre The Great. But I have a sneaky hunch that we've not heard the last from Mr. Seewood.

    **grabbing my popcorn and a cold one**

  • Andre Seewood | June 11, 2014 10:23 PM

    @Random Commentary- Then we'll have to agree to disagree. I do consider Collateral a Black film Under the critical standard that I have described in many other articles which I will abreviate here: a film whose story resolves itself upon the circumstances and emotions of the Black characters. In your explanation of 12 years a slave, you overstate the notion of Burke's civil disobedience as a catalyst of his own liberation. It was not civil disobedience that led to his liberation, but his own perserverance. Just as you mis-read Max's will to change his circumstances by taking a gun and giving Vincent a taste of his own medicine. It wasn't chance- but Max's determination that led to his liberation. But the crux of our debate is this: you apparently don't appreciate someone writing about a film in a way that goes beyond general conversation and popular catchphrases. Fine. That's great for you and anyone else so inclined. But there is no law (thankfully), no court, no social punishment for anyone else who writes or thinks about film differently. So, if I have to be a minority of one- so be it. I'm not hurting anyone...

  • RANDOM COMMENTARY | June 11, 2014 8:25 PM

    I fail to see the point of your rebuttal. - Likewise.

    Don't think I'm trying to placate you by not not responding with a snide remark. "Did I fall asleep and Wake up in a room full of stupid?" "Not all of us think alike and some of us don't think at all- but it besmirches no one else's character and stops no one else's daily routine if some of us find more in a film than 98% of the average film viewers and decide to write about it."

    You shot, you missed.

    I'll start at the end and work back.

    "I find it quite interesting that you think a film that has a White savior character that aides the liberation of a Black character (12 years a Slave) more interesting than a film where a Black character liberates himself (Collateral)."

    Solomon Northup from the moment of his capture sought to free himself by his own means. He enlisted the aid of various white men who he thought he could trust. The fact he was legally freed at the end doesn't mean his vindication came at the hands of a white man. His intelligence and civil disobedience was the direct cause of his freedom.

    Max was literally always under the gun. In real life just like the movies any small opportunity to turn the tables under those circumstances, anybody would take the same risks. That's not heroic. That's relying on chance.

    "Hence, that is why I wrote the article to draw our attention to this deeper subtext and augment the discussion of Black cinema past, present and future. If people don't like to think about movies seriously - particularly Black movies- then that is their prerogative."

    Well I don't classify Collateral as a Black movie. I classify it as a hitman movie on the scale of The Professional. Cut and dry it is what it is.

    Here is the crux of the debate.

    Just because I didn't substantiate the fact that COLLATERAL was not a critical or commerical disappointment at the time of its release (a fact that can be checked via boxofficemojo, imdb, or rotten tomatoes) in no way supports your original assertion that I," attempted to write a close ended qualitative review which excludes any viewpoint that doesn't agree with [my] own."

    This is the very first thing I said, "I read your review and all the comments prior to posting." I included your responses as a continuous train of thought from your article. The very next thing I said was, "Essentially you attempted to write a closed ended qualitative review ect. ect." The key word is attempted. You didn't succeed. You tried to wrap everything under the assertion "Although "Collateral" can hardly be considered a critical or commercial disappointment at the time of its release." It made 152 million gross. That's the only factual relevance of your article. It made money. Everything else you wrote is a political science debate in which you represent the minority of one. The only person who though Collateral was deep. Based on some literature, science and arts courses Michael Mann took that's standard fare for the majority of colleges in undergraduate studies.

    Maybe I should pull out my Psychology textbook and drop some clinical definitions nobody uses in general conversation. I'd like to join that 0.02% that have a deeper insight than what's presented.

  • Random Commentary | June 10, 2014 9:41 PMReply

    I read your review and all the comments prior to posting. Essentially you attempted to write a close ended qualitative review which excludes any viewpoint that doesn't agree with your own. MD said it very plain and simple. I agree. I appreciate the depth you went through to analyze a film you enjoyed. But ultimately you took a kiddie pool turned it into an infinity edge Architectural Digest swimming pool. The film wasn't that deep. If you broke down a film like 12 Years A Slave I would be more on board with the deeper review.

  • RANDOM COMMENTARY | June 11, 2014 11:14 AM

    @SEEWOOD Discrediting you isn't my intention nor is this personal. Of course you wouldn't purposely type "I exclude any viewpoint that doesn't agree with my own."

    You did preface your analysis with "This interpretation, which I will explore here." Prior to that you insubstantially stated "Although "Collateral" can hardly be considered a critical or commercial disappointment at the time of its release." You didn't write that as an opinion. You left it to be assumed as factual. Even in the way you phrased that statement was an deliberate attempt to funnel your analysis towards that assumption.

    The safest thing to say is you saw a deeper subtext than 98% of the average film viewer.

  • Andre Seewood | June 10, 2014 9:57 PM

    That is a bald faced lie and an obvious attempt at discrediting both my intention and the interpretation put forth. This interpretation does not exclude any viewpoint that doesn't agree with my own. How would that even be possible within the text itself? I challenge you to find anywhere in this article that says," I exclude any viewpoint that doesn't agree with my own." If you don't think the film was that deep, then fine. But the validity of any interpretation does not rest on whether or not everyone is in agreement that a particular film is "deep" as you say.

  • Donella | June 10, 2014 1:57 PMReply

    I liked collateral, but the one up man hip during the miles David discussion (when Tom cruise's) character kills Shabaka irritated me because cruise's chracter came across like a know it all who memorized the notes, but still doesn't understand the music.

    i've met some folks with encyclopedic knowledge of hip hop, but still don't understand what the lyrics mean or the cultural context behind their creation. i almost have to mute that part to get through the movie.

  • Andre Seewood | June 10, 2014 2:16 PM

    @Donella, what an awesome detail you've brought up concerning the construction of Vincent's character. The notion of being "a know it all who memorized the notes, but still doesn't understand the music," is a wonderful metaphor for Vincent's sociopathic personality. Like most sociopaths, they know how to play life by the numbers, but when it comes to real emotions they haven't a clue. It makes me think that your interpretation of this moment in the film is spot on regarding this character's inability to feel, which Max questions during the scene when he deliberately crashes the cab.

  • parsyeb | June 10, 2014 8:53 AMReply

    I like these stabs at criticism, but the implementation of the theory here is really half-baked. Hegel's Master-Slave dialectic applied outside of the context of his philosophical project? The vaguities of privilege?

    I'm not against theoretical readings (on the contrary), but I think some folks' animosity has to do with the way you write about it, as though it answers or shapes the film from within. When I've attempted to argue this way, I generally take a tone of "Here's what's in the film, what I can point to very literally" and then "here's an intellectual approach that might offer us a different perspective on it."

    Of course, that's not going to help the mongos below who say "If it were two white actors, it'd be the same movie." Well, don't know what to tell you other than, "No, it wouldn't." It'd be different still if it were a different white or black actor in the role (the politics of Cruise ordering around Ving Rhames or Michael Clark Duncan, for example, would function much differently). But then again, people are really afraid of giving talk about race or gender much credence when it comes to their Hollywood auteur darlings.

  • Andre Seewood | June 10, 2014 10:27 AM

    Whereas I appreciate your commentary, I don't think I can necessarily agree with your assessment of my rhetorical tone. I clearly stated in this piece that the film "could be interpreted as" and I did point to specific scenes, actions and circumstances that substantiated my interpretation. No, I don't think that my rhetorical tone is what's in question. What's in question from "the mongos below" is how dare I bring up race with regards to what they consider is a White genre film that is beyond any type of analysis, criticism or commentary. I also take umbrage to your notion that "the implementation of the theory here is really half-baked" because such an accusation would have to be substantiated better than what you have attempted in your commentary. Yes, it is possible to apply Hegel's Master-Slave dialectic outside of the context of his philosophical project. We must remember that Hegel wrote his dialectic as a narrative- a mythical one at that- thus, his philosophical content can be applied in different mediums that use narrative as a means of communication. As it concerns what you call "the vaguities of privilege" [sic] I think the article clearly spells out what those privileges are with regards to Whites. I don't mean to sound flippant, intolerant or glib, but this is a website devoted to discussions of cinema from the African diaspora and I think those discussions should be more substantive than whether or not you liked a certain film and whether or not you agree with a writer's rhetorical tone or theoretical strategy.

  • Daryl | June 9, 2014 11:12 PMReply

    Another great article Andre Seawood, I didn't see collaterall from this point of view but now that you brought it out it makes sense. I will have to go rewatch the film and reevaluate it. I thought it was a great film, but this adds another layer to it. This is what great films do add to your viewing experience after watching it the first time because it's more to it.

  • Andre Seewood | June 10, 2014 6:48 AM

    @Lauren, I guess that's why they say every rose has its thorn... I wasn't trying to preclude your perspective from being stated, I'm merely stating that your perspective on the film was dull. "Mr Cruise is a lethal hit man and Mr Foxx is a cabbie ergo the hit man has the gun and that means he has the power period." I'm not writing a tag line about the film- I'm writing a critical interpretation of the film. Listen, I don't know what they're teaching you in that school that you're going to or the one that you should be going to, but there can be many different interprétations of a film: from feminist to freudian, from structuralist to post-colonialist the interpretation that I put forth here is a racial interpretation- each interpretation of a film can be valid- but thankfully there is no ONE single interpretation. I'm looking at the film from one aspect- one perspective- it doesn't mean that I think that my perspective is the only valid one. Moreover, for people who don't like films being analyzed, studied, re-evaluated, or looked at from different perspectives- I say that you are making the film art dull and uninteresting because it hurts you to think every once and a while. Great films have layers of meaning (some even hidden from the filmmaker themselves)- exceptional films allow us to see circumstances and situations from multiple perspectives beyond just the position of the camera. For you Lauren, I believe that because I have put forth an interpretation of this film based on race you somehow feel that this is a negative thing- it's not. I'm actually applauding Mann's work and hopefully enriching our conversation about it. I'm sorry you and I disagree, but your disagreement with me does not invalid my opinion. I am not at your service.

  • Lauren | June 10, 2014 2:03 AM

    Curious on your assumption that only a lazy dullard would dismiss "themes and meanings of substance" or the lack of willingness to expend intellectual energy on pedantic pontification somehow precludes my perspective from being stated. It's your prerogative to go on and on about your perceptions and it's mine to disagree with them. I feel no shame enjoying a rose's fragrance and the way its folds capture the morning dew while others thrive on the prick of its thorns.

  • md | June 9, 2014 10:38 PMReply

    Michael Mann had NONE of that bullshit in mind when he made that film.

  • DC_Joe | June 10, 2014 2:33 AM

    No worries MD and Lauren, the "Critic's" art form is his/her critique, which many times is built upon thoughts and psychological and/or societal linkages that exist in society/humanity but may have absolutely nothing to do with the motivations that the creators of the art being critiqued, in this case cinema, had in mind or intended. It's like looking at a modern/abstract painting and interpreting what the painter had in mind. But keep in mind that all the critic says is just their opinion and at the end of the day, that is all is is, an opinion. Except in the mind of the critic who sometimes, IMHO, mistakenly thinks his/her opinion, no matter how well researched and connected directly or indirectly to the actual art form is "ART" itself when it's just hot air!! Great movie though, enjoyed it as I do most MM films!! Lauren I agree that over analyzing can be a handicap for a "WRITER" who wishes to make their bones writing stories rather than analyzing them!! Hopefully AS will SHOCK us all and break that usual trend and be the exception to the rule!! Well crafted critique AS but ya kinda would have spoiled the movie for me it I hadn't already seen it a half dozen times!! I will say that the final casting was significantly better than those originally considered for the film as Jamie and Tom, I feel, brought a plausible gravitas to the text. And while race is not a direct aspect of the script, by casting across racial lines, it allows our subjective predilections to rule our thinking as we view. Most of us just don't take the time to think as broad and deep as you Andre!!

  • Andre Seewood | June 9, 2014 10:43 PM

    Michael Mann doesn't have to, as you say," have none of that bullshit in mind when he made that film," films are meant to be interpreted, contemplated and enjoyed. There is absolutely nothing wrong with augmenting the themes of a film by critical exploration and interpretation. If what you have expressed is your short cut to thinking then it is true that every fool is a king in a land of idiots.

  • Lauren | June 9, 2014 7:43 PMReply

    Geeze sometimes a rose is just a rose really! If the movie had two white actors or two black actors, none of the dialog would have to be changed. The privilege your hung up on is more about occupation than race. Mr Cruise is a lethal hit man and Mr Foxx is a cabbie ergo the hit man has the gun and that means he has the power period. And btw Cruise was excellent in his steely portrayal of a heartless killer and should've been nominated for an oscar along with Foxx.

  • DC_JOE | June 10, 2014 2:34 AM

    See my response above Lauren under MD!! Peace!!

  • In The Balcony | June 9, 2014 9:37 PM

    OUCH! An interesting game of One-upmanship is occurring up in here. The lion, Andre Seewood, was attacked by the opinionated Lauren whose comment didn't set well with S&A's most fearless gladiator. Consequently he fired back with a short jab "sometimes a rose is just a rose and a cigar is just a cigar- but none of those facts should stop us from thinking critically" in an attempt to brush off the spunky Lauren.

    Lauren, feeling the sting of Andre's punch, fired back. However, as usual (this is not Andre's first rodeo) he immediately put Lauren in check with a crunching blow.

    It appears this match may be over. But, one never knows, Lauren may just be licking her wounds as she looks for a weak link in Andre's game. Hmmmm... does Lauren really have an argument, or, as Andre stated, is she a dullard who may have stepped in over her head?

  • stp | June 9, 2014 9:15 PM

    Stp eats popcorn and drinks his soda watching the drama unfold.

    STP (V.O.)
    This drama is better than what's in the theater!

  • Andre Seewood | June 9, 2014 9:01 PM

    Just as one could say that a flippant and glib dismissal of themes, meaning and substance in works of art is a kind of joy that is reserved for dullards whose lack of intellectual energy could be better spent not commenting on things they are unwilling or unable to appreciate or comprehend.

  • Lauren | June 9, 2014 8:42 PM

    One could also say that the preoccupation with digging for hidden agendas that fit your perceptions of relentless oppression could ultimately be unhealthy and at best a misdirection of energy that might be better spent on creating something new.

  • Andre Seewood | June 9, 2014 7:51 PM

    Yes, sometimes a rose is just a rose and a cigar is just a cigar- but none of those facts should stop us from thinking critically.

Follow Shadow and Act

Email Updates

Most "Liked"

  • Caribbean Film VOD Platform STUDIO ANANSI ...
  • Muted, Black & White First Trailer for ...
  • Exclusive - Watch 1st Trailer for Nefertite ...
  • Review: Amma Asante's Brave 'Belle' ...
  • Omar Sy Takes a Dramatic-Romantic Turn ...
  • Is a Pulse-Pounding, International Espionage ...
  • 'Life After Death' (Conflicting Portrait ...
  • The 1st Movie That Made You Laugh? Steve ...
  • Boris Lojkine’s Critically-Acclaimed ...
  • 'Funk, God, Jazz, and Medicine: Black ...