Martin Luther King Jr Died Today (On Vices vs Virtues & Depictions Of Iconic Black Figures On Screen)

4 Comments

• | Reply

• Donella | April 4, 2012 1:10 PMReply

  It takes a special kind of storyteller to walk the line between "humanize" and "exploit."

• Jason Gilmore | April 4, 2012 12:55 PMReply

  Interesting post Tambay. I have been quietly working on a biopic of a famous entertainer for years (unofficially), which lays his vices bare along with chronicling his significant achievements. I see no other way to tell the story, as his vices were as much a part of his life and career as his talent. But we are in era where everything is so politically correct and critical thinking seems to be on the decline, so sadly, shooting that film today, as is, could do some unintended damage to this person's legacy.
  
  My father, for example, was not famous and was not perfect. But if someone were to make a movie of his life, I'd want them to be honest about his struggles as well as his triumphs. But everyone doesn't feel that way about their loved ones I guess. We'll see which of these stories makes their way to the light of day.

• CareyCarey | April 4, 2012 12:18 PMReply

  Okay, let's run through the weak preliminaries. The following statement is about as clear as dishwater... cryptic to say the least--> "And there are those of us who feel that a warts and all depiction "humanizes" them, making their achievements more accessible to those of us who hold them in such high regard". Yeah, riiiiiight. I'm with Kwame Ture, Hollywood DOES peddles vice as entertainment. I mean, who would argue against that truth? But wait, I am actually on the fence. Look, although some would vehemently argue against the suggestion/notion that the primary objective of most films is "entertainment", their arguments are generally a ploy or tactic intended to open the door to a self serving agenda. Granted, some films are propaganda tools and other can be used as teaching tools, however, it goes without question that those films are in the minority, minuscule to say the least. So now we've been presented with the questions of how do we tell Marvin Gaye's and Martin Luther King's story? Oh, of course we have to keep an eye on maintaining their "human" status. Yeah riiiiiight. That's the Okie Doke line of thinking. I believe the pertinate details of the story should follow directly in line with the most defining issues of the person in question. And that's why I defined my position as "on the fence". Listen, I could care less about the alledged "affair" of MLK. I mean, it's not like we as black folks sit around with our thumbs placed between the two fleshy folds that surround the opening of our mouth, while we gaze up at a magical superbeing. NO NO! The "humanize" rethoric is nothing but a cheap ploy to convince the gullible to engraciate the smearing of one of the greatest African Americans in the history of mankind. But wait, Marvin Gaye's drug problems is a different story. That problem, that theme, that road to hell was a continuing issue in his life. Oh yeah, let's make no misstake about it, it's safe to say that his drug involvement shaped his life and defined the man. Marvin was an "addict" for most of his life. What... you didn't know that Marvin Gaye was arrested for drug possesion as far back as the 50's? But wait, maybe most people are more comfortable with the terms "he had a habit" or "he was a substance abuser". TOE-MA-TOE or TOE-MAA-TOE, the man abused his mind and body for decades. Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to diminish his accomplishments as a superb entertainer and musical talent. No no, however, most of his difficulties in life can be directly related to his substance abuse problems. We all know that a drug changes the person, so all one has to do is listen to the lyrics in his songs. He tells his own story. Here's parts of one --->Flying High In The Friendly Sky: "Flying high without ever leavin' the ground, I go the place where danger awaits me and it's bound to forsake me. So stupid minded. I can't help it oh ya, so stupid minded. But I go crazy when I can't find it. In the morning, I'll be alright, my friend. But soon the night will bring the pains. The pain, oh the pain! Oh and I go crazy when I can't find it.
  Well I know I'm hooked my friend, to the boy who makes slaves out of men". Listen y'all, Barry Gordy did not want to release the What's Going On LP. Marvin wrote most of it a year or two before it's release. Anyway, this is the first part of 1970 and he is NOT talking about cocaine. So let's do the math. Busted in the 50's. Doing "BOY"... "MUD"... "DU-GEE" and cocaine in the 60's & 70's. In the 80's Gaye became involved with Lady Edith Foxwell, former wife of the British movie director Ivan Foxwell, and spent time with her at Sherston, her Wiltshire estate. Sherston became notorious for its sex and drugs parties with a mixture of show business celebrities and members of the aristocracy. In short, Marvin's story is filled with drama; family pain and suffering, divorce, debt, affairs and depression brought on by drug abuse. So the whole story has to be told. Oh, I have not even mentioned the drug culture that was deeply rooted in Motown, which saw the demise of many of it's performers. I have personal stories. Psssst, Barry Gordon does not ever want to hear anything about the REAL Marvin Gaye Story.

• jmac | April 4, 2012 1:58 PM

  Damn. Have to agree with you on this one especially this====> "Listen, I could care less about the alledged "affair" of MLK." (1) It isn't essential to the story or the man and (2) it is alleged - nobody knows it even happened, where, when, or with whom it occurred. Besides nothing will ever top the King Miniseries so they shouldn't even try. OTOH, doing a biopic on Marvin Gaye and skipping over the drug use would be the most incomplete film ever made. Even Richard Pryor knew he had to address that... albeit in a roundabout way. And I don't care what anyone says, Jo Jo Dancer is a good movie.