'No Love in the Wild' - bell hooks' 'Beast Of The Southern Wild' Critique

86 Comments

• | Reply

• les brown | October 11, 2012 3:11 PMReply

  I want to make two observations about the movie Beasts of the Southern Wind.
  1) At the end of the movie I was deeply concerned about what happens to Hushpuppy she's(so strong, but very very young). I despaired. Her future looked to be a life of prostitution, homeless, and alcohol. Lately, I've heard myself reciting the verse " and a child will lead them."
  I googled the verse: Oh my, it's so basic from my Sunday school lessons. Isaiah 11:6:
  The wolf will live with the lamb,
  the leopard will lie down with the goat,
  the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
  and a little child will lead them.
  Interesting verses suggest a time of great peace
  http://biblia.com/bible/niv2011/Isaiah%2011.1%E2%80%9310
  
  2)I read Hooks in grad school and thought her comments were often insightful. Her review of the movie bothered me. Hooks has strongly determined dislike of the movie. She seems to miss visual clues like describing the orange panties Hushpuppy wears and are the breaking of the crab to support he transgender thesis .

• Jyoung | September 12, 2012 11:00 AMReply

  Unfortunately there was strength in this film. I read the review and basically feel great about how she explained her view of the film. That's great. But what is also great is that we all have a mind of our own and just because everyone didn't have the same thoughts this critique had still does not make the majority-myself ignorant, wrong, or delusional. It makes us human. I loved the film!!! I'm black by the way....

• Jyoung | September 12, 2012 11:01 AM

  I meant to say unfortunately for her I saw and took away strength from this film.

• James Evans from the Cabrini Green | September 12, 2012 8:46 AMReply

  Thank God for bell to say out loud what most of you would never dare to think, including some of the very writers on this site. Black people can be fools for so many reason, particularly as very few of us embrace the necessity for critical/analytical thought, PARTICULARLY those of us who chase that pipe-dream called "Hollywood Fame." It doesn't take a "careful dissection" to see the ugly messages in "BotSW". If your eyes are open you can see what's being said about black people, black girls, and black poverty in America. What's worse is the filmmaker truthfully believes he's told a story about black positivity. Stop liking everything just because you see a black face in front of the camera. It hurts you in such a deep way. Yes, even you, Tambay. Even you.

• Hmmm | September 12, 2012 5:07 PM

  I definitely hear what you are saying. I really do. But I think our paths start to go different ways when discussing the general perception of the "hero" being someone who fights back with their own agency and saves the day vs the protagonist and a well developed arc. while those characters you mentioned are definitely protagonists called to action... By the popular definition of hero that I am referring to they are not heroic.. I hope I make sense...

• Charles Judson | September 12, 2012 4:52 PM

  The film still follows the Hero's Journey. From the Ordinary World (Establishing the Bathtub) to the Call to Adventure (Wink's Disappearance) to the Refusal of the Call (Hushpuppy's reaction to Wink's return and the implications of the marks on his chest, the burning down of her own house) to Crossing the Threshold (The Storm) to the last steps Resurrection (Going to the Elysian Fields) and Returning with the Elixir (the Gator Hushpuppy feeds to Wink to help him transition, and her acceptance of now being alone in the world), the entire film's structure adheres to it. I'm not saying we have to agree the message is bad or not. But that you saw Hushpuppy as a character who was forced to live through her father and was forced to be on her own is a large part of the Hero's Journey. Most characters are forced on to their path. But that's most movies. THE BEST MAN: The main character is forced onto his path when an advanced copy of his book is given to his friends before they've learned that some fictionalized parts of the story are indeed based on real life. In REGARDING HENRY: The main character is forced on their path after he loses his memory and he's pushed to realize that he the old version of himself is ironically the villain he has to metaphorically slay if he wants to be happy and heal his family. In DO THE RIGHT THING: Mookie is forced into a battle of wills between Sal and the neighborhood even though all he wants is to remain neutral and "to just get paid." Characters being forced into change is pretty much storytelling 101--and is something way too many filmmakers don't utilize effectively enough in their films. That in and of itself isn't a bad thing.

• hmmm | September 12, 2012 3:40 PM

  Whether we agree or not if it is a bad message, there is no denying that the message is present and can be received. Jurnee Smollett's character fought back to say the least... Those examples that you provide for Hushpuppy don't communicate agency to me. I agree, Hushpuppy can grow up to be something- who knows. But is she a hero now? Nope. She is a protagonist/main character. Now I understand what you are saying in regard to story structure/filmmaker/screenwriter terms in regard to the "hero and journey." Essentially the hero you refer to is an ordinary protagonist to me but the hero I'm talking fights back and overcomes a great obstacle by using something from within or their source of agency... Hushpuppy endured and lived through her father (including his beliefs and perspective on life) until she had no choice but to be on her own. That's my humble opinion.

• Charles Judson | September 12, 2012 3:03 PM

  1) Anna Paquin's performance in THE PIANO and Jurnee Smollett's performance in EVE'S BAYOU were praised for their representation of young girls as well. However, I don't know many people that encouraged young girls to see either film. I'm sure there will be those who will want to show BoTSW to their daughters or any other young women in their lives. It's still a leap to deem anything as a bad message because kids may or may not see it, especially if they weren't the target audience. Showing children things that are just beyond their grasp is what adults should do, but it's incumbent on them to know what a kid can or cannot handle and process. 2) Where's the agency? When Wink tries to put her on the bus she decides to stay, that's agency. When she goes to the Elysian fields it's her choice to crossover, no one else has to tell her that it even exists, or that she should go. It's very much in parallel with moments in films like PAN'S LABRYINTH. 3) When she comes back to feed--with the food from the woman who as at minimum a surrogate for her mother--Wink, who has been shown feeding her every morning when he grills the chicken, it's a metaphorical shift that indicates Hushpuppy is now essentially on her own. Without mother or father, she is now the parent. That doesn't mean her change is complete, it just means she's started another transition. The Hero's Journey is not always about complete change. Luke Skywalker isn't a Jedi Knight at the end of Star Wars, he's started to become one. Neo hasn't actually freed people from The Matrix, he's only become The One at the end. The beauty and power of BoTSW is that Hushpuppy could grow up to leader of a new Bathtub or she could become someone worse than her father Wink. It's her choice. 4) From the moment Wink first disappears to when Hushpuppy runs off to get the medicine to help him, that entire passage strongly mirrors the call to action in the hero's journey. The fact that the medicine returns later in the film, doesn't do any good, and Hushpuppy is forced to accept that Wink is dying and accept his death is classic Hero's Journey. Even the film THE LAST DRAGON both honors and parodies "the object that will save a life or impart wisdom or grant you powers" moment a bit when the medallion Leroy retrieves is just a belt buckle. And nearly every culture has at least one major story about a hero who travels to hell, hades or the land of the dead to retrieve something, somebody or some piece of knowledge.

• hmmm | September 12, 2012 2:24 PM

  @Charles Judson, I didn't say the film was made for kids. But I'm quite sure kids will see it, as they do many films that are not made for them. And with the way in which Hushpuppy's performance is lauded, I'm sure many young black girls will be encouraged to see it. I totally agree that in our toughest times our characters are put to the test and that makes compelling stories. I'm not talking about what can make or break a conflict, or what should have been rearranged in the storytelling structure. What's done is done and screened right? The messages are clear as day and a child can receive it. And my argument is that many young black girls receive this message on a regular. I repeat, if we can agree that even well crafted stories can contain messages such as these then we can actually focus on discussing the message and the potential impact it can have if it is sent and **received** over and over again. I didn't describe the "hero's journey" in regard to Hushpuppy. See there is a difference between overcoming something and surviving something. A hero fights back in some shape or form (not just survive). Where is Hushpuppy's agency? What does she fight back against? All she did was look some beasts in the eye...Interesting film but that message and Hushpuppy being championed as hero and a force of nature....ha!

• Charles Judson | September 12, 2012 1:49 PM

  @HMMM 1) This film wasn't made specifically for kids. 2) You've just described the hero's journey and several thousand years of storytelling. 3) In terms of a character arc, unmotivated change is dramatically boring and the lack of conflict in a film makes for less than engaging films. If you believe Hushpuppy needed something else to motivate her, cool. In life, it's not the good times that force us to change, it is those hardships. And in life, we root for our friends at their lowest and celebrate with them at their highest, or cry or get frustrated when they fail. I watch enough films to know that no conflict, undefined conflict, or underwhelming conflict is cinematic death. 4) If you make this a more general conversation you could say this about the possibly mixed messages of ANNIE (rich people will save you), MATILDA (magic powers will save you), PAN'S LABRYINTH (mythical creatures can save you) or PIPPI LONGSTOCKING (you don't need a father to raise yourself and you can travel the world on your own). I understand your points and they have some validity. Just look at how many stories about Black mothers sacrificing themselves have come out over the years. Especially in the 1980s and 1990s. I was only 16 when it came out, but I could remember having trouble with the mixed messages of A MOTHER'S COURAGE: THE MARY THOMAS STORY as an example. At the time, and even now it still happens, it felt like the billionth film or show telling us how awesome it is when poor Black women give up so much to be mothers. They're such noble folk. The Stock Cop Show Black Mother who tries so hard to keep her boy from "joining that damn gang" is as standard as the cops themselves. So there's a lot of normative lessons films and shows push that can be problematic. But, I'm not sure your points hold up when Wink alternates between treating Hushpuppy as a boy and as a girl. Transgender treatment isn't considered a social normative, not like motherhood would be.

• hmmm | September 12, 2012 12:35 PM

  Excuse me. May I interject? If we can agree that a film can be engaging, tell a well crafted story, be technically proficient films, etc and still send BAD MESSAGES, then I think maybe we all can have this conversation about some of the bad messages a child can walk away with. Let's see... A girl young girl that wants to please her father (abusive father), attempts to embody his values and perspective, even when it is possibly damaging to her, and is then celebrated as a strong perserving character who returns to the abusive place she inhabited, to care for the person who mentally and physically abused her (Call it tough love if you want. I bet Hushpupy would have preferred to do without it) to take on some beasts? This mirrors the very messages sent to many YOUNG BLACK GIRLS everyday to put others before them, see the world and themselves through others who don't necessarily see them with agency, and endure hardship to be deemed a hero rather than setting out to do something heroic on their own without a frightening or an abusive catalyst. In short, many Black girls are sent such signals that their heroism will only come after they've endured hardship. Also, the very notion that young girls- many Black girls- are ripped of their childhood by being pushed to grow up too fast and develop this "understanding," this so called wisdom that pushes them to look beyond what they are experiencing in their young bodies and more toward an "understanding," (that inhibits them from fleshing out their emotions of hurt and pain) It is an "understanding" in which they gravitate toward since adults will praise them for it like some are doing with Hushpuppy... I wonder if this film was screened for a bunch of young girls 3 - 9 years old...would they consider Hushpuppy a hero?

• James Evans, Expound | September 12, 2012 11:35 AM

  James, I'm interested to know what negative message the film conveys about black girls. Please elaborate.

• Kenneth | September 12, 2012 10:53 AM

  False, ignorant thoughts, written by someone hiding behind a false identity. That's what the comment section on S&A has become? *SMDH*

• Ms G | September 9, 2012 7:12 PMReply

  I think it's interesting that lots of y'all that disagree with Ms. hooks' review also feel the need to make personal attacks against her. "methinks she wish she wrote it first"? "trying desperately to stay relevant"? "i actually (now used to) enjoy her work"? I think she hurt your little hipster feelings and now you're getting all defensive. "how dare she say such?"? Well she dares because she can and her highly educated opinions are worth a hundred of y'all's.

• lauren | September 9, 2012 8:27 PM

  @Darnell--enough of you regurgitating what I meant in my statement: "you are what you eat doesn't apply" out of context when it was followed by: "I can think of a whole lot of other films with black folks that she should review for their base impact." meaning that there is worse imagery of black folks in the media that would benefit from her attention rather than an art film like BOTSW. Get it? Not that such a critique would do any good because the folks who enjoy films like White Chicks and shows like Basketball Wives... and I may be going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing they don't know who bell hooks is.

• Darnell | September 9, 2012 7:47 PM

  @ MS G, the "How dare she say such" was directed at Lauren, not Ms Hooks. Lauren said the audience for BOTSW was -- some how -- more erudite/ knowledgeable/aware than those who enjoy comedies and fluff. So they cannot be affected by what they see, hear or the opinions of others. Yeah, imagine that... there's no racists, bigots and followers among those who saw BOTSW. More importantly, anyone outside that crowd can't be educated. Well, that's what Lauren was implying. So it was she (Lauren) who should be ashamed of herself for making such a ridiculous statement like this--> "And the "you are what you eat" comment does not apply to the educated demographic who went to see this film". And as Turner said "Don't assume that there aren't equally educated people here"

• Turner | September 9, 2012 7:20 PM

  Don't assume that there aren't equally educated people here... or did Ms Hooks go to school all by herself?

• Brooklynben | September 8, 2012 6:03 PMReply

  Any drama that grabs us does so because we identify with it and it tantalizes our senses: therefor EVERY story from Gilgamesh and Homer to "Do the Right Thing" is a pornography of something and EVERY character is a stereotype or a "kind" at some level: especially the heros and villains of those stories. Storytelling only works because it uses shortcuts to our emotions: that doesn't mean that the product is less worthy. Also: one commenter on New Black Man blog puts it all front and center: "I don't trust Whiteness to present Blackness in a way that is either honest or true." This is sad: once the color of the director or writer is taken into account it all changes. With this statement all conversation ENDS: with this statement art ENDS. If we cannot trust each other to at least try and present someone of a different color through art then what the hell are we all doing? That sentence really says it all: but at least it would have made for a much shorter and more succinct review!

• Darnell | September 8, 2012 7:44 PM

  "Storytelling only works because it uses shortcuts to our emotions: that doesn't mean that the product is less worthy." Your entire comment was very deep in subtle ways, but that sentence spoke volumes. If I'd change anything, I'd take out the word "only" and use a word other than "shortcuts". Storytelling works BECAUSE they engage our emotions - period. The more emotions and feelings the story motivates in a 2 hour film, the more satisfying the experience. The problems occur -- as you pointed out -- when "critics" and those with their own personal agendas, participate in "paralysis of analysis", also known as "analysis paralysis". In layman terms it's the paralyzing effect of OVER-THINKING a situation. In respect to BOTSW, we've witnessed people sharing their tears and overall enjoyment; feelings and emotions they experienced from watching the film, but now we have... ah... you know... "other folks" expressing analysis paralysis. I've never fully understood their reasoning or motives behind over-analyzing a film and it's director (someone will have to tell me) but I believe I understand the people behind the pen.

• DoRunRun | September 8, 2012 12:54 PMReply

  @DJ, that analysis of E.T. was so brilliant I find myself wanting to view the movie again to find all its supposed faults. And that leads me to my point: the movie uses flawed characters to reach a "higher" or elevated metaphorical point. This is what fiction does. Hooks argued that the movie, in essence, relies on flawed characterisation (or stereotypes), but what work of fiction doesn't. Important within this critique however is that Hooks argues that there are real world ramifications associated with the depiction of flawed black characters, that somehow black people will ultimately pay a social cost for the depiction of a "wild" little black girl living amongst an interracial and inter generational community of poor, anti-modern, folk. What's more, that because her mother was not a major visual presence in the film, the film is flawed. Ms. Hooks, letmeaskyouthisquestion: Whatever happened to your ability to trust that black people understand the at-times beautiful spaces between fact and fiction? Or must we continually believe that the spectors of Hattie McDaniel and Steppin Fetchit reside everywhere including Hushpuppy? What movies do you like and could you please writes about those? And if there was a movie that saved the black image from the white gaze (the interest, I assume, which underpins your critical obsessions), is it any good....does it work as an actual movie?

• DoRunRun | September 26, 2012 12:05 PM

  @Bennett. I think you should run-run and read my comment again. My critique was on the nature of Hook's emphasis on the social ramifications of fiction. You are certainly passionate about the subject and I suggest to explore the issues around this film and fine tune your argument for the sake of clarity and to help others see your point more succinctly. But first, I think you need a hug.

• Bennett | September 12, 2012 11:54 AM

  DoRunRun, ReRun, Run DMC . . . I don't even care. Whomever my sentiments apply to, let them take it all in. I don't care if it's Bell Hooks or anybody supporting her views in this comment section. Either way, you know WTF I'm saying.

• Bennett, Reread | September 12, 2012 11:33 AM

  Bennett you need to reread this comment; your rage is misdirected. Dorunrun was paraphrasing and criticizing bell hooks.

• Bennett | September 12, 2012 11:24 AM

  "there are real world ramifications associated with the depiction of flawed black characters, that somehow black people will ultimately pay a social cost for the depiction of a "wild" little black girl living amongst an interracial and inter generational community of poor, anti-modern, folk."-- Are you serious? Of which ramifications do you speak? Are you not aware that "wild" black folks actually do exist already in this country? Do you really believe this fictional film will have a greater impact on the way others see us than the non-fictional evening news, where we're commonly seen in all our "wild" glory? Take your head out of your @ss, man. It's art. It's fantasy. It's not a reflection of black people, because it's not real. A lot of you seem to be so uncomfortable with it that it makes me wonder if you watched 'Beasts Of The Southern Wild' and saw yourself.

• LANA | September 7, 2012 11:12 PMReply

  I really respect and enjoy ms. hook's work and I do see some validity in her commentary. Actually, I see a lot of validity in it. Since I've been out of graduate school for more than a decade I, like many people, don't really have the time she does to sit and dissect any medium to the degree that she does or did; since as a scholar that's what she's paid to do. I do thank Tambay for sharing it with us. I really loved the move and it made me cry and I especially love little Miss Wallis. But after reading hook's commentary I feel torn and almost ashamed that I -- WE, the audience; especially blacks -- somehow weren't intelligent enough or aware enough to view it from her perspective.

• lauren | September 8, 2012 11:42 AM

  @Lana-Go with your first impression of the film and the emotions it inspired... Ms hooks opinion is like hearing a vegan's dietary analysis of a juicy hot dog you just enjoyed.

• Anwar | September 8, 2012 12:17 AM

  But everyone can have their own perspective and she's not any more right than anyone else no matter how much she dissects it. We shouldn't put her on that high of a pedestal just because of our respect for her. That's not a slight against her at all. She's allowed to see the film in this way. But it's dangerous to think that people aren't "aware enough" or "intelligent enough" if they don't walk away with HER perspective. That's going too far. If you read her words and see the film in a different light after reading them, fine. She's done her job for someone somewhere. But that's not how it should be for everyone. And many have come out of this film with her perspective before she shared it.

• LeonRaymond | September 7, 2012 6:22 PMReply

  I just wish she gave the same disdain she wrote about in reference to this film that she did not do at all in trying to justify some of Gangster Rap and what she called the glorious power of Tupac !

• Helluva | September 8, 2012 1:38 PM

  Yeah, I always thought that was curious how she makes such exceptions. I remember her making mad excuses for Ice-Cube's music. Maybe it's a lack of courage on her part. Conversely, I've heard about recent "feminist" attacks on Lupe Fiasco regarding his "Bitch Bad" video. That's crazy, until you realize he doesn't have the clout or cache of 50 or Jay-Z (who Oprah drolled over while slumming in Marcy despite her tirade against Ludachris over misogynist rap lyrics). And Dream Hampton recently went HAM on Too Short despite her constant name-dropping of "good friends" Biggie & Jay-Z. I guess we ALL love a WINNER and money (and success) speak volumes even in the world of feminists...

• Critical Acclaim | September 7, 2012 1:54 PMReply

  bell hooks is right. good for her for speaking on it despite the small minds who seek to denigrate her out of their our ignorance.

• Dankwa Brooks | September 7, 2012 1:50 PMReply

  @XI "What hooks and so many of you call poverty, I saw as a richness that's lacking in the world around me. I saw a father who was in no way perfect, but knew his time was running short and wanted to prepare his daughter the best way he knew how. Did he impart his misogynistic ideals? Absolutely, as many men do...because that's life. I saw a people who needed no validation for their way of life. And due to the filmmakers' brilliant choice to cast local talent, there was a genuineness to the film - from the Cajun accents right down to the mother's face tattoo. I didn't see a fairytale. Dysfunctional relationships, social and health issues were present and helped to marry the metaphysical concepts to reality. I LOVED the film!" TOTALLY AGREE!
  
  As I told a filmmaker friend yesterday, I'm not going to impose my metropolitan sensibilities on the people depicted in this film.

• tamisawyer | September 10, 2012 3:18 PM

  Well stated.

• Anthony E. | September 7, 2012 3:15 AMReply

  The film is overhyped and overpraised. Yes, the young actress is a grand marvel and should be nominated come Oscar season and could nab an independent spirit award but the film is a whimper. I love hand held shaky camera films like Blair Witch & Cloverfield but this film takes the cake. You will be sea sick and want to get out of the bathtub, granted you wake up in time, cause I did snore a bit during this offering that was so celebrated.

• MLM | September 7, 2012 12:13 AMReply

  She has some valid points. There were moments when I thought this film is trying too hard to be deep. I constantly wondered if they cast a girl to play a boy. I just couldn't understand why she was dressed the way she was. I moved beyond the close-ups of her butt and knew the film must get better b/c of all the good reviews. The other day I asked my friend could the film be a movie for kids b/c the impending doom of being attacked by warthogs just seemed like something only a child could relate to and fear. Not like small children but for teens. I watched the directors short film that has a similar theme and I am also from Louisiana so the subject of the flooded city resonates with me. I enjoyed the film it made me cry and I would watch it again. I think Bell's critique is a bit exaggerated (not just b/c of the length). I do feel it is left open ended and that there is so much room for a sequel "the kids of the bathtub" and what is next for them. Of course they are totally using black pain to tell a compelling story. This time around they actually have a good story.

• mlm | September 6, 2012 11:41 PMReply

  awh man should I read the comments first? I read about 70% of her critique.

• Adrienne | September 6, 2012 11:09 PMReply

  She's way off base here. Sadly, she's starting to sound like an academic who's trying desperately to stay relevant... and I actually (now used to) like her work. I had the feeling that people wouldn't be ready for a young, Black girl who's the heroine. First, the eroticizing that hooks speaks of is in her own mind. When I see a child, I'm not thinking sexually --but apparently she does and is implying that others are as well. Second, she's way off base to compare Hushpuppy to a prototypical mammy figure, while at the same time sexualizing the character --the two don't go together: Stereotypes 101. Also, it's unfair to stigmatize the Hushpuppy character as a "modern primitive" when the whole community has an obvious animist connection --not just Hushpuppy. AND the flashback scene of Wink describing Hushpuppy's mother is implying "her hot ass turns on burners on the stove" is inaccurate. You never see the mother's face which is how Hushpuppy sees the mother because she left while she was still a baby. Last, the "white man" who "rescues" the girl is an obvious Charon (Ferryman) analogy/figure and is transferring the girls from one realm to another, and Hushpuppy is a Hecate character --like the one who helps the "lost" Persephone in Hades and carries gifts from Persephone (pomegranates in Greek mythology and fried alligator, in this case) to heal those in the other realm which can also be used as a balm for their transition to the "other side." bell hooks is way off base and I totally disagree with her. Too bad.

• Faith | September 7, 2012 1:36 PM

  I like you, Adrienne. In addition to agreeing with you, you get big ups for the Persephone analogy. That didn't even occur to me when I saw it.

• Tahir Jetter | September 6, 2012 10:39 PMReply

  A crude pornography of violence? Reaching. Lots of reaching in that assessment.

• Hmmm | September 8, 2012 11:03 AM

  @NYUFANTASY don't give up. They have a wait list...

• NYUFANTASY | September 7, 2012 4:16 AM

  Lots of brainwashing at NYU apparently.

• Xi | September 6, 2012 10:20 PMReply

  So wait (Before I get to hooks), did anyone else conclude that her mother was the woman she meets on the jook joint boat. 1. Several times Hushpuppy called out to her and she called out in that specific direction. 2. The woman from the boat is the voice we hear Hushpuppy imagine to be her mother's voice. 3. Her father says that Hushpuppy was so beautiful when she was born that her mother swam away...no one ever mentions her dying. And 4. Wink tells the story of her mother shooting an alligator and frying up the tail...what does the woman make for Hushpuppy to take home? Gator tails. And as a side note: when Hushpuppy makes the comment about only being held twice in her life, IMO, she was referring to A)the time her father held her when she was born and B) that very moment being held by her mother. IMO, it was in that moment she decided to leave her mother's arms and return to her father. He was the one who had taken care of her from birth. This is an example of how the film can be "ingested" in many different ways. What hooks and so many of you call poverty, I saw as a richness that's lacking in the world around me. I saw a father who was in no way perfect, but knew his time was running short and wanted to prepare his daughter the best way he knew how. Did he impart his misogynistic ideals? Absolutely, as many men do...because that's life. I saw a people who needed no validation for their way of life. And due to the filmmakers' brilliant choice to cast local talent, there was a genuineness to the film - from the Cajun accents right down to the mother's face tattoo. I didn't see a fairytale. Dysfunctional relationships, social and health issues were present and helped to marry the metaphysical concepts to reality. I LOVED the film!

• Lauren | September 7, 2012 7:38 PM

  @XI- I couldn't help but cry when Hushpuppy said she'd only been held twice in her life when she was in the woman/mother's arms dancing... made me miss my mom so much.

• MLM | September 7, 2012 12:33 AM

  It was totally her mom in the brothel.

• Lauren | September 6, 2012 8:45 PMReply

  When someone as intelligent as Ms Hooks sees things that aren't there, one has to wonder about her inner vision. BOTSW was a refreshingly creative, poetic and original film with an outstanding performance from a young girl directed by a sensitive and extremely talented young man- period. And the "you are what you eat" comment does not apply to the educated demographic who went to see this film. I can think of a whole lot of other films with black folks that she should review for their base impact. Me thinks she wish she wrote it first.

• Darnell | September 9, 2012 1:17 AM

  "the typical audience for films like BOTSW as well as other art house fare, tend to be more erudite than the people who thoroughly enjoy White Chicks, Billy Madison, Transformers, Basketball Wives, Jersey Shore- et al. ~ by Lauren. Now Charles, since the cat has Lauren's tongue, maybe you can be the bigger "man" -- for her. I mean, since art house folks are more "erudite", there's no way they can be effected by what they eat, see or hear - right? Yeaaaaaah riiiiiiight. Pleeeeease. Why didn't she come back and admit a slip of the tongue? Then again, maybe she really believes those who enjoy light affair such as Billy Madison and Transformers are less erudite than those who viewed BOTSW? Personally, I believe her suggestion is insulting to everyone who enjoys the genres of Transformers and comedies. How dare she say such??!!

• Darnell | September 7, 2012 5:02 PM

  Lauren's point was NEVER "underestimated" (that does not apply) and nothing you've said Charles, has changed her point. She's still off-base. Lauren said " And the YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT comment does not apply to the educated demographic who went to see this film". Her comment was taken from the following words of Mrs. Bell Hooks: "Buddhist teacher Thich Nhat Hahn tells students that putting images inside our heads is just like eating. And if “you are what you eat” it is equally true that to a grave extent we are what we see". So it makes no different how many "points higher" one area is over another, nor where film festivals and art house theater is located. And surely (as Charles said) this has nothing to do with who's smarter and who's not. The Buddhist teacher's phrase can actually be traced to an 1800's French wariter and politician: [Tell me what you eat and I will tell you what you are]. And a German philosopher who wrote "man is what he eats". They were stating that the food one eats has a bearing on one's state of mind and health. So it DOES NOT MATTER where a theater is located, nor the education-level-of-most-film-festivals-for-college graduates (That never fit this discussion). The phrase(s) states that EVERYONE can be affected by what one eats and hears! So again, how can Lauren qualify or support her statement? She can't. The BOTSW audience are first and foremost HUMANS, regardless of where they reside or what "college" they attended. And we can't change Ms Hooks reference.

• Charles Judson | September 7, 2012 11:30 AM

  Don't underestimate Lauren's point. The average education level of most film festivals for college and post-college graduates is 10 to 20% higher than the surrounding area. Including associates degrees and those who have some college education, the number jumps up another 10 to 15% points higher. The cities that have and sustain arthouse theaters this holds true as well. This has nothing to do with who's smarter and who's not. It more often has to do with exposure, what your peer group is listening to and watching and developing these viewing habits at a young age. Folks coming to Indiewire are more likely to either have some college education or in lieu of that, participate in their community in ways that makes them much more informed and engaged about independent film. As we talk about how do we build up Black filmmaking this is something that has to be addressed and can't be ignored. One can wish for Essence to cover more indie film, but no one is going to that magazine to know about films anymore than folks are picking up Cosmo to do the same. It's not that uneducated people can't enjoy, or wouldn't go to a film like BOTSW. It's that if you polled a Black viewer and asked them if they heard of WINTER'S BONE, COMPLIANCE, THE LAST FALL, et cetera, then they are just as likely to have heard of BOTSW. And if they've heard of THE LAST FALL then they've probably heard of WOLF. This folks are reading the blogs, the papers and magazines that talk about those films. They are hearing about these films from friends. I received a sharp reminder of how all this "works" that earlier this year when I was asked for advice on films someone should program and I suggested THE UNDER SHEPERD as a possibility. This is was a college educated film professional, and based off their reaction they hadn't heard of it or really considered it. Independent film and festivals and film programming is my world so I'm reading about them constantly, this person does not, so on one level I wasn't surprised that film didn't register more quickly with this person. On the other hand, at least on the Black Film Festival circuit it's been doing well enough that anticipated a "We already talked to them." I'm not dumping on that person, but I do want to highlight that we've got to really tackle how we raise the awareness and do it organically and in ways that brings in and retains fans. Hop over to the rest of IndieWIRE and you'll find discussions of innovative events and programs like Rooftop Films and Gen Art's Film Festival going back years. These are two events that have been able to get beyond filmmakers and the die hard cinephiles to engage more average film goers, even the ones who may know about BOTSW but who aren't in an arthouse theater more than a few times a year at best. If some films are to succeed, filmmakers have to recognize who is and isn't in their sphere of influence and most importantly interest, and figure out how to reach beyond that.

• lauren | September 7, 2012 11:03 AM

  @Wanda- Yes, that's pretty much what I'm saying; different strokes for different folks.

• WANDA HIGHTOWER | September 7, 2012 10:43 AM

  Thank you Lauren. I now believe I understand what you're saying. You believe that the atypical art house audience are looking for a deeper experience than one would achieve from watching White Chicks, Jersey Shore and Transformers... et al . Therefore they would tend to be more knowledgeable on the dynamics of films on a whole. And, their love of the "craft" necessitates a deeper understanding or look into the characters/story and not jump to rash decisions/conclusions. Am I close to what you're saying? Please come back and tell me if I am. My curiosity has been peaked or I am just plain-old fashioned nosey :-) Thank you.

• lauren | September 7, 2012 9:26 AM

  @Wanda- What I meant and I stand by my opinion, that the typical audience for films like BOTSW as well as other art house fare, tend to be more erudite than the people who thoroughly enjoy White Chicks, Billy Madison, Transformers, Basketball Wives, Jersey Shore- et al. Of course as human beings, we all react to the visual and aural stimuli you mentioned and there are exceptions to every rule but would a studio be wise to spend their advertising dollars for BOTSW for an ad spot on Jersey Shore or The Master on Basketball Wives?

• Wanda Hightower | September 7, 2012 8:46 AM

  @ Lauren, if I can intrude ( new visitor) in your conversation with the commentator Darnell, I believe what he? is saying is very basic. 1. Art house has no specific genre. 2. The art-house patrons have no specific "class" of individuals. 3. The film Beast Of The Southern Wild has been viewed by individuals from all walks of life. 4. The film watching experience = Sit down in a theater of various sizes. The goal for most is INSTANTANEOUS STIMULATION (i.e, mental stimulation by way of engaging dialog "witty dialog" "engrossing conversation" etc), stimulating suspenseful scenes, dramatic scenes, scenes which compels one to laughter, scenes that compels one to tears, car chase & crash scenes, sex scenes, gun fights, loud explosions, scenes that shock, awe and surprise, as in horror films, mood altering music, special effects, great CGI, magnificent costumes, great acting that assists the viewer in suspending "life" for those moments; that setting, place and time. Lauren, in a nut shell, that's the movie watching experience -- instant stimulation which has little to do with each individual's "education" 5. If said film requires a viewer to have a deep understanding of the subject matter or requires the moviegoer to have some sort of historical knowledge, it may assist one's viewing pleasure to have those "connections". 6. Going back to your original comment of "the you are what you eat does not apply to the educated demographic who went to see this film"... It's easy to see Lauren, why the commentator Darnell questioned your understanding of the film and your viewpoint on those who viewed it. Personally, I have to agree that not only is film watching a subjective experience, it's also a very personal experience. And ultimately ( I agree) it has little to do with a person's education because it's all about an emotional ride, which by and large is NOT connected to one's backgrond/"education". Maybe you're speaking from the viewpoint of a professional film critic? Yet, even so, they still possess the same character flaws of the average moviegoer, hence they too will be affected by "you are what you eat". If we are missing something, please explain -- if you will?

• Darnell | September 7, 2012 12:50 AM

  "Are you actually saying that "educational prowess" has no bearing on how an individual reacts to what's on screen?". That is EXACTLY what I am saying and what many have a hard time understanding -- or accepting. Does an education affect how you feel pain? NO! Does a deep education tell you when to laugh or cry? NO! Does your education have any bearing on what engages you on the screen (i.e, the color of the actors, the subject matter, the genre, the setting, the music)? NO-NO-NO! Does a science major enjoy a comedy more or less than an electrical engineer or doctor? **shrugging shoulders**. Can an art major be part of a Michael Bay audience? YES! Do Doctors and Lawyers enjoy Madea? Absolutely! But lets go back, who are these people in "the expansive few of the art house crowd"??? Seriously... who-are-they? Are you not implying that they have special emotional receptors and are more intelligent than those outside the "art house" crowd? Do you not understand what you're saying??!! You're still essentially saying those in the "art house" crowd, UNLIKE those outside that crowd, have a better sense of understanding and therefore they're not and cannot be swayed nor influenced by images on the screen. C'mon Lauren, you cannot have it both ways. And NO, a viewer that enjoys White Chicks may not enjoy Al Freeman in The Dutchman and visa-versa! But it has nothing to do with a better education. But CHECK THIS... he MAY ENJOY BOTH of them, which again, has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with a superior education. And mind you, a person that enjoys Tyler P and Michael Bay, could ALSO love Beast of a Southern Wild. So please, what the **** are you talking about? Surely you're not saying BOTSW is strictly reserved for some ambiguous art house - filmmaker demographic??? And again, if there was this mystical audience, how do you know who they are and who went to see the movie? PUHLEASE Lauren, are you sure you know what you're trying to say? I believe you're missing the basics of the movie watching experience.

• lauren | September 6, 2012 11:56 PM

  @Darnell=Puhlease! What I'm saying is the expansive view atypical of the art house -filmmaker demographic is vastly different from the average multiplex, Michael Bay-Tyler Perry audience. Are you actually saying that "educational prowess" has no bearing on how an individual reacts to what's on screen? And thereby a viewer who admired Al Freeman Jr. in The Dutchman would equally enjoy the Wayans in White Chicks? Never did I imply who is more adept in discerning right from wrong; that's your interpretation.

• Darnell | September 6, 2012 9:24 PM

  "And the "you are what you eat" comment does not apply to the educated demographic who went to see this film". Therein lies the largest misunderstanding "we" have in these kinds of debates. An individuals educational prowess has absolutely nothing to do with how "they", the individual reacts/feels about an image on the screen. To believe differently, is saying only those in specific "educated demographics" has feelings and emotions, and everyone else has no beliefs, attitudes, thoughts and emotions. And if that's the case, those outside those demographics are the same folks who are easily swayed, influenced or mislead by images on the screen - huh. In essence, you're saying they cannot discern right from wrong and have no history nor experiences. Besides, who exactly are the folks who went to see this film? Yeah... EXACTLY. Surely you can see how the comment "you are what you eat" is a porous phrase which has no place in this discussion.

• Charles Judson | September 6, 2012 8:13 PMReply

  It's hard for me to know I how I feel about her critique beyond disagreeing with her conclusions. I'm very much with where she starts at many points, and on some level understands where lands. However, it all feels so perfunctory and predictable because it's pretty much the same critique leveled at so many films and media for so many years. I would need greater context and more appropriate comparisons. Like what was her response to a film like PAN'S LABYRINTH or the role of gender and power in films like SPY KIDS. Not sure why a film like THE HELP is the more appropriate film to bring up when you have everything from SOUNDER to Raven-Symone's Olivia to use. Even EVE'S BAYOU which deals with fathers and daughters, is set in the South, and delves into the sexual would be good. And why not point out that, even if you are pro BOTSW or against, the journey of little Black Girls even close to what Hushpuppy has experienced has been in books, not TV or Film. THE BLUEST EYE for the longest time was probably the most prominent exposure anyone got to a Black Girl under the age of 14, so I can understand why Hushpuppy could be disturbing or troubling. When she defaults to THE HELP or OUR GANG I can only roll my eyes and be more skeptical than open minded. OUR GANG? Hell, THE LITTLE RASCALS movie came out in 1994 and using that as even a second point of comparison along with OUR GANG to chart how Black kids are protrayed would have added more context. I'm always down for hearing contrary takes on things, but I'm burnt out on views that lean so heavily on what's come before and don't feel fresh or expansive. It's like our criticism has one foot still stuck in 1974.

• J | September 6, 2012 6:49 PMReply

  I walked out

• METOO | September 7, 2012 4:18 AM

  I wish I had. Just gawd awful and offensive.

• P | September 6, 2012 8:28 PM

  To get some popcorn?

• Darnell | September 6, 2012 6:41 PMReply

  WAIT one damn minute. I love and respect Bell Hooks like a mother and wise leader, but just bring me the story without the pimp-slap setup. Analyze this--> "Buddhist teacher Thich Nhat Hahn tells students that putting images inside our heads is just like eating. And if "you are what you eat" it is equally true that to a grave extent we are what we see." Equally true?! That's Okie-doke 101. That script is nothing more than philosophy and theory molded into one big ball of conjecture trying to impersonate a fact. In other words, in the land of 20 dollar words it's merely a hypothesis. Of course there's bits of truths in Hahn's voice. For instance, if one eats a poisonous fruit, it goes without question they could die - but. But most of what we digest is not of the poisonous variety. More importantly, there are filters in our system which protect us. There's gastric acids, the liver, kidney and germ eating bacteria (just to name a few) which filters out impurities in our body . But following along/behind the ambiguous suggestion that we are what we eat and what we see, there's one BIG filter which brings this issue (BOTSW) right back home where it belongs. That home is the RECIPIENT'S own brain. It's certainly grand and mighty (not to mention woefully shortsighted) for the clairvoyants, superior orators and self appointed leaders to suggest how each of us "should" and/or WILL perceive a film's images and the corresponding messages. But again, without a doubt, each of us will respond differently. That's a fact! Now here's something to consider. Each of us has seen deplorable images of African Americans on the screen. All of us have been subjected to racists and the incendiary nature of their rhetoric (overt and covert) - right? Who hasn't been called a nigger - by someone - right? Here's my basic point. Whenever there's an "event" a thought WILL follow, which we then process, and "action" ensues. Consequently, it is not the world or white people that causes MY actions, but MY beliefs, attitudes, thoughts and emotions. In short, each and every one of us reacts differently to an exact or similar stimuli (i.e, words, images, food, music, etc). Only a fool or a soothsayer or a pimp would assert how "we", YOU, me or they SHOULD feel or WILL react upon viewing Beast of The Southern Wild. Seriously, every time we find ourselves muddled in these same old words of the self-serving prognosticators and film critics, I think an alarm system, like the music of the Isley Brothers should ring out --> IT'S YO THANG! "I'm not trying to run your life, I know you wanna do what's right. It's your thing, do what you wanna do, nobody can tell you who to sock it to. Don't be no fool and don't listen to one, if "Beast" is your thang, go have fun. It's your thing, do what YOU wanna do, make's me no difference who you give your mind to"

• Xi | September 7, 2012 3:55 PM

  I'm with you, Hmmm...something's fishy here.

• Hmmm | September 7, 2012 10:14 AM

  Darnell.... CareyCarey? Darnell.....CareyCarey?

• Carl | September 7, 2012 9:52 AM

  Very good analysis! "Only a fool or a soothsayer, or a clairvoyant, or self appointed leader, or a pimp would assert how "WE", YOU, me or they SHOULD FEEL or WILL REACT upon viewing Beast of The Southern Wild... IT'S YO THANG! do what you wanna do, nobody can tell you... "

• ALM | September 6, 2012 5:07 PMReply

  1. The second "here" link in blue links back to this page as opposed to bell hook's page. 2. I also wondered about the storyline surrounding her mother. The info that I read on this site and other sites prior to seeing the movie, I expected her to get more closure regarding her mother. 3. It would be interesting to see/hear a response to bell hooks from the film's director.

• Faith | September 6, 2012 3:29 PMReply

  I respect bell hooks' intellect. And I didn't FALL OVER in love with BOTSW like most people did (but I did like the film). But when hooks writes at the end of her essay that "Hushpuppy has not been at the center of BOTSW. She is marginalized..." I was like: What. film. did. YOU. watch?! How can she be "marginalized" when Hushpuppy is not only in EVERY SCENE in the film, but is also the NARRATOR?! Is she marginalized in LIFE, as a young, poor Black girl living in a world that typically doesn't give a damn about young, poor Black girls? Yes. But the thing (of beauty?) is that she doesn't even know she's supposed to feel marginalized. In spite of all of its foibles and flaws, "The Bathtub" has insulated Hushpuppy from a world...a media...a political system that would place her in THAT BOX of being the downtrodden victim. In fact, a main message of this film is that all of The Bathtub's residents REJECT the exact notion hooks is placing on them. That they are hapless, marginalized victims. And ironically, they believe that possibly at their own peril. Which is why I like the way the film ended. We don't know if they will survive. And if they do, what does that mean not only from a climate change standpoint, but their own self-actualization?
  
  Back to Hushpuppy: Yes, her relationship with her father is dysfunctional. The absence of her mother is tragic. But Hushpuppy DOES have power in this film. And yes, she is being trained to be a survivor, as most Black girls have to be. That's no different from a young Black woman living in da hood or striving in academia or working in corporate America. BOTSW is not a perfect film IMO. But similar to many race-based critiques of films including "The Help" and "Precious," this is coming from a class bias that would like to have us think that all Black girls live in brownstones, go to private schools and have two loving functional parents at home. Which makes little sense considering that bell hooks herself didn't grow up rich. And all of her claims of Hushpuppy being sexualized? HUH?! Woman, please...
  
  And if you're going to criticize the film, at least learn to spell the lead actor's name correctly: Q-u-v-e-n-z-h-a-n-e!

• saadiyah | September 6, 2012 3:11 PMReply

  *****I like most of bell hooks' work, but I don't agree with her on this review of Beasts. First of all, Hushpuppy is not presented as transgendered. If you look at the picture in this post where she is in her underwear, she is clearly wearing a GIRLS undershirt (see the little bow at the top and piping around the edges) and PANTIES (not boxer shorts). Her hair doesn't scream girl because of it's lack of braids, barrettes, and other boondongles Black girls usually wear in their hair. That might because she is being raised by a man, in dire poverty and having her hair done to the outside community's satisfaction isn't a priority.
  *****I also didn't see any erotization of Hushpuppy. However, I knew this criticism was coming. Someone here had mentioned months ago why this little girl was running around in underwear. She's a six-year-old girl for heaven's sake!
  *****This movie isn't anything like Precious. There is dire poverty, but they seem to have what they need. In Beasts, Hushpuppy's father clearly loves her and shows her affection. Precious never got that at home. The physical punishment or harsh language she is subjected to in this movie probably isn't worse than beatings Black people wax nostalgic about when talking how bad kids are these days.
  ****Beasts deserves some criticism, but I think a lot of what bell hooks (and some posters here) have said is unwarranted. To each his own. I enjoyed the movie.

• Observer | September 6, 2012 2:56 PMReply

  Any comments on this thread stating, bell hooks is making ado about nothing, go on your own expedition. Sites, bloggers and critics who aren't AA, have already spoken against BOTSW, off the top of my head I know Cinemascope and LA Weekly, slighted the flick. bell is going to unjustly get pummeled with all the, "you, angry black" and/or "you, angry black woman" blows because she's the first notable thinker within the AA community, to (publicly) speak differentially.

• MN Matthews | September 6, 2012 2:09 PMReply

  Yes!!! Thank you, bell hooks. While watching the film, it took everything in me to not want to call Child Protective Services. (I only managed to do so because it is a film ;-)).
  
  I was so overdone by the emotional, physical, and mental violence that Hushpuppy endured. I walked out of there the same way I walked out of PRECIOUS wondering how on earth this child would've been able to make it in the world!

• the devil | September 6, 2012 2:03 PMReply

  say what you like about Beasts the movie (which i noticed some of the blacks don't like), but the beasts in the film (or rather those CGI pigs) kinda had cool horns. i like horns :)

• willie dynamite | September 6, 2012 1:49 PMReply

  I rushed out to see this film because of the raves and awards... only to get 'Precioused.' Enough with the oppression porn! bell hooks made some valid arguments but unfortunately they might be missed due to her verbose dissertation. That was a long review!!!!

• jeni | September 6, 2012 11:31 PM

  I'm a fan of bell.hooks, but that piece really needed some editing before she unleashed it on the web.

• Priss | September 6, 2012 11:33 AMReply

  She is right. I just don't understand why it took us so long to get true commentary like this from our intellectuals. That film is filth. Everyone's just too brainwashed to see it. Everyone can pile on and talk trash about her and this comment I've made if you want, but youre talking to yourself. Open your eyes, people.

• JusSayin | September 7, 2012 5:29 AM

  Turn the mirror around. in case you didn't know, you're no shinning star, Miss Prissy.

• Priss | September 7, 2012 4:21 AM

  Oh JusSayin/Darnell/All Your Other Monikers From The Same Person... You bore me.

• Darnell | September 6, 2012 8:48 PM

  @ Priss, but you're talking to yourself! And everyone -- else -- is too brainwashed to see it?! Poor Miss prissy Priss, turn the mirror around, look deep inside, and then you will see the ridiculous nature of your comment. Open YOUR eyes and maybe -- just maybe, sometimes, after deep contemplation and soul searching, you will stop making such asinine statements that you've become noted for. Please stop before everyone excuses you as a fool.

• David | September 6, 2012 12:44 PM

  Criticism goes only so far. If you want to "open the eyes" of folks, go out and make a better movie. Not as easy as it looks.

• Skrim | September 6, 2012 10:21 AMReply

  I was quite disappointed with the film, based on my expectations of a story that finally lets a black child have wondrous experiences like the kids in ET or Hugo. Instead it's an unrelenting exercise in poverty porn, despite the inclusion of mythical beliefs. Ms. hooks recognizes many of the unfortunate choices that gave me discomfort, though I wasn't sure why after a screening. I disagree about Hushpuppy's "eroticized" body, though. There must be a way to put an imaginative childhood on film for us without giving the characters so many damned problems!

• Vito | September 7, 2012 5:58 PM

  SKRIM sounds like he/she needs some d!ck. Too tense.

• Xi | September 7, 2012 5:26 PM

  Whoa...bring it down a notch, SKRIM

• Skrim | September 6, 2012 11:30 AM

  If you weren't so stupid, Jimmy, you'd have recognized my right to react however the fuck I want to. It's nobody else's fault that you don't understand the way film can resonate with audiences. You must be new to this site also, to be unaware of its ongoing examinations of black representation in the movie industry. We're a community that identifies with, questions, praises and denounces all sorts of content. In your mind that means "nitpicking everything," whereas it's critical thinking to many others. Who the hell is supposed to be silent because YOU check your brain at the door of a multiplex? So brave in your anonymous Internet arrogance! If I wanted to "claim" a film, there's nothing you could do about it. Please tell us that you've never found a cultural connection to a work of art, or wanted to, so I can see a huge lie posted on S&A for the world to see.

• JIMMY | September 6, 2012 10:38 AM

  Ummm . . . "an imaginative childhood on film for us"? Who is this "us"? Black people? Since when do "we" have the right to claim another man's art as "ours"? Why can't a fictional film be just that? Why is it that some of "us" have to nit-pick and find something offensive in everything? No one forced you to go see 'Beasts Of the Southern Wild'. You saw it because it piqued your interest. Now you want to claim the film . . . as if you had anything to do with its creation.

• NoirIsTheNewBlack | September 6, 2012 10:16 AMReply

  SMDH@ bell hooks. Next, she's gonna tell us that it was unrealistic for E.T.'s brown skin to not be mentioned as the real reason the government wanted to capture him. It's just a movie-- get over yourself.

• Man-Over-Bored | September 6, 2012 5:04 PM

  @DJ: your imaginary bell hooks review is hilarious, spot-on and nothing less than brilliant! Bravo! Excellent writing -- I don't think bell could've said it any better!

• Man-Over-Bored | September 6, 2012 2:21 PM

  I'm in total agreement with SKRIM: I wasn't too pleased with the film either; ditto to the "poverty porn" analysis, affirmed by the pervasive squalor and cooking of cat food, etc.; disagreed that the little girls body was eroticized (perhaps in the minds of those looking for such a thing in any half-naked child) -- ''Clearly the camera toys with the child’s body pornographically eroticizing the image," said bell. Lets not go that far! I saw that as neither the intent, nor the end result. Additionally, I like the way SKRIM put JIMMY in his place: I've routinely heard the same "nit-pick" argument applied to anyone who attempts to critique a Tyler Perry feature. Indeed, no one forces one to see a film, but that doesn't tie one's hands and tongue when it comes to critical insight and commentary.
  
  bell hooks -- whose work I enjoy and esteem -- comes off as a long-winded blowhard in her "Beast" review, nailing some issues on the head, creating others that are just as boldly imaginary as the boar-like beasts that confront little Butterfly in the film.

• DJ | September 6, 2012 11:29 AM

  An excerpt of BH's E.T. review might read something like this:
  
  "The singular image of a guileless brown-skinned alien -- itself an embodiment of fair and light skin predilections of the white elite --- is regressive cinema at its worst. E.T. is otherness incarnate, a race projection, an outer space marginalization where our spectator-sensibility to "send him home" exposes our subversive longing to tidily segregate our fears and resentment of the "brown other" inside a glossy, industrial spaceship complex. We watch it spin back to a virtual black hole and exhale with relief...."

• politicallyincorrect | September 6, 2012 9:55 AMReply

  Over-analyzing

• Winston | September 6, 2012 9:48 AMReply

  Bell Hooks is just whoring for attention. I saw the film, and I don't recall any distinction between races. I saw different types of people, all living and behaving in a similar manner. Stop this, Bell Hooks. You're embarrassing yourself. You're embarrassing all of us.