But that specific critique is very poor. It doesn’t seek to understand that their problem with the film is the central problem in the film! The villain and hero openly talk about their disagreement about it! The ending is openly about it! If you haven’t seen the movie you could be fooled by the article into not knowing this, but everyone itt except jalfrezi at least read my last post stating such to understand.
I understand not loving the premise that a technologically more advanced African country is not at the forefront of other roles in the world. But, again, that is literally the philosophical battle waged between the hero and the villain. It is literally what just about the majority of the movie is based on. It is why the villain resonated with a ton of people. It is why the villain isn’t “evil.” He just disagrees with how Wakanda should place itself in the world. And he causes the hero to rethink their view of the world!
The Washington Post article genuinely makes a lot more sense if you imagine that the writer was like my girlfriend and had a very long day at work, fell asleep 1/3 of the way into the movie but still had a deadline.
When the movie came out there were a lot of articles/memes saying stuff like “Killmonger was right.” Instead, the article pretends he didn’t exist.
“You know, where I’m from… when black folks started revolutions, they never had the firepower… or the resources to fight their oppressors. Where was Wakanda? Hmm? Yeah, all that ends today.”
Jesus Fucking Christ. Don’t give up the day job to become a critic.
You know how when some well-intentioned white person makes a statement about, say, the urban black experience, gets corrected by a black person and recognises their error?
I suggest you listen to African voices re. this film about a continent you’ve probably never been to and probably never will.
I consumed a lot of media about the film when it came out dude. I am well aware of the critiques of this film, and was when they were actually relevant, years ago. You just discovered the one poorly written article this morning and are treating it like a sacred relic, without even having seen a minute of the film.
Again, if you knew anything, about the film you could actually respond to my points rather than being smug, condecending and ignorant all at the same time.
Again, that is all literally talked about between protagonists and antagonists. You’re acting like this is some racist oversight. It is all remarked upon in the struggle between modernizing the culture or staying in the shadows.
I need to make a longer post re: this film when I have a few minutes, because I was working primarily with disenfranchised minority kids when this premiered - and I’m grateful for the impact it had. But it’s not “listening to African voices” when you dismiss the millions of people inspired by this film in favor of cherry-picked articles written by people paid to write critiques. African voices, when we account for their diversity, say that this film was both inspirational and in some ways problematic. Hearing only the voices that agree with us is not “listening.” It’s exploiting.
This is such a gross comment. You’re literally using these people as a prop, in an argument against doing so just because you missed out on the entire discussion years ago and frankly have no idea what you are talking about.
Johnny, the Wapo article is just poorly written. There are definitely cultural critiques of Wakanda to be had. But, they should be written a lot better than that piece.
Well I haven’t seen the film, I admit, but I will make the effort to watch it soon.
You and some others itt however, will always be 100% clueless about Africa and have no right to say whether you think some depictions are fair or otherwise.
I don’t know why you keep bringing up “black American kids” when talking about this film. It doesn’t make sense.
For what its worth, Black Panther begins and ends with scenes in Oakland.
No, it’s totally justified because sub-Saharan Africa is quite unlike anywhere else on the planet, as anyone who’s travelled and spent a decent amount of non-lolsafari time there will attest, and it’s not a sense you can or will get from TV programmes.
What? The central conflict of this film is about how to navigate the challenges faced by disenfranchised African descendants in other countries and including the US. It’s possible that I missed something in your earlier posts and I’m arguing too broadly here, but the messages of this film absolutely have relevance for African American children.
Wait, you mean jalfrezi didn’t know a central part of the movie is the difference between the antagonist growing up poor in Oakland while the hero grew up in a “royal family” in a secluded, hidden nation?
